There is so much waste that I can't even begin to imagine how much could be saved just by getting those houses in order, alone.

I would also cut a lot of aid to foreign countries until such time as we can afford to be more generous with them again.

That's where I would start. And then I would get really creative. Like, instead of trying to fix a particular problem by raising taxes? I would institute a national monthly lottery, with really desirable prizes. Like getting your mortgage paid off, or the dollar equivalent of a year's worth of groceries, etc. What American wouldn't buy a $5.00 ticket, a month, for the chance to win something that would really lift their household budget burden enormously? Every single person in America would be scraping together that measley $5.00 a month.

And how many residents do we have in this country? About 310M? Multiply that by $5.00.

And you know where those proceeds would go? Into Social Security, with the biggest, fattest law that precluded anybody from touching it. And that would get us through the Baby Boomer crisis.

As for "what have they done for me lately", I would point to the CFPA in the Wall Street reform bill about to be put on Obama's desk. Got any complaints about the basic concept of the CFPA? Well, there you go.

As I pointed out, all this financial/economic talk goes right over my head...

B-52... Wooooosssshhhhh As we used to say in the USAF... :D

This being the case, I have to look at indicators that are on par with my level of comprehension..

When I see legislation that comes down the pipe that, ostensibly, is supposed to reign in Wall Street and the banks, but stocks actually RISE dramatically due to the legislation, I think to myself... I say, "Self... If it's GOOD for Wall Street and the banks, then it has to be BAD for me and every day Americans."

Come to think of it, you may have commented on it over on HuffPost, although my memories are fuzzy (as usual).

"One too meeny martoonies."
-Brandon Frasier, BEDAZZLED

I didn't get any compliments for my diet/chocolate metaphor, which I have to say did disappoint me. I expected at least one woman to write in saying "OMG, that chocolate thing is SO TRUE -- Snickers bars 'don't count' on your diet..." so I have to say, I'm disappointed. Or maybe just a total sexist pig... (to preclude any flame comments from our female commenter contingency...).

I refuse to answer on the basis of anything I say may incriminate me. :D hehehehehehehehe J/K

Actually, I think I did give your Chocolate comparison an honorable mention. :D

Michale.....

Actually, I would label Kyl's comments as a "Washington gaffe," which is described as "accidentally speaking the truth (as you see it), inconveniently."

As for whether this Washington gaffe was boneheaded or quite revealing, well that depends on what you think of what Kyl said, I guess. My feeling is that he honestly believes what he said -- tax cuts, like chocolate calories, simply do not count. Which is why it is so ripe for Dems to pounce upon, because Republicans will have a hard time denouncing such thinking (that's my guess, anyway). Maybe I'm thinking more tactically about it, than political philosophy. I'll cop to that.

What's with all the "bonehead" obsession anyway? Did Sideshow Mel suddenly comment here or something? Heh. Kidding aside, boneheaded is a pretty strong term, so I like to reserve its use for what I consider REALLY boneheaded quotes or behavior. But I still say what Kyl did was more of a Washington gaffe, personally.

So there.

Michale [3] -

Your first question, well, security-wise we're probably not going to agree, but this is really just a red herring, since the subject here is really economics. C'mon, admit it.

Economically, some things are better, some aren't so great (but headed mostly in the right direction). Obama takes office -- we lose 750K jobs that month. This year, jobs were added every month, for a total of 500K+. Not good enough, but decidedly better than where they were when Bush left.

As for "what have they done for me lately", I would point to the CFPA in the Wall Street reform bill about to be put on Obama's desk. Got any complaints about the basic concept of the CFPA? Well, there you go.

Chris1962 -

I wrote an article a few weeks ago (before your appearance here) which asked the question: what would you cut? Come to think of it, you may have commented on it over on HuffPost, although my memories are fuzzy (as usual).

