Here's the deal

[Cartierfor3]

If the Obama administration really wants to go back to the Clinton tax rates, I'm in, but they have to go back to Clinton levels of spending as well. 

[0.42]

ok

[Rage Against the McKee]

The problem with government spending cuts is that they are usually applied in the wrong places. We need to increase spending in departments that focus on public work projects because those projects improve the economy and provide additional revenue in the long run. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, etc budgets are too low right now. We need to cut defense spending first and foremost, and then reform programs that provide subsidies and entitlements.

Also, the population of the US has grown, and the value of the dollar has declined, so it makes sense that the spending levels should be somewhat higher than they were in Clinton's presidency.

[steve dave]

the much sought after CF3 permission granted!

[Cartierfor3]

the much sought after CF3 permission granted!

Many Washington insiders have said that talks on the fiscal cliff would continue to fizzle until I chimed in.

[Rage Against the McKee]

So what number will we all be on on our New Year's Day countdowns when a deal is reached? I'm betting 9. Neither side is good enough at playing chicken to take this much further than that.

[sys]

the population of the US has grown, and the value of the dollar has declined, so it makes sense that the spending levels should be somewhat higher than they were in Clinton's presidency.

people usually talk about govt spending as a % of gdp;  i think the numbers are something like 19% for clinton era and 23% currently.  don't quote me though.

[Saulbadguy]

the population of the US has grown, and the value of the dollar has declined, so it makes sense that the spending levels should be somewhat higher than they were in Clinton's presidency.

people usually talk about govt spending as a % of gdp;  i think the numbers are something like 19% for clinton era and 23% currently.  don't quote me though.

YOU'VE BEEN QUOTED

[sys]

don't quote me though.

YOU'VE BEEN QUOTED

i'm quoting you to serve as proof of your obstinance, if it's ever needed.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

If the Obama administration really wants to go back to the Clinton tax rates, I'm in, but they have to go back to Clinton levels of spending as well.

You need decent GDP growth before tax increases are viable. That's what were missing. IF the economy were growing at 5-7%, tax increases would be supported by everyone.

[8manpick]

If the Obama administration really wants to go back to the Clinton tax rates, I'm in, but they have to go back to Clinton levels of spending as well.

You need decent GDP growth before tax increases are viable. That's what were missing. IF the economy were growing at 5-7%, tax increases would be supported by everyone.

I don't necessarily disagree with your first statement, but the second one is laughable.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

If the Obama administration really wants to go back to the Clinton tax rates, I'm in, but they have to go back to Clinton levels of spending as well.

You need decent GDP growth before tax increases are viable. That's what were missing. IF the economy were growing at 5-7%, tax increases would be supported by everyone.

I don't necessarily disagree with your first statement, but the second one is laughable.

When I say everyone I mean democrats. They aren't all on board now and that's why Obama is putting out his roadblock.

[8manpick]

If the Obama administration really wants to go back to the Clinton tax rates, I'm in, but they have to go back to Clinton levels of spending as well.

You need decent GDP growth before tax increases are viable. That's what were missing. IF the economy were growing at 5-7%, tax increases would be supported by everyone.

I don't necessarily disagree with your first statement, but the second one is laughable.

When I say everyone I mean democrats. They aren't all on board now and that's why Obama is putting out his roadblock.

Okay. Carry on then.