Unfortunately, that is what you will hear tonight. More government spending to fund social welfare solution.

Get your "shovel ready" and stay "laser focused" cause it will get deep.

I agree with you. Problem America keeps voting these inept clowns in Office.

My problem...... there is no real innovative solution coming forward. The Business guys remind me of the Book by Ann Rand Atlas Shrugged. The corporate Americans just walked away from the idoits imposing the stupid rules. In California a Company was prevented from building a Structure, add people, because a Turtle lived there. Same people want jobs though.

They need to do something and they need to do it fast. To allow the default option to go into an effect will be a tsunami to the economy.

REAL cuts - not smoke and mirrors. Create real jobs, not temporary public works jobs. Restore the incredibly poorly thought out 2% cut in social security deductions

federal entitlements

This is 50% of the problem. Show me in the constitution where the federal government has the authority to give " federal entitlements".

The White House leaked that during Obama's speech tonight Obama will not address "spending" only "jobs." Does Obama really think voters are so STUPID that they can't figure out all Obama's "jobs programs" (union payoffs) COST MONEY WE DON'T HAVE?

__________________________________________________________________

What is Obama going to do with another $300 billion that he could not do with the last $800 billion?

A Congress panel. So a group that got us into this mess by making crappy decisions is going to admit that and make big changes?

Only 30 bil of the 300 bil will go to jobs!

Remind all of us again how this Super Committee will help expand the economy? How will deficit reduction promote job creation?

How would cutting entitlements expand the economy? Lobbyists are already working on the committee members to stall cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Apparently the health industry does not see cutting entitlements as expanding their opportunities. So, how will cutting entitlements expand the economy?

How will cutting defense expand the economy? Won't shutting down defense contracts add to unemployment? If the overseas bases are closed, then we will need to downsize force numbers - we won't need the troops. How will putting more people out of work expand the economy?

Deficit reduction and this Super Committee are Republican ideas. We were told these ideas were absolutely necessary to 'fix' our government. None of this was done to help the economy or unemployment - it was all about size of government. Now the Super Committee waves a 'magic wand' and suddenly all this was about JOBS?

First off, spending cuts do not = jobs. Every economist I've read, and the results I've seen so far, spending cuts are going to stall the economy, and the lay off of government workers is going to raise unemployment.

Republicans want a stalled economy and higher unemployment because its their route to getting the Presidency back.

A targeted approach of cuts and raising revenues while smartly reforming social security, medicare, and medicaid is the answer.

NOT, just cuts alone without revenue raises. NOT, just doing away with social security, medicare, and medicaid under the guise of privatizing them.

Americans want compromise. Everyone was hurt by the debt ceiling debate.

Lastly, wait for the speech. I love Republicans coming out against the Obama jobs plan when they haven't even heard it yet.

Your cut government spending suggestions are the very opposite of what we need to do to grow our economy. Witness the drop in competiveness by the U.S. to #5, while Singapore rose to #2, according to the just released World Economic Forum report.

The share of SOEs (state owned enterprises) in Singapore is approximately 20%-- the highest in the world. That would seem to belie the rightwing prescription that we need to reduce government spending to grow our economy. If that doesn't convince you, look at Greece. When the World Bank, IMF and Euro Zone imposed austerity measures on Greece, their GDP shrunk by 4% the following year, necessitating another round of bailouts. By all empirical evidence, the way to emerge from a recession is through government spending. Those who argue the contrary are today's flat-earth society.

Oh, by the way: Switzerland is #1 in economic competitiveness... again. Do you think the Swiss government is heavily involved in their economy?

Rebuttal, tea baggers?

The battle being raged over 'size of government' has nothing to do with government spending. This is a battle about 'addiction'.

The banks and Wall Street want America to be 'dependant' on them. The financial industry want to be seen as the only way to obtain capital, as the only way to build a nest egg, as the only way to retire, as the only way to obtain the 'American Dream'. The financial industry is providing America a 'high' of financial security. That is the way drug pushers work; build dependency and then profit when the users are hooked.

Government is the only entity that can counteract that financial dependency. Government can redistribute the profits from that financial dependency. Taxing capital gains will make financial dependency less profitable - just as drug busts do. Government can regulate that dependency - just as with drug laws. Government can compete with the financial industry, too. That is why Social Security is demonized - it competes with private sector 'financial security'.

We need to kick our 'financial adiction' before America becomes a healthy economy again.

