joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct Neither plan is workable- but Krugman's comments on Ryan's plan I think are accurate. From my perspective we've got two choices- 1) Not make any hard choices and finger point as Ryan and Obama are doing. This will wind up with perhaps not nuclear armageddon, but a likely default on the US debt, inflation, and probably reissuing a currency. This has been the path since Ronnie Rayguns, in a fit of pique that he couldn't get rid of social security- did an abrupt about face and decided to raise the amount of taxes going to these programs from 12% to 15% in an effort to "bankrupt the beast". This has now been 30 years in coming, but was foreseeable from the time these new taxes passed. This has been a disaster since small businesses are being wiped out by these taxes- its probably one of the main reasons why new business successes have been declining. The second problem is health care costs which neither Obama nor Ryan addresses. These are the elephants in the living room.. 2) We actually do make some substantive changes in the budget, taxes, and health care because we're forced to and enough politicians are scared off by option 1. This however, would require intelligence on the part of a bunch of the members of Congress and while I have certainly met some smart people in Congress, it seems that the dumb ones get more traction and shout them down. Military costs are a current problem- but the military has seen its budget rise and fall over the years -but health care costs have only continued to rise. If neither plan is workable, why dont you give us your plan, with complete information on every single line item and additional information on every concept. Its easy to dismiss a plan without reading it. Its easy to simply say "it sucks" because you dont like the person presenting the plan (or their political party). These are both tactics the GOP has used in the last three years. Both plans do use your option 2 above. I've read both plans, and once again, the President has the right idea on the direction and speed. I could explain it, but most folks here have not read either document in its entirity. Would you take someone seriously if they give a negative view of 'War and Peace' after you find they never bothered to read the book? Why should this be any different?
|