Here is the point YOU miss. YOU DONT KICK PEOPLE WHILE THEY ARE DOWN.

Not to mention all this dept was created by two unfunded wars, upaid tax cuts, big pharma subsidies, oil subsidies, a casino climate on wall street, and unregulated housing scams.

It isn't that nothing should be done, but TIMING. You work on investing first and then paying off the debt. Get the economy on it's feet first so that when cuts are made, people have a place to go. What you suggest is the same fucking bullshit that got us in this mess and is nothing but republican policies on steroids.

"Every man for themselves" does not fucking work nor did trickle down for the past 30 years. "Get out of the way" CANNOT WORK in our current climate because all it will do is funnel the money up and make the greed worse at the top and fuck the rest of us.

You DID NOT do shit by yourself so stop pretending you can live on an island and do every job by yourself. We are HAPPY  you are successful and no one begrudges that success.

A little loyalty to the conditions of the middle class and working poor in DIRECT investment would get the fucking government off your back. But what we have now is not as far as climate, is even close to that mindset.

When you have oil executives ADMITTING that the price of a barrel of oil is bloated on speculation instead of cost of living and demand index FRONT OF CONGRESS, there is something wrong.

As long as the public is paying more for advertising, marketing, CEOS and maximizing profets and not the workers ability to buy things which creates the demand, and you insist on "every man for themselves" this will only be a race to the bottom.

YOU WANT TO GET RID OF DEPT you wont get it by fucking society over by only caring about yourself.

When you get the republican obstructionists out of the fucking way things will improve. The reason our economy hasn't recovered as fast isnt because we spent too much money, BUT NOT ENOUGH.

You have such a simplictic view of governance in that it can be treated like a paycheck which is just as shallow and hollow a delusion as a god of the gaps argument. You have to INVEST and if you dont care about others it does and will eventually affect even you.

Stablize the economy first by DIRECT investment by big business in better pay, health care and lower cost of living. When the middle class and working poor have better buying power and can make ends meet, they create that demand that causes growth. NICK HANOUR BILLIONAIRE GETS THIS, YOU DONT.

Only when you do that can you afford to make cuts. You want to kick society in the nuts when it is already doubled over grabbing its nuts.Th

The can is kicked down the road, not by democrats, but by the obstruction of the riech wing and it's Marrie Annonette "let them eat cake" trickle down bullshit.

I've said countless times, if people like you were the majority at the time a national highway system was suggested, idiots like you never would have invested in it and we'd still be living in an economic dark ages.

A little direct investment without the middle man and loyalty to the worker will get you what you want. "fuck you I got mine" never works long term.

How do you expect to pay down the dept if people have less in any case? I am not against cuts or lower taxes per sey, just the timing and the climate would only by doing such AT THIS MOMENT, would only be throwing gass on the fire. Put the fire out first by improving the pay and conditions of the middle and working class.

1. The rich have money (that's why they're rich) but they're not investing in this country at a time when they can get the most favorable deals.

2. We do need to cut spending but we need to do it in the right areas. Defense and corporate welfare come to mind.

3. I'm glad you're talking about raising taxes. This seems to be a new thing for you. I just hope it's not 2% on the rich and 15% on the rest of us.

I'm Wolf  Blitzer in the Situation Room our top story tonight "NO SHIT SHERLOCK"

No different than if I walk into a gas station and want to buy a 24 oz beer and don't have money the atendent would rightfully say "tough luck".

BUT where you think the demand is created is fucked up and absolutly false. YOU  don't create jobs, and if it is all about money you wont hire one more person you need unless the demand goes up. So it depends NOT ON YOU, but people comming through that door and buying your goods.

SO it cuts both ways dippy. If the employees of ALL industries have less money THEY BUY LESS, if they buy less there is less demand, less demand means you don't hire more people, but cut more people. Less people at work is less demand.

YOU DONT HAVE MONEY TO INVEST BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN LONG TERM MINDSET. If the top hadn't dumped all its bubbles on the rest of us and cut our jobs and hours YOU WOULD HAVE THE MONEY!

But it is utter bullshit to shift the burden on the lower classes and claim it isn't about your own lack of introspection.

The risk you should want to take in a bad economy isn't in cutting but investing, but with the society improving in mind, not "how much can I fleece and run for myself". You can slash and burn, sure and it does work, but not long term and not for the health of all long term. And by "health" you damned well know I am not talking about individuals but the health of the climate of the economy.

Not necessarily. I too would favour a flat tax, though one with a ceiling and a floor to personal income. Noone anywhere can or will ever come up with a credible argument to support a personal income that can rival a nations gdp. And noone anywhere can or will ever come up with a credible argument to support the idea of the majority living in near poverty or in poverty conditions.

1. Yes the rich have money yet investing has been anemic although improved over what it was, why do you think that is? What favorable deals do you believe the rich are missing out on?

2. I don't care where it is cut. If I was dictator I would cut it all and run the federal government on less than a trillion, but I am not. I will settle for any sane budget that pays our bills, works to pay off our debt to a manageable level and makes plans to handle the financial situation when the trust funds run out of cash. 