We had a debt commission last year. Nothing was done about debt because politicians wanted to see what the commission recommended. That was the excuse Obama used. When the proposals were finally made, the commissions plan was shelved. None of it was used or implemented. The commission had done what it was mandated to do and the leader of both parties ran away from it because it push all of the political hot buttons. They wanted to reduce spending . raise taxes reform Social Security, Medicare, the tax code. The plan sets on a shelf somewhere collecting dust. Our leaders, Republicans and Democrats are cowards, and we the people keep blindly sending them back to fight the fight and stop the reckless "other" party.What a load of crap.

They should have set it up so that if the super-committee did not find $1.2 trillion in cuts that could be signed into law the automatic cuts would be $2.4 trillion. There is already talk that they will just let the automatic cuts take effect so they don't have to stick their necks out and upset lobbyists that pay to get them elected.

I just heard a question raised which is THE best scenario posed so far.

When we had a surplus with doublyah,he increased spending and cut taxes. NOW that we are in the OPPOSITE situation,why isn't the OPPOSITE solution a VIABLE option to get us out of this mess? Meaning decrease spending and raising taxes.

Heil rrrright!!! They may always be rrright,but very rarely correct.

We already borrow 40 cents of every dollar that the federal government spends. Digging ourselves deeper into the debt hole is not the way to fix our economy. As Obama said during his campaign, when you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging! People above use Singapore and the Swiss as examples of countries where government spending helped raise the economies. If we continue to run over a trillion dollars a year in deficits we are going to be much more like Japan (200% debt to GDP ratio) or Greece than to Singapore or Switzerland.

We need to evaluate everything the federal government spends money on and eliminate anything that does not directly help the US economy, which is most of the expenditures. That will revive the economy and let the private sector create real jobs not just more government jobs that add to the inefficiency of our country.

Cutting spending will 'cost' something. Money 'taken' from the economy are taxes. Deficits are spending beyond what is 'taken' from the economy in taxes. Eliminating the deficit will not lower taxes. Eliminating the deficit only eliminates spending above what is collected in taxes.

Are you expecting less inflation? Are you expecting the private sector to 'create' money? Are you expecting borrowing costs to go down? What is the benefit from lowering deficits? How are we supposed to measure 'success'?

Nerm_L wrote:

Cutting spending will 'cost' something. Money 'taken' from the economy are taxes. Deficits are spending beyond what is 'taken' from the economy in taxes. Eliminating the deficit will not lower taxes. Eliminating the deficit only eliminates spending above what is collected in taxes.

Are you expecting less inflation? Are you expecting the private sector to 'create' money? Are you expecting borrowing costs to go down? What is the benefit from lowering deficits? How are we supposed to measure 'success'?

I know if we keep spending at the current level or even worse increase government spending we will end up with hyper inflation while the average salary of the Americans will remain relatively constant. This will lower the US standard of living much closer to other third world countries. That is a bad thing.

We need to reduce government and make America stronger. Borrowing more money to strengthen the economy is a bad idea. Look at Canada as an example of how reducing government spending can strengthen an economy. Their dollar is currently stronger than ours and their banking system actually works unlike ours. There are many other areas where Canada is better off than the US.

Lets look for areas in Canada and elsewhere that have worked rather than trying to borrow our way out of debt.

They should call it the Democrat/Republican Destroy Social Security and Medicare Committee.

Notice how all of the members of the committee are either right wing or moderate politicians who get huge amounts of money from private health care corporations?

What do you think? Is it rigged? Do bears @!$%# in the woods?

We have the choice of bursting the bubble now, or letting it larger and larger. Eventually it will pop and the fallout will be devastating. It will today's job market look like the best times of our lives.

Forrestoak--

The definition of a bubble doesn't apply to government spending. Economists define a bubble as skyrocketing valuation of an asset in relation to underlying fundamentals. (As an aside, that's why I don't think gold is in a bubble. The fundamentals support it as an asset at even dearer valuations.)

If you do want to shrink government debt, the best way is to grow the economy, which will increase revenues. This assumes, of course, that you're not simultaneously cutting taxes on the wealthy. Grow the economy, raise taxes on the wealthy, and pay down the debt. Please keep in mind that the U.S. has not paid off its national debt since 1835. That raises the question of why rightwing panties are in a knot right now.

