The Republicans are sure waging a shit-load of wars against Americans.
Consider just last week. First the House Republicans:
…approved two resolutions that would amend the FY 2011 spending bill to block funding designated for Planned Parenthood and last year’s healthcare law. But House passage is largely symbolic, as the Senate did not pass either of the bills.
After that, House Republicans passed Rep. Ryan’s budget bill that privatizes Medicare, radically cuts the federal contribution to Medicaid, creates even more tax cuts for the rich and some corporations, and repeals health care reforms. The bill is DOA in the Senate, not to mention the Oval Office. And it should be DOA to most Americans.
One half the population ought to be outraged at the Republican’s War on Women. And add to that a lot non-women folk who like to fuck without making babies. Many of these non-women appreciate that Planned Parenthood provides help with that. In other words, a big chunk of young voting-age (or almost voting-age) Americans should be repulsed by these senseless political attacks on Planned Parenthood.
It is hard to imagine that senior citizens can be big fans of higher out-of-pocket insurance costs proposed in Ryan’s Medicare privatization bill to fund tax cuts for the rich. Some Seniors must find Rep. Dave Reichert’s War on AARP a little unsettling.
The poor, the disabled? I cannot believe they enjoyed being screwed by the Republicans.
All this comes on top of prior alienation. African Americans? Pretty much lost to the G.O.P. already. Hispanics? There was a small blip in increased support in 2010, but still down about 22% on average. And union members? Yeah…like they’re going to forgive and forget the War on Workers playing out in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Maine, Michigan, etc. The LGBT communities? Not really big supporters.
Republicans have lost the old, the young, the poor and disadvantaged, women, workers, and the nation’s largest minority groups. So who’s left?
Rich White Guys. That’s who.
Oh…yeah. Corporations, too.
But Republicans are not going to be voted out of office en masse. Even if a huge majority of Americans would be financially hurt by G.O.P. legislation, and even if they are morally opposed to the extremist agenda of the current crop of batshit crazy Republicans, Americans will still vote against their economic self-interest and moral principles. The Republicans will offer to rape them; they will assent.
Why? Some people are not paying attention. And other people are easily swayed. There is almost no harm that can be proposed or undertaken by Republicans that cannot be undone with enough money in the weeks leading up to an election.
Apparently Republicans have done this calculation, and they have concluded that the money infused by Rich White Guys and Wealthy Corporations over the next few elections will overcome the losses incurred by their all-out assault on most Americans.
Have they erred in their calculations?
I look Mexico, that had a corrupt party run the place for generations, and I don’t see why that cannot happen here. I can see the republicans and corporations taking over for generations, until they get so lazy and corrupt that the system breaks down, like it’s doing in Mexico.
I think that oil prices are going to destroy the economy faster than the republicans can, so their dreams of power may not last very long.
So, there are 50+ million rich white guys to vote GOP in 2012?
And why do old people hold signs saying Hands Off My Social Security? No one is talking about reducing benefits for people older than 55.
The signs would be more accurate if they said something like Screw My Grandchildren, Not Me.
God, guns and gays won’t be enough…rethugs are screwed.
i cringe at the thought of you teaching kids. do you teach them that democrats are taking away medicare benefits from their grandparents and giving it to illegals?
re 4: No. We teach them that idiots like you vote for Republicans who then give away the farm to the banks and billionnaires.
You do remember that TARP was a Republican giveaway, don’t you?
Insulated by a fawning press corp, democrats will once again fail to recognize that Americans hold them responsible in 2012 for worsening and accelerating our national deficit/debt crisis, devaluing our currency, losing the middle east, destroying jobs, and massively growing govt.
Mickey Mouse could run in 2012 and beat Obama.
2012 election? It’s going to be painful for Democrats…I can’t wait to watch the entitlemnt president take his last helicopter ride…
@5:
TARP was a $700B blank check agreed to by both sides because of the specter of a global meltdown if it wasn’t done.
If I recall correctly, the outcome is that the most current CBO estimate is that it will have cost $19B.
I’m more fuzzy here, but if TARP funds hadn’t been used to bail out GM and Chrysler, the remainder of the fund’s use would have returned a profit to the government.
Contrast that with the $800+B ARRA stimulus giveaway by the Dems not long after that.
No, go ahead. I mean it. Compare the two. Didn’t Romer say if we did the ARRA unemployment would be kept below 8.0%?
For $19B we avoided global catastrophe. If you want to blame that decision on the GOP, I’m more than OK with it. You would better help your argument by having the Dems take some credit for it.
What did we avoid by spending $800+B on ARRA? That was essentially purely a Dem spending giveaway.
@6 Then I await the glorious paradise the conservatives will bring to America if Obama is not re elected.
There better be gold streets and 5 cent gas and every job paying a million a year with full benefits and 6 weeks off with pay a year if the republicans are going to be the opposite of Obama. I will accept no half measures!
We spent $800+B on ABBA?
I like ABBA as much as the next gay man but seriously, that much “Dancing Queen” is against the Geneva Convention!
# 6: That, in a word, is the problem.
Because the facts are that the Republicans are wholly responsible “…worsening and accelerating our national deficit/debt crisis, devaluing our currency, losing the middle east, destroying jobs, and massively growing govt.”
The Democrats have been attempting to mitigate the damages incurred by Republican policies, not worsening them. (I do note that you don’t even attempt to blame the initial national deficit/debt crisis on the Democrats, which I presume was a conscession to the obvious).
The problem is that Americans are busy dealing with the pressures of their own lives, and are unable or unwilling to put the time and mental effort into trying to dissect false Republican propoganda every time it appears. They want to be fair, and they want to assume that neither party would tell outright lies, so the truth must be somewhere in between.
