I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

A man's gotta do ...

A year ago I suggested to a liberal friend of mine that Obama should advocate an aggressive debt reduction plan involving spending cuts and tax increases.  He laughed and reveled in telling people that I thought Obama should propose tax increases.  Outrageous.  OK.  You gotta get elected.

Then came Simpson - Bowles and I hoped for a strong advocacy, but was disappointed.

Then the Super Committee and ...

Earlier today, Obama endorsed gay marriage. I have no problem with that.
They say there was some risk in doing that, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Another liberal friend noted that there was a lot of money that would now start flowing as a result.
That is, money for his campaign.  That is worth going to the mattresses.

Apparently our national money problem is not worth going to the mattresses.


  1. And …

    France elects a socialist and we (the US) accuse Europe of not being serious about austerity measures.

  2. Just to be clear about this expenditure cutting business, I am all for a medium to long term solution that involves REAL cuts and REAL tax increases. I think getting the economy up and burning again would definitely contribute. In fact in my estimation that is the most important economic goal we should have.

    Question: if Obama and the Ds really were "going to the mattresses", in your opinion would that include an immediate reduction in government spending and/or immediate increases in taxes?

    And shouldn't we also be concerned in the short term (I hope only the short term) about sucking that much money (enough to make a good size dent in the deficit)out of a weak struggling economy? The deficit does not exist in a vacuum and no man is an island, etc., etc.?

  3. NO. As they say- we are all Keynsians now.
    I think that it would be quite appropriate to "prime the pump" if you will.
    But it would only be acceptable if the long term problem were dealt with at the same time - even if the solution itself was only in the long term.
    For the long term the new taxes must come in slowly. The revision of benefits must come in slowly.
    But if you define it now then we all know where we are and where we are going to be.
    Some things I would do immediately - 3rd party insurance benefits (including medicare) should be taxable income.