Regarding tax rates, frankly, the effective tax rate on U.S. corporations is lower than many thriving economies, including Singapore, Germany, and Scandanavian countries. U.S. corporations and the wealthy are dramatically under-taxed by historical standards.

"Regarding tax rates, frankly, the effective tax rate on U.S. corporations is lower than many thriving economies, including Singapore, Germany, and Scandanavian countries. U.S. corporations and the wealthy are dramatically under-taxed by historical standards"

That's a lie. Although corps have tax breaks, other countries also subsidize their industries through various means. Bottom line our corps are still the highest taxed in the world.

That's a lie. Although corps have tax breaks, other countries also subsidize their industries through various means.

Can you document that, Phil?

Sure, other governments provide things like VAT, government protection of "infant industries", and practice "indicative planning" -- things that the U.S. used to do. But they also provide a more secure safety net and ensure a much more egalitarian income distribution. We're mollycoddling corporations, while distressing and atrophying protections for workers, and transferring our nation's wealth to the upper 1%ers. We're protecting corporations while telling workers you're on your own. Saying "that's a lie" without providing evidence won't convince anyone but the weak-minded.

Addendumb: the U.S. is one of the worst offenders in giving government subsidies (read: tax dollars) to corporations. Something Adam Smith railed against way back in the 18th Century. This is a major source of the transfer of wealth from average Americans to those 1%ers.

Anybody want to address the US debt and deficit, the 1000 lb gorilla, holding down America from economic recovery?

Congress and the Whitehouse certainly don't want to address those issues.

In the very near future, the US debt and deficit will be so large, the system will collapse - thank the greed and demand for immediate gratification now, for that happening!

so this committee of 6 is going to figure out a way to cut spending, while Obama is proposing a 450 billion spending bill? This is hilarious!!! There still won' be any cuts.

I also love how the liberals try to call it "revenues" Way to put a spin on the word TAX!!!! Yes let the Govt raise taxes, because I would be willing to bet most liberals pay no taxes and use the govt welfare system in some way or another.

I guess that is the libs way of saying how that is their "fair share"

In the very near future, the US debt and deficit will be so large, the system will collapse - thank the greed and demand for immediate gratification now, for that happening!

Is this observation based on sound economic principles? As mentioned elsewhere, the U.S. has had a national debt since 1835 and most historians would say America's heyday was WWII through 1973. In what way have the laws of economics changed so that the debt has become an imminent threat?

I also love how the liberals try to call it "revenues" Way to put a spin on the word TAX!!!! Yes let the Govt raise taxes, because I would be willing to bet most liberals pay no taxes

I'm happy to call them taxes, and yes, I both pay taxes and am happy to pay more, but only if the government stops pampering the wealthy and corporate America. Raise taxes on the wealthy, pay down the deficit, put a dent in the debt.

Thanks for the hysterics though.

Yes, Tony I agree with you for once. They all have been there too long.

You noticed that each party had their own "closed door" meeting. So this is just proxy fighting between Obama and Boehner all over again. As long as those at the table are beholding to their parties and not to the American people nothing will get done.

All members of the committee should be sequestered until their work is complete. No communication with their parties etc.

Eric good idea, take these guys and shut them away no input from lobby, party, etc. I think you are on to something here.

ERic, that would be Obama and Cantor. Boehner is only there to take abuse so Cantor can act imperial.

Daryl, LOL !!!!

Bush gave us all checks and most people put it in the bank or paid down their credit card debt. Still, I see your point that giving cash to the middle class might increase demand for goods.

Yes Bush tried stimulus, it didn't work for him either.

And they could indeed take their time and not come up with anything and just go to the automatic cuts.

While gutless, neither party could say they were to blame for the cuts.

I know that's awful, but likely.

Didn't he just wiretap everyone ? .............................

Please list all the "economic sanctions" that the Obama administration has strapped the economy with.

Corporations are sitting on 3 trillion dollars, and are making record profits. Why support them not hiring people?

How about his Gestapo storm troopers raiding Gibson guitars just because they were using wood from Madagascar? Or maybe it's because their CEO is a republican supporter.

How about suing Boeing for daring to open a plant in an right to work state?

That was too easy!

Yes there is but the liberals will stop it because it will call for reducing the government

I don't think we can go by history. The country is in a situation that it has never previously been in. We are close to falling in the toilet, but can no longer compete globally. The US got out of the depression by World War 2 when we started manufacturing weapons to sell to other countries.

A business school isn't as worried about solutions as it is about 'how to excel in the climate you're given.'