If you think the federal budget deficit can be solved with cuts alone, would you cut: Medicare, Medicaid, SS, the Pentagon's budget? No? Well, you've already spent all the tax revenues coming in. Everything else is, as Matt Osborne says "on the Bank of China credit card." And if you cut those revenues by $678 billion over 10 years (what Wallace was talking about), then you're going to have to make some deep cuts in entitlements or the Pentagon -- as well as abolishing every single other thing the government does (like Border Patrol, just to pick one). Still think Kyl's the guy to balance the budget? Seriously, though, what would you cut? Anything less than 1% of the budget is too small potatoes to even mention, say at least $2 billion per cut. So what, exactly, would you cut?

To put the question another way -- are you in favor of totally sealing the border with Mexico? How much more in taxes would you be willing to pay to make this happen (because it ain't gonna be cheap)?

Republicans love to talk a good game of "fiscal responsibility" but they never seem to be able to come up with solid ideas as to how exactly to achieve this.

Michale [10] -

I didn't get any compliments for my diet/chocolate metaphor, which I have to say did disappoint me. I expected at least one woman to write in saying "OMG, that chocolate thing is SO TRUE -- Snickers bars 'don't count' on your diet..." so I have to say, I'm disappointed. Or maybe just a total sexist pig... (to preclude any flame comments from our female commenter contingency...).

:-)

-CW

I am simply returning the favor from the Bush years.... :D

The reason I keep coming back to the "bonehead" statement is that I often see mischaracterizations where one side or the other claims that they are being personally assaulted.

Which is why I emphasized the difference between attacking the person and attacking the person's statement.

It's like here in the blogs... It's a no no to call someone a moron...

However, IMNSHO it's perfectly OK to tell someone that they made a moronic comment.

It's the difference between saying, "That's moronic" and "You're a moron"...

The Dems seem to be the ones trying to change things

The Dems HAVE been changing things..

They problem is, their changes are making things much worse, not better...

Michale.....

The reason I keep coming back to the "bonehead" statement is that I often see mischaracterizations where one side or the other claims that they are being personally assaulted.

And as you mentioned, this is not the case. We disagree with what Kyl says, but are not saying he's a bonehead or even that what he's saying is boneheaded.

The argument we're trying to make is that this is what Republicans believe in - tax cuts for the wealthy.

I can't speak for CW on whether he thinks Kyl's statement is boneheaded or not. But it does seem to indicate, as he's arguing, that Kyl is for tax cuts for the wealthy that would add to the deficit.

Me personally, I want people in office who are more responsible and focused on the middle class, small and medium-sized businesses, etc.

And I honestly don't care what party they're from. I just don't haven't heard much from conservatives that focuses on these issues that's different from what they've said over the past 30 years.

Basically, I don't see how they would change what I see as a philosophy that got us into this mess. The Dems seem to be the ones trying to change things (Now don't take this as a ringing endorsement of Dems because if you know me, Michale, you know I think they could do a better job.)

Cheers
David

Kyl is actually admitting, to a persistent and very focused question, that tax cuts which add to the deficit are somehow like calories from a chocolate bar when you're on a diet -- they "don't count," in other words, in some unspecified way

To me, this says that Kyl's statement was a "bonehead statement"....

Just as claiming that a chocolate bar's calories "don't count" is also a bonehead statement.

Now, I grant you that CW was very diplomatic about saying it..

And there is a HUGE difference between calling someone a bonehead and calling someone's statement a "bonehead statement"...

Irregardless of all that, I took CW's original commentary to infer how wrong the Republicans (or at least this particular Republican) are/is on this...

And MY response to that was to show that, while Republicans can be wrong or bonehead-prone or gaffe-prone, the fact still is, we are worse off after almost 4 years of Democrat majority rule...

Now, we can argue the definition of "gaffe", "bonehead" or "is" until the cows come home..

But this will not change the basic facts. That the Democratic Party rule has been one bonehead mistake after another for the past almost 4 years...

And that list that I put forth above is a big part of that..

But, you are correct. We can address those issues specifically as they come up..

