Do you agree with the President that now is a good time for spending cuts?

[jpgray]

Do you agree that, in times of crisis, responsible use of the federal budget is akin to responsible use of a family budget?

[bluestateguy]

1. On the military? Yes I do.

nt

[jpgray]

2. For the purposes of the poll, let's define the cuts as those likely to be made

In other words, discretionary spending and entitlements. I don't think defense is at much risk for the foreseeable future.

[mvd]

9. In that case, no. The middle class and poor have suffered for..

too long. The deficit should be reduced through tax increases on the rich, military spending cuts, and closing tax loopholes such as GE's.

[barbtries]

10. what bluestateguy said

nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Depends.

[kestrel91316]

4. Now is the time to TAX THE 2%ERS until they know pain like

the rest of us, and get us the hell out of our foreign military entanglements.

[dkf]

8. We are going back to Clinton rates soon enough.

[onehandle]

5. No. You have to spend money to make money and create jobs. Cutting is pandering.

Pandering to idiots.

[northoftheborder]

6. Not the ones he agreed to. Look to corp. loopholes, offshore bank accounts, .....

the top 5% and the military.

[Jefferson23]

7. Hell NO, The Dangers of Deficit Reduction

by Joseph Stiglitz

SNIP* The financial sector has imposed huge externalities on the rest of society. America’s financial industry polluted the world with toxic mortgages, and, in line with the well established “polluter pays” principle, taxes should be imposed on it. Besides, well-designed taxes on the financial sector might help alleviate problems caused by excessive leverage and banks that are too big to fail. Taxes on speculative activity might encourage banks to focus greater attention on performing their key societal role of providing credit.

Over the longer term, most economists agree that governments, especially in advanced industrial countries with aging populations, should be concerned about the sustainability of their policies. But we must be wary of deficit fetishism. Deficits to finance wars or give-aways to the financial sector (as happened on a massive scale in the US) lead to liabilities without corresponding assets, imposing a burden on future generations. But high-return public investments that more than pay for themselves can actually improve the well-being of future generations, and it would be doubly foolish to burden them with debts from unproductive spending and then cut back on productive investments.

These are questions for a later day – at least in many countries, prospects of a robust recovery are, at best, a year or two away. For now, the economics is clear: reducing government spending is a risk not worth taking.

Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University and recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics. His most recent book Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy is available in French (Le Triomphe De La Cupidité, Liens Qui Liberent) and will be available shortly in Japanese, Spanish, German, and Italian.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz123/English

[Angry Dragon]

11. You ask one question in your OP title

and then ask a different one in the OP

A lot of variables in either scenario

Sound economic decisions are needed, what we have in Congress and this administration is emotions and agendas.
Nobody is looking at what makes sense and serves a purpose.

If you were to look at it as a family budget and you had most of your money concentrated in one area (the upper incomes) then that is where the family would go to get the money to provide for the family.