If the climate is pretty rotten, their focus will be on how to make money in a rotten climate. (see 'outsourcing', 'off-shore accounts', 'parent corporations in bermuda')

The Republicans don't want a healed economy or jobs. They don't want to hand Obama a success, they only want him to fail at the countries expense.

Eric,

Really? All of the President's failed policies are the fault of the Republicans? First it was Bush's fault, then it was simply because Obama is black. Will you ever hold this President accountable?

is there nothing in History, or Business that was similar to this that can change the country?

Yes there is. A decade ago Canada was in a similar situation to what the US currently finds itself in. Huge deficits and a stalled economy. They made dramatic cuts to government spending, got out of the way of businesses to create jobs and now the Canadian dollar is worth more that the US dollar.

Watt75, hold Obama accountable for preventing a depression, for getting the economy growing again, and saving and creating private sector jobs?

The answer is yes.

That's a huge start.

A huge start in what not to do.

The EPA serves a viable function, look up 'Acid Rain' sometime. They might have taken their mandate a bit too far, but they need to be reigned in and not removed entirely.

Department of Education sets a minimum standard for our elementary schools AND colleges. We have the best collegiate system in the world because we have great standardization and high requirements to graduate. This needs to stay, to keep America competitive.

Regulations can't be passed by congress, they're not smart enough :) Congress are dummies, haven't you been watching the news?

But we do need to pick more competent people for the Czars, I'll totally agree with that. The government isn't based on best-for-the-job, it's based on favoritism and political pull.

Well Madison, all laws passed by Congress are in accordance with the Constitution, at least until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. The last time I checked, they are the official scorekeeper here, not the Tea Party. As far as those nasty regulations that you want to get rid off, let's try an experiment. Would you board an airliner that was not certified safe by the Government, or whose pilots or mechanics were not also so certified? Would you like to have the clean air and water they enjoy in China, where they don't have our EPA. Would you like to have the Department of Energy managing the manufacture, safe transportation and use of nuclear materials or would you prefer to leave it to "the free market"? You are aware that the investment firms and the auto industry collapse in 2008 were failures of the free enterprise system, and needed the big bad government (you know the one that doesn't do anything right) to come in and rescue them?

Madison, why don't we close corporate loop holes and raise taxes on those making 1 million or more a year. Why don't we put people to work on our infrastructure. I think that would be a better course of action.

Without government people would board airlines with good safety records and programs like they did through the 1950s. The Pennsylvania Railroad built the Northeast line with electric power in the early 1900s including granite bridges still standing today without today's regulation and not one cent of federal money. Until the 1890's the States handled all immigration matters at the local level. Things got accomplished at the local level and the country thrived. Central planning? Not working out too well if you read today's figures. Under Obama the US dropped in productivity worldwide from 1st to 5th. For a capitalist economy to continue to thrive requires personal freedom locally to make personal choice economic decisions and that is exactly what the government has been stripping from us since at least Roosevelt't time when communism still was considered by the liberal elite as practical. We know better now.

Department of Education sets a minimum standard for our elementary schools AND colleges.

Public standardized education is a failure. In the inner city parents vote with their pocketbooks and send their kids to private schools unless obstructed by teachers unions and government denying them vouchers and tax credits. If public education was so superior the bloated schools and unions would not need to use coercive power to compete. P.S. the best universities are private and NOT regulated by the government. What do the feds do today? Hold LOTTERIES and give out prizes to the states that lobby the most and "pass the test" of filling out bureaucratically imposed forms? What a joke and waste of money.

____________________________________________________________________

Under Leftist government everybody is equal, equally miserable, unemployed and poor (see Detroit, Greece). Our founding fathers only guraranteed EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

Madison, what Texas high school did you drop out of? You whine about government intrusion, then demand vouchers to send your kids to parochial schools? I'll bet you hate the nanny government so much you just have to vote for a constitutional amendment making this a christian country where gays, non-whites and females have no rights.

Well Madison, its finally gratifying to see that you want America to go back to the 50's and beyond. Good luck with that.

The 159 Billion we spend on wars each year. Divide that by jobs that pay $30000. per year is 5000000 plus jobs. But when you pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist I do not expect much from these traitors against the American people.

Don't think Lincoln had a staff to make his decisions! Obama 1000's. We need people who really think for themselves. Regan had a staff but did what he thought was right!

