That's a dumb-azz response.<quoted text>
That's an interesting position. So in other words if we raised taxes on everyone to 75% and wiped out the budget deficit in the stroke of a pen, you wouldn't have any problem with it? After all, debt isn't the issue, right? Or did you perhaps write this without thinking about it because you had no answer for the fact that Ronald H.W. Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years?
Hmmm, I know which one I'm going with.
I state the problem is SPENDING, but like a typical mindless Obamabot, you deflect and go right back to your programming with a foolish strawman argument about TAXES.
But let's pretend you're not a partisan flamer, give you the benefit of the doubt, and explore your mindless response so we can explore the full depth of its idiocy.
Raise taxes on everyone to 75%? A completely ridiculous idea.
The deficit would NOT be "wiped out" - that depends on what you do about SPENDING. You know, the subject you're squirming like a weasel to avoid.
Cut federal spending back to its historically sustainable norm of 18% of GDP, and the deficit takes care of itself.
After all, Bloomberg himself says not to worry - America can borrow "an infinte amount of money."
As for your lame "Reagan Bush Reagan Bush WAAH WAAH WAAAAAHHHH!!!" partisan dodge - STUFF IT. Reagan's dead, and neither Bush is POTUS, running the country into penury for the past 4 years. What's next, you're going to try blaming the Harding Administration?
The lame blame game is OVER. Obama is POTUS, he is FAILING MISERABLY. And your rationale is that he's no worse that Bush? That's like claiming Larry is doing great because he's not doing worse that Moe.
Obama = epic FAIL.