It's just real nice to have a reference, no?? :D

Michale.....

I don't believe any of us used "bonehead statement" or "gaffe" or even anything close.

In fact, Chris seems to go to great pains to simply focus on what Kyl said w/o attacking Kyl himself.

We're just looking at what Kyl said and discussing it.

As for the long list of items where you feel Obama's let you down, I'd rather stick to talking about a single subject in this thread to keep it focused on Chris' article.

There will be plenty of time for debate on the other issues in other posts! :)

@jbl_inAZ - Thank you for correcting me on Chris Wallace - big difference. Forgot to mention this earlier.

-David

I had assumed from the responses to the statement that YA'ALL thought it was a bonehead statement..

Forgive me if my assumption was not accurate..

It seems to me that we're about the same. Why? Because Obama is continuing the same Bush policies.

Yes, in that one specific regard, Obama is doing the right thing..

But in so many other issues that deal with national security and security in general, Obama has dropped the ball time and time again. The list is long and varied...

The Gulf Spill

The Christmas Day Bomber

The Underwear Bomber

Gitmo

The Spies

Prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts

Illegal Immigration

and so on and so on and so on ad nasuem....

My rationale for voting Democrat in the last couple of elections was that maybe the Democrats could do better and, even if they can't, there is a limit to the damage that they can do in 4 years..

I was as wrong about THAT as I was about Obama being a different kind of leader, a leader for ALL Americans..

Michale.....

Why do you think it's a bonehead statement? Because he's saying what he believes?

So ... he should have lied better. Is that what you mean?

Or because you don't agree with tax cuts for people making more than $200k?

Are we better off, security wise, under Democrats??

It seems to me that we're about the same. Why? Because Obama is continuing the same Bush policies.

As for the article about blame. There seems to be plenty to go around on both sides. But no one here is talking about it.

-David

This isn't a gaffe. This is John Kyl talking about what he would do if he were in charge.

OK. Bonehead statement, then... :D

This speaks to your first question - Are we better off economically under Democrats or Republicans?

And the answer is, NO, we are not better off now than we were under Republicans...

But economically is only half of my question. Are we better off, security wise, under Democrats??

The answer is a very VERY resounding NO...

And if Republicans are going to shoot for unpaid tax cuts for the wealthy, they don't seem to be offering anything different than they ever have.

"than the ever have" would seem to be better than what Democrats have done for the last 4 years...

I read an article recently that blames the Republicans that Democrats weren't able to get anything done..

Get that??

According to Democrats, when the GOP is in power and has the WH, everything is the GOP's fault... When Democrats are the majority, but the GOP has the WH, everything is the GOP's fault..

And when DEMOCRATS have the largest majority in recent history **AND** the White House, everything bad is STILL the GOP's fault..

So, it seems to me that Democrats will NEVER be able to govern properly unless there are NO Republicans in government at all.

Since we all know that THAT will never happen, it doesn't make any sense to elect Democrats to office..

Since they, by Democrat's own admission, can't get anything done if there are Republicans in government, we might as well vote Republican, no?? :D

Michale.....

Not if you cut spending on federal programs. If your income is lower, lower your costs.

Have you been following what Gov. Chris Christie has been doing in Jersey? It's a real case study in budget management.

This isn't a gaffe. This is John Kyl talking about what he would do if he were in charge.

And what he would do is continue tax breaks for the rich w/o paying for them.

These are tax breaks just for people making over $200k a year.

This speaks to your first question - Are we better off economically under Democrats or Republicans?

And if Republicans are going to shoot for unpaid tax cuts for the wealthy, they don't seem to be offering anything different than they ever have.

-David

But when all is said and done, there are only two questions that remain.

1) Are we better off, economically wise and security wise, than we were under Republican leadership?

2) What have Democrats done for us lately?

The answers are NO and NOTHING.

Michale.....

Sad that not enough journalists in the "liberal media" have this persistence.

Cheers
David