Presidents are not intelligent enought to make decisions alone. No one can possibly have all that information in their brain. Like the CEO of any corporation cannot have all the date necessay to make decisions without support staff.

Bull.

The most successful CEO's (Jobs, Gates, etc) made the decisions themselves and are involved in day-to-day operations at all levels. They had people for advice on specifics, but not a single thing goes out those doors that the CEO doesn't have a working knowledge of.

That's called leading a winning team.

None of those guys are electable, either :) They fire you for non-performance, incompetence, failure, etc. Basically, they're not 'nice guys'.

Traits that make people vote for you, aren't traits that make you a successful leader. ^.^ now go think on that one for a while.

Lincoln had a WAR, no economy, and wrote the best speech in two minutes to move the country. I disagree! Truman no staff and ran the country. Coal Strikes and many others issues that took his attention and he moved. The experts have failed and in a huge way for this country. Eishenhower not much on staff. Cut the Military impact on the country. I don't agree that a Big staff needed. And if so look at the lousy solutions!

Bull.. Excellent point. So we need a Super Business leader who will fire those not performing! I agree. Problem tenure for the Congress made possible by the people!

Nick,

You are mostly right, but it is not a question of intelligence. Lincoln was brilliant, but still needed help from Chase to finance the war, Seward to manage foreign affairs and even domestic ones and Stanton to help run the war. The great book "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns-Goodwin makes it abundantly clear that presidents need to pick good people to be successful, but they also have to manage the talent well.

By the way, al-de et al needs to check his data sources. We had about 900 flag level officers (generals and admirals) at the end of WWII. This is not to say that we don't have an oversupply of them now. After all, we had 14M men in uniform then and were fighting two powerful enemies. Our current force is much smaller, we have much better communication systems, and our junior officers and noncoms are probably better educated and trained. We probably would be well served if we could induce half of our flag level guys to retire.

Tec: Gates has been replaced because he was so badly hated that Microsoft was losing money just having his name associated with the company. Jobs was fired by his own company twice because he cared more about quality than he did about profitability. Seems when he finally won the argument Apple took off. Too bad so few companies today care nothing about product quality or customer service, all that matters is making an extra penny to put with the trillions they have stashed right now.

Having a CEO like Jobs is hard because he makes you do your job right. Having a CEO like Gates is like working for your worst enemy.

I have worked for both types, and I will quit any job with a boss like Gates. So what if he can make money, he can't keep quality employees and his products always require at least two service releases before the average person can safely use them.

Tyranny is no more leadership than fear is respect. For some reason half of this country can't understand this.

CAL USA: I thought Bush was able to reduce flag officers by over 50%. Anyone disagrees, fire them.

Spend a little more and go around the country and round up every Illegal here and deport them save a couple more trillion

Better yet. Buy all the drugs at the border. Then set up shops to sell them throughout the US. register drug users at the door and treat it like a bar.

You are right. This is a new situation where we are no longer competitive globally. We need some entirely new products or services that our country can compete with other countries on.

One of the smarter posts to date.

"Don't look to the past for a solution, it doesn't offer one"

Good stuff.

I think the (recent ) past does indeed offer a solution. Bill Clinton proved conclusively that a modest increase in taxes at the upper incomes, together with a disciplined effort to restrain governement spending can produce a strong economy, full employment and a balanced budget. I know we have very short term memories, but that was only 10 years ago. I suspect the only thing some folks remember about Clinton is Monica Lewinsky, but he left us in pretty good shape.

Cal, wasn't Clinton in when the tech bubble was expanding? Then the bubble burst, can you tell us what happened? The housing bubble has done the same thing. I do agree all should pay some thing in taxes, Clinton reformed welfare and remember the work programs... We need to take what worked and add to it new ideas throwing money at it is not the answer. We need to encourage the Union leaders to look at the market and stop pricing it's workers out of business. Regulations are good to a point, however, we need to allow America to grow again.

One of the smarter posts to date.

"Don't look to the past for a solution, it doesn't offer one"

Good stuff.

I hope you were being sarcastic! Does the saying Those that fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them?

There is much to learn from the past. Canada offers a great deal to learn on how to improve our economy and almost no one mentions that they have recently overcome many of our current problems. The Canadian dollar is worth more that the US dollar yet people don't talk about it. Probably because the clear conclusion you get from the analysis is we need huge cuts in government spending.

