Our national debt is so large, and is the result of decades of reckless spending by both parties, that any practical solution would need to be a "bend the curve" type of solution that resolves itself over decades. A "shock and awe" solution that tries to fix the whole problem in one shot will tank the economy and trigger a world wide depression.
Our national debt is so large, and is the result of decades of reckless spending by both parties, that any practical solution would need to be a "bend the curve" type of solution that resolves itself over decades. A "shock and awe" solution that tries to fix the whole problem in one shot will tank the economy and trigger a world wide depression.
And that's the problem. People who actually understand complex issues and present complex solution are viewed as boring TV, and are voting out in favor of the performance artists we now have in charge.
Paul Ryan's plan couldn't stand the scrutiny of Chris Wallace. Under the plan he admitted that the deficit and, accordingly, the debt would continue to rise for several years. He said then eventually there'd be surpluses. His plan was based on the belief that deep tax cuts would eventually pay for themselves and then (more than) some.
I think the Simpson/Bowels (sp?) plan was more realistic. I think it should be used as a starting point. It was the product of a bipartisan investigation into the national debt. They concluded that we can't tax our way out of the debt and we can't cut our way out either. The plan was a combination.
In our current political climate this just ain't going to happen. Heck, if even a moderate conservative like Bernie (yes, our Bernie) opposes tax increases for the wealthy EVEN if they are effective in reducing the deficit or balancing the budget and paying down the debt, the plan will not see daylight in the foreseeable future.
Our national debt is so large, and is the result of decades of reckless spending by both parties, that any practical solution would need to be a "bend the curve" type of solution that resolves itself over decades. A "shock and awe" solution that tries to fix the whole problem in one shot will tank the economy and trigger a world wide depression.
I'm for Shock and Awe. Paul Ryan presented the "bend and curve" proposal and he was driven out of Washington.
And that's the problem. People who actually understand complex issues and present complex solution are viewed as boring TV, and are voting out in favor of the performance artists we now have in charge.
Paul Ryan's plan couldn't stand the scrutiny of Chris Wallace. Under the plan he admitted that the deficit and, accordingly, the debt would continue to rise for several years. He said then eventually there'd be surpluses. His plan was based on the belief that deep tax cuts would eventually pay for themselves and then (more than) some.
I think the Simpson/Bowels (sp?) plan was more realistic. I think it should be used as a starting point. It was the product of a bipartisan investigation into the national debt. They concluded that we can't tax our way out of the debt and we can't cut our way out either. The plan was a combination.
In our current political climate this just ain't going to happen. Heck, if even a moderate conservative like Bernie (yes, our Bernie) opposes tax increases for the wealthy EVEN if they are effective in reducing the deficit or balancing the budget and paying down the debt, the plan will not see daylight in the foreseeable future.