I don't see that Obama does any more than talk about responsibe limts (except for what he is forced to do). He appears to encourage division and "againstness", hurting progress via lack of cooperation, anti-business, and blaming and name-calling. What is the actual case? Am I missing something or misinterpreting something?
Shouldn't we have priorities and limits?
___________________________________________________________________________
Bottomline:
There are always trade-offs and costs
Debt comes home to roost, there is no magic fairy - The national debt ($16 trillion) plus unfunded but committed liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, exceeding at least $35 trillion, per the Trustees Reports. Debt is 25 times our revenues and exceeds are total tangible assets of the U.S., and is about 1/3 of the total assets if we inclued intangibles. .
We are emulating, to some extent, Greece - And we can't expect to escape from the consequences -
but how far can we go and what are the limits - Shouldn't we determine that, on paper?
Dependency and dividing the pie - We want to have opportunity and prosperity for all, but that comes from growth and prosperity, not from splitting the pie differently and lowering growth. We need to use a prudent, balanced Solomon-like approach; we are out of balance right now. Blame, excuses, making others wrong are all victim behaviors that harm our society.
___________________________________________________________________________
Come to whatever conclusion you will, but I encourage you to do so via looking at facts and using reasoning, without prejudice. (Rational Decision Making.)
GIVE MORE AWAY, WIN VOTES OR JUST "DO GOOD", BUT WITHOUT CLEAR LIMITS
He keep on giving more away when there are costs and consequences, with no limits set. Does he not realize the long term trade-offs? (He probably doesn't, because he lacks the training and experience required to judge these.)
Some can be judged by the trade-offs, such as: (I'm not saying, at all, that these are 'bad')
1. The stimulus cost versus the potential effect on jobs,
2. Giving "tax breaks" by stopping payroll contributions to social security and medicare,
3. Giving breaks to some homeowners while increasing the bailout cost of Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac, 4. Giving breaks on student loans, thereby hurting future revenues, while kicking the cost of it to future
generations
5. Extending unemployment benefits without producing the means to pay for them (extending benefits is
"good"; the problem is not balancing the budget!)