CAL USA: It's not so much that Clinton raised taxes as he cut out most of the loopholes and deductions and then he actually collected taxes. We could cut our tax rates for the rich, but they would have to give up their breaks to get them. I see so many idiots online pointing out our 35% corporate tax rate and comparing it to 15-20% in most of the rest of the world. They conveniently leave out the VAT taxes the others pay and the deductions US corporations don't pay. One of them asked "where would you rather do business?" Well, why do so many rich Chinese want to move to the US? Because even with our "high" tax rate you can get stinking rich here and have many fewer regulations no matter what the teabaggers tell you. Why do so many US corporations want to "repatriate" their money they made by offshoring jobs if they don't want to do business here?

Whynot: Should we emulate the Canadian medical system as well?

Because it was a startup.

Startups fail 9 out of 10 times. That's the real world. You do your research and pick a few winners...

you end up reviled like Mitt Romney :)

Sometimes you just can't win. It's why government has no business playing in this game.

Here is a different way to look at it. Halliburton got an $8B no bid contract in Iraq. One of their major projects was building barracks for our GI's, several of whom were electrocuted in the showers. Which was the worst expenditure, Solyndra or Halliburton? Of course, Dick Cheney may not agree with me since his stock options tripled while he was in office...

We knew they would sneek in some stuff for politics.

Isn't it great to have the blinder on that you have. You haven't mentioned any of the stupidity that has come from the Democrats You are a hypocrite

Pat,

Wow! Take the blinders off buddy there is enough blame to go around. Anyone who only blames one party is a complete dolt. The question is what are Americans going to do about it?

You are absolutely right Pat.

patHuntingtonNY I think you are the one that does not get it. I agree that Bush's tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and his other significant budget increases were bad and brought the underlying problems with the US economy into the light much faster than if those things had not happened. I was also very disappointed when Obama rather than cutting costs like he campaigned on made matters worse. However, they were not the root cause.

If Bush had not cut taxes and increased spending the US would have found itself in in a very similar situation within ten years. We have know for decades that we were going to have a problem with Social Security and Medicare once the baby boomers started to retire. Those programs only work as the ratio of the number of people working to the number of people drawing benefits is stable or growing. As the baby boomers retire that ratio is going to go down dramatically. If dramatic changes to those programs are not made the economy will continue to worsen until our economy collapses.

I was really quit surprised how fast we went from no one talking about the debt problem of this country to it being the main news story during the debt limit debate.

That debate in itself was not good for our economy. However, I hope that we as a country do not go back to ignoring the issue and hoping it will magically go away because no one is willing to stand up and make the tough choices.

There are a lot of possible fixes that could turn the US economy around. Unfortunately, it means that a lot of people, from all classes of society, will need learn how to stop living off the government gravy train.

GE has serious losses in prior years to write off. It had been many years since GE owed no taxes and they paid plenty over the years. Some corporations are buying overseas business and pay taxes to the county that they operate in. They did pay taxes and I don't think they should be taxed twice.

So Don, let us suppose that you lose your job and have no income this year. Are you able to go back to the IRS and claim a refund for taxes you paid previous years? If not, why should GE or any corporation? By the way, they could always deduct the taxes they pay to foreign governments when they pay taxes here. Oh wait they do, except for the fact that there are no corporate taxes in many of the places they've incorporated in... which is why they went there.

Hey, corporations are people too you know...

CAl, you can't claim a refund because you did not have a loss. If you were unemployed you broke even . Individuals with modest stock portfolios can carry over capital losses to the next year. I have done that myself.

John Raburn,

You wil never get anywhere with presenting logical well-founded arguments to many of the folks whose postings we see here. Isn't it ironic that the Republicans who claim to be business-friendly have no clue on this regard? Of course you can't just cut your way to prosperity. You manage your cost structure and invest in the products, resources and infrastructure you need to grow the business. Scalpels and sutures, not machetes...

There are a plethora of programs that are absolutely useless. Why not start with those? Then work your way up to entitlements, if necessary? Why do you always go for the entitlements?

Because if you eliminate all spending other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social saftey net programs, the military, pension costs, and managing the debt, you cannot balance the budget.

I agree that we need to make reductions throughout the federal budget and low hanging fruit is great. However, if you leave out the big expenditures just because most Americans have forgotten how to live without them you cannot solve the problems with the American economy.

Yup, they want to recreate 18th century England here, bahhh humbug! Jacob Marley would be proud of the republican party...