why is it that spending cuts and reductions are talked about over 10 year periods? I think just to bloviate that they are cutting more than they need, while knowing there is no spending cut that lasts 10 years.i.e. 'we are cutting 100 billion from the spending over 10 years' sounds pretty high to most people, but it is only 10 billion in 1 year, probably will never reach full potential, and is a drop in the bucket to a 1.3 Trillion deficit in the budget.
I think they should drop the 100 billion in 1 year and quit F CK in g around.
I am very suprised that so called Bush tax cuts lasted 10 years. But, why didnt they make them permanent 8 or 9 years ago?
We got a lot of problems and our so called reps better get a handle on them, otherwise