3. At our current level of spending, every person in the US has to pay 30% to cover the bills and I think every person should. Of course, I would be ecstatic to reduce spending to a point where a much lower percentage would do the trick. I don't see why one person should pay a higher percentage than another or why one citizen gets exempted from taxation at the expense of others simply because they fit D.C.'s demographic of the week. 

1. Why wouldn't an investor do something that is good for them? Are they failing to invest simply to spite workers?

2. Do you seriously think that federal government spending has any relation to the education of our children? The evidence seems to suggest that continual federalization of education funds has led to an inferior education system. 

3. A flat tax is by definition everyone paying the same percentage, I have never heard of anyone claiming to be a flat tax proponent while simultaneously asking for different tax rates. A flat tax would involve lowering taxes on high incomes and raising taxes on lower ones since right now higher incomes are taxed at a much higher rate. The result would be the same rate for everyone, which I think is fair.

Although, for the purposes of this particular issue, it is far more important to me that the budget is balanced than the particulars of the tax code. A flat tax is never going to happen in the US, at least not before our entire government implodes, we have a few years of anarchy and some other government takes control. I can adjust my behavior to manage any tax situation or even quit altogether, it is an irritant but either way I can live a comfortable life. There isn't much I can do if the US government goes bankrupt.  

1. But in your first response you said that there were "deals" in the current economy.

So if there are favorable deals it seems to me it would be in their selfish interest to profit on those deals. Which is it? Is it a profitable time to invest or not? Do you expect people to invest their money if they do not believe it is profitable? 

2. Big maybe, the larger a bureaucracy the more bureaucratic it is. If we could get government to work efficiently it would work efficiently... large agencies of any type do not work efficiently, the more people involved the less efficient any agency will be. No amount of money or wishing is going to change that. You are aware that there is a reason we have state and local governments? I happen to think that is a very good thing because I am sure you know far more about what needs to be done in your local schools than I do, and certainly more than anyone in DC.  

The state is floating in a national economy. Regardless of state policies a business still has to deal with the much larger influence of the federal government. State policies don't matter except relative to other states. State taxes don't matter so much, they are a very small portion of taxes. Property taxes may or may not matter significantly depending on the specific industry. State policies are simply irrelevant in the face of our massive federal problems. 

Where did I suggest "no agency"? I assume you do have a local school board right? I assume you pay property taxes as the main funding of your local school district right? Why can't your local school board and your local government be primarily responsible for making those decisions and managing those funds? What is the point of having money sent to DC and then having only a portion of it returned to your local schools with a list of federal requirements?

We have local governments and state governments, it is this cool little thing called federalism and being a republic. It is a really sweet idea that smaller governments, more easily controlled by voters, would have the primary power to handle domestic affairs. Unfortunately, our public education system has obviously failed to teach people how our government is supposed to work and everyone thinks Obama and Romney are the ones who should be calling all the shots.

Which goalposts? The ones being held by your strawman?

So having a fundy President (like say GW) who wants every school to treat creationism as on par with real science it is best to give him the power to require it? Because at least we have a single standard right? The problem with giving power to the federal government is that sooner or later someone you don't like will have that power. The Patriot Act is a good example, before Obama, democrats were screaming bloody murder about it (including Obama), after Obama, they all support it and the only protests you hear come from a handful on the right. Guess what? Obama isn't going to be president forever, sooner or later a republican will win again and have those powers. No doubt the democrats will suddenly care about our civil rights again, even though they apparently don't give a shit when they have power to do something about it. 

If I decide I want to throw out a bad school board member it is really easy. A few thousand dollars to buy some yard signs and newspaper advertisements can usually do the trick. Heck, sometimes even that isn't required. Getting control of the federal government is a lot more difficult, especially since decisions on specific standards and such are rarely done by elected politicians. It is usually decided by a political appointee who is not accountable to the voters. (A very purposeful tactic by congress so that they can say "I didn't vote for that", no you just voted for a law that says "at the secretaries discretion&quot

And if you really don't like your state, it isn't that difficult to leave and go to one where you like the schools if schools are important to you. (they are not important to me since I don't have kids and I operate under the assumption that no one is capable of doing basic math until I teach them no matter how many college degrees they have)

The national economy has an effect on what kind of deals exist. You can have a state with the most perfectly favorable laws possible but you still have to deal with federal policy, you still have to pay federal taxes, you still have to pay for Bamacare, you still have to use the US $, and still have to deal with the reality of the massive federal debt we have. You are talking about state laws as if they are significant, they are not. I have been talking about federal laws and federal policy in every single post. It is federal laws and federal policy that is squeezing investment opportunities regardless of what state you are in. You are the one who randomly decided to bring up state issues when they have as much effect on the economy as a fart in a hurricane.  

My point is that just because state laws are favorable to business, that does not directly translate into a positive investment environment. If I ask "why should I invest in Indiiana?" and you say "because we have low/no taxes"... so what? The tax rate doesn't matter a hill of beans if I don't expect to make a profit on the investment. Taxes are not a factor until I am making money. Given two states where I can make a similar investment and expect similar returns the tax rate might encourage me to choose one over the other. But if I expect the investment to result in a loss it doesn't matter whether the tax rate is 90% or 0%.

