Politicians are not serious about the deficit

Methinks the Engineer. Generally there is a breathalyzer test involved.

BHO RR has promised to halve the inherited $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit by the end of his first term while providing income tax relief to 95% of Americans. Only individuals making more than $200,000 per year and families making more than $250,000 per year will be burdened with additional taxes. So passing the hat to the passengers will not be an option.

Mr. Obama has promised to halve the $1.3 trillion annual deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, but the CBO projection suggests he has further trimming to do to hit that goal. Mr. Obama on Friday told a group of state lawmakers that his aides are "having to go through the books line by line...so that we cut our deficit in half." WSJ 3/21/09

Now the same president that told us that $9 Billion in earmarks in the last spending bill was "last year's business" is directing his cabinet to "look for $100 million  savings where they can, because eventually "it will all add up to real money, even here in Washington."

So it will be very interesting to see the "surgical "removal of billions upon billions of dollars of pet programs, $100 million  dollars at a time.

Choo choo!

I don't know what's funnier, your continued denial of the freight train headed your way or your absolute belief in your own B.S.

This President has become the Debt Colector for the Chinese People's Republic and you blithely think that people are going to continue to put up with it forever.

You have failed to realize one central fact of politics: the party in power is responsble for the consequences of being in power. You own the debt that you have decided to create. 

Bush is back in Texas. Eventually, the scapegoating of Bush, like the Gang of Four campaign, will die like the last dog. 

Yeah. Let's take another look at how Obama is schooling us in ECON 101 again, just so we can say that we learned from The Master. I want to make sure that my daughter and her kids don't question the Divine Wisdom of the Nomenklatura when they are paying off their Chinese Loans.

What are those magic words? "Bush's Fault?" 

No."Jesus wept".

..what you based your analysis that it was the bank equity swaps that "Wall Street reacted today" on?

Could it maybe have been something else that spooked the market?  Oh, I don' t know.  Maybe the fact that out of Bank of America's profits report, Merrill-Lynch accounted for a huge chunk?  Or maybe the fact that Ken Lewis, CEO at BoA, said the banking sector is still " facing extremely difficult challenges" and set aside 13.4B to cover mounting lending losses?

Hmmm..maybe the fact that The Conference Board said Monday that its monthly forecast of economic activity fell 0.3 percent in March and has not risen in nine months?  Maybe it was that economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected a 0.2 percent decline.before the opening bell.

Who knows?  But no, you jump to the conclusion that it was "bank nationalization!!" that tanked the markets.

Were you even around when the Government had to set up the Resolution Trust Corporation in 1991 to "nationalize" failing banks and liquidate their assets?  It was a HUGE success, and actually ended up making the banking sector more robust and returning money to the taxpayers.

This part: good.

The cap and trade scheme creates an enormous bureaucracy and huge costs of collection and compliance. The Republicans must at least force a complete debate about the economic consequences of cap-and-trade.

This part: not so good.

Here is where the tax cut comes into play. Republican should propose that the tax be levied in a revenue-neutral manner, with offsetting reductions in the corporate income tax, the FICA tax, or whatever tax they choose. The requirement should be that the proposed reductions be permanent reductions of marginal tax rates. They should be careful to argue that they are acting to protect personal incomes and promote economic growth. They should guard against the inevitable democratic response, which will be to implement a program to compensate those affected by the tax. That will result, of course, in larger permanent government, and more distortion of economic activity.

IMO this only makes sense if you think Republicans ought to concede the principle that carbon should be taxed.  Personally I don't want the Republicans to give up on this fight quite yet.  The science is not settled; all the scary forecasts are the results of MODELS, not actual, hard data; and even if humans are the problem, the way to fix it is not through increasing the heavy hand of government, but through technology, innovation, and means that preserve liberty, not destroy it.

Besides, politically speaking, what do Republicans have to gain by going along with the whole carbon tax idea?  THIS is what got them into trouble to begin with - when they start acting like Democrats-Lite.  I don't want Republicans to propose "sensible taxes" as opposed to Democrats' "outrageous taxes", I want Republicans to hold the line on taxes period.  After all what does TEA stand for again?  Taxed Enough Already.