Note the difference between 'cut' and 'slash'. Reduce spending even more than you reduce taxes and the math works out.

LOL




( I don't know what it is I laugh out loud over,but it's fun.)

Perfect! Great idea! I'm sure it's totally that simple! Thank god we have you here for your economic expertise.

joeydb's political and economic expertise is unmatched on all horse racing message boards.

In the end, it is an equation. If you spend less than you take in, you will not go further into debt, and you can begin to pay down the debt you already have.

This should not be a controversial statement.

Math is the only thing that matters with regard to the budget issue. The fact that the math has been avoided, and omitted from nearly every debate on spending bills, is how we got here in the first place.

largely because of not taxing the rich? Yeah right. He could tax the rich 100% and put their wives and children in slave labor and it still won't balance the budget in the next 200 years with no other cuts.

Stop being ridiculous and a democrat. They're stupid f.ucking people that were educated by hippies.

I don't think I am. I'm not saying taxing the rich more is a panacea, but my point is that the Republicans have pretty much had their way with Obama on economic policy and the economy still sucks.

So let's hear what you want to cut, and by how much. Show me your math.

The country takes in roughly $200B/month. So that's $2.4T per year. We spent about $4.0T last year, which is why we have a $1.6T deficit to add to our $14.5T debt.

At a minimum I would cut us down to spending $2.0T or less. Some of that would come from ending troop deployments. But it's time to take a look at those so-called "entitlements" too. So that's the "how much".

As to what, Congress can fight that out. But regardless, if the next president says, "I'll veto any budget that spends more than we take in.", then it will get done.

George W. Bush was criticized for spending nearly 500 days at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, during his two terms in office. He was there in August 2001 when he received a CIA briefing paper warning of al-Qaida's intentions to strike the United States — about a month before the Sept. 11 attacks would occur. In 2005, he remained on vacation after Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans and devastated the Gulf Coast. His presidency suffered from his response to the storm and his decision to not immediately return to Washington.


What's that work out to, 1 1/3 years out of 8 on vacation...something like that...

The only thing I'd say regarding this "vacation" thing is that Bush almost solely went on vacation to his home in Texas whilst Obama tends to galavant to far away lands. That being said, it's truly a stupid argument as any man with relatively small children should be able to go on a vacation here and there.