"The problem is when you help people who are down, there is no requirement that they should ever reciprocate. They only ask for more."

Only in your own little world, where somehow a social safety net is useable to all regardless of need or willingness to commit fraud, and all people who've ever been on welfare never get off it.

In the REAL world, if you don't take the opportunity given by the net, you fall through, and the net is never suspended beneath you again. Most people recognise that, and most use it responsibly as a result.

Thank you. Now that net is getting used more and more, but not because, falsely that Ex thinks. But because of the cost of living gap. If he would take his head out of his ass and actually talk to the people getting that help, he'd know that all of them, the vast majority, would simply prefur a decent paying job where they could pay thier bills and survive without that help.

There is dependancy, but it is caused by the cooporate "fuck you I got mine", not by the middle class and not by the working poor.

People like Ex cannot get it through their pee brains that there has to be a bottom and the bottom cannot be bottomless. He makes this out to be a "personal responsibility" issue falsely, when it is the lack of responsibility at the top causing the pay gap. He is too stupid to see that if the pay keeps falling for the most, other than the uber rich, long term it is untennable and will hurt the very economy the uber rich get rich off of. They are shooting themselves in the foot and too fucking stuipid to see it.

It is no different than over tilling a crop year after year. If you don't care for the soil, the land becomes barron. Maybe Ex masturbates over the thought of sweat shops and slave wages happening here, but I don't. He is too stupid to see that it is a race to the bottom.

Where did I ever say you were lazy? Your problem is that you work too hard. I see no virtue in hard work when sitting with your feet up on the desk and coming up with a way to get the job done with less effort can produce more goods. Laziness is the virtue that brings us our modern wealth. If you want to work hard, go live with the Amish and till the land behind a draft horse and ride your cart into town. Fuck that, I will take the lazy method of having tractors and machines do the work. Working hard never made anyone rich, working smart and efficiently does. The human mind sitting behind a desk can benefit society far more than any amount of labor hands can do in a lifetime. And Romney has helped out far more people in the world with his mind alone than you ever will if you wash a hundred million dishes. 

why do you say "people" when what you mean to say is "poor people"?

No everyone is going to put their own self interest ahead of others. If a creature didn't put it own interest and those of it's genes first, it would have long ago become extinct. There can only exist social contracts with reciprocation. There wouldn't be people willing to run into a burning building unless others were willing to sacrifice as well.

Vastet and Brian37 don't engage in personal relationships unless there is reciprocation. No one does for very long. But in their political views, this is what they advocate. Giving with no requirement that those receiving will ever return anything in return. This is entitlements. Makes no rational sense unless they are really wanting something for nothing.

I'm for helping those in need if there is some mechanism to require reciprocation. Otherwise our political system is like being married to a woman that fucks other guys, doesn't fuck you, but still asks you to pay all the bills. Or like having a friend that demands favors but never grants you one. Or an emplyer that doesn't pay you.

Makes no sense at all, so all they can do now is strawman. Yes I know I'm a cold hearted bastard that want to see people suffer, blah, blah, blah, etc... But of course never answer where is the reciprocation in birthright entitlements?

Yes of course.

Here is an example. We have Obama phones. So what does one need to do to get a phone? Just be born and reside in USA. If you're poor that's OK, cell phones have become another birthright.

I'm in favor of giving a poor person a cellphone if they were actually in a job training program that actually trained people for jobs and they only used these phones for school and job search. But with the entitlement mentality we get none of that. They can just waist time and money on BS phone calls.

Actually this is also corporate welfare. The telecom industry is set up so that the profits flow to billionaires and millionaires. The government buys older phones that these businesses couldn't sell at a profit anywhere else. So the money flows from the treasury to rich that don't have to compete in the free market like the middle class does.

So this is a perfect example of how the entitlement mentality is what is creating the huge wealth gap. The working middle class is funding welfare for both the rich and poor.

Actually, it varies from state to state but many come with minutes. 

https://www.reachoutmobile.com/about-lifeline.php

In Cali, you can get it for 1 cent per minute and no problem if you're illegal alien. Subsidized high speed internet too. Entitlements just for being born on this planet.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/states/california-government-cell-phone-providers

Now you can chat and blog all day about the free stuff from the government instead of working.

In the State of Tennesee, anyone on Food Stamps can get a free phone. The reason I know this is because the guy across the street from me has one. The free phone comes with about 200 minutes per month, you can get more minutes if you pay extra.

I will say that he is working as hard as he can to get employment and having a tough time with it.

I feel for anyone that is unemployed in the current economy. Even the temp agencies and labor agencies that can give you menial day labor are not hiring anyone here.

I am lucky that I have a job right now. I would hate to be on a job search right now.

I personally have been lucky to not have to draw any food stamps or assistance.

However, I am sure that there are people out there that have these phones and are not actively trying to look for work or do anything else.