Average Americans used to rely upon the media to ferret out the truth for them, but that’s no longer the case – the mainstream media merely tries to present “both sides” without making a comment on the fact that the Republican side is telling fibs bigger than a barn, because if they did the Republicans would accuse them of bias. So they lean over backwards to give Republican lies airplay.
In the meantime, Fox News proclaims to be fair and impartial, but clearly is the propoganda arm of the Republican Party, with absolutely no attempt at fairness.
And as the average American works longer hours for less pay and benefits, because Republicans tell them they have to do so to compete with 12 cents an hour Asian workers, they have even less time to parse through the Republican propoganda.
What would help Americans the most is to realize that after getting caught in lie after lie, it’s not individual Republican politicians who lie, and it’s not an honest mistake. It’s the party strategy. Which means that from now on, they don’t need to dissect every statement from them to determine the truth. If a Republican politician is talking, they are lying, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Oh, and just a comparison with the old days – a hat tip to Bob Dole, who a couple of weeks ago was honored with a plaque at the site of the WWII Memorial in Washington D.C. for his efforts on behalf of disabled veterans, veterans in general, and in creating a permanant memorial to the sacrifices of American service men and women during WWII. I never voted for Dole, and I disagreed with many of his policies, but he was a reasonable man who you could discuss issues with in a fair debate, and he would compromise for the better good of the American public. Today’s Republican politicians? Not so much.
“One half the population ought to be outraged at the Republican’s War on Women.”
As to the 1/2 the population bit- you are full of shit.
As to the War on Women bit-you are full of shit.
@10
Since you brought up the old days:
George Mitchell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Sam Nunn have been replaced with the likes of
Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Barbara Boxer.
Yeah, I miss the old days, too.
Hi Darryl.
I keep hoping the GOP has finally overreached. But money is the great equalizer.
Michelle Bachmann planned to cut benefits to vets. That kinda woke up one of my GOP relatives, who had previously been a huge Bachmann fan.
Scott Walker went after cops and firefighters. Anecdotally, that act of betrayal seems to have woken those folks up.
I dunno, but if I was a Republican statewide or national, I’d be a bit worried. They have the dead enders (24% of people still not embarrassed they supported Bush/Cheney), rich people, and the corporate media.
Not much of a coalition.
Hi Darryl.
Democrats can’t just be the clean up crew, following the GOP elephants around.
I hope some of our Democratic candidates find the courage to be FOR something, vs just against Republicans.
While stumping, every one in the audience already knows things suck. Voters want to hear how you’re going to make things better. A plan, any plan, is better than the bickering back and forth.
I agree with 13, going after unions is just an attempt to defund the left, if we didn’t let so much money go to waste on attacks ads full of lies and simplistic platitudes then maybe it wouldn’t matter, but campaign finance reform as an electoral issue seems to be all but dead, people would rather rage about birth certificates and anchor babies.
Stuff @ 6
> Mickey Mouse could run in 2012 and beat Obama.
Then it’s really too bad all you’ve got is Mitt Romney.
I’m really going to enjoy the GOP primary if Bachmann, Palin, or both, jump in.
@13:
By money being the great equalizer, do you mean the $400M Obama spent in ’08? The $53M AFL-CIO spent and the $44M spent by SEIU in ’08? Or the BILLION DOLLARS Obama plans to spend this election cycle?
Obama’s approval is headed quickly toward the 30s. He’s taking on Ryan, which doesn’t look very presdential but he didn’t name him so there’s plausible deniability. Since it’s becoming quite clear that the rich don’t make nearly enough and Obama is going to have to raise taxes substantially on the middle class (WSJ, today) that won’t play well with all of those people he promised tax cuts to.
Today it was reported that Herb Kohl raised ZERO DOLLARS last quarter so it looks like the Dems have another open seat to contend next year. In Wisconsin, where they lost a Senate seat last year.
And you think it’s the GOP that should worry?
Keep telling yourself that. We’re counting on it.
BigSid @ 15
I was at a freespeechforpeople.org event recently. Full house.
People are pissed about money in politics. The campaign finance issue has finally gotten so bad people are mobilizing.
Bob @ 17
You’re complaining about money in politics?
Please clarify.
I just want to make sure I’m understanding you here.
@19
No complaints. It exists.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment @ 13, which is why I asked what you meant. Instead you answered my questions with a question.
@20. There goes a person who is on the receiving end of that money fire hose.
To me, saying
“Money in politic. No complaints. It exists.”
is equivalent to saying
“Plutonium in the food supply. No complaints. It exists.”
No unselfish person would say either. Both are toxic.
Too much money in politics is destroying democracy, crowding out the voices of the small guy, the non wealthy, the other 98%.
How do they get away with it? With proposing ideas that are opposed by the vast majority of the population? Distraction? No one is going to RUN on disbanding unions, ending collective bargaining, ending Medicare, etc….they may want or try to do that…but they’re RUN on stopping the evils of gay marriage or stopping funding for NEA, or public radio. This works…it’s called making shit up, but it works! Did you know in a recent poll that most Republican’s think public broadcasting uses 5% of our national budget. That would be funding to the tune of about $100 billion. Public broadcasting, in case you were wondering, does NOT get $100 BILLION in funding every year.
Distractions. Lie. Make stuff up. THAT’s how you get away with doing stuff that’s hugely unpopular.
Did you know 98% of Republicans kill baby seals and drink their blood? (NOTE: Not intended to be a factual statement ;-)
@10: Thanks for that. All true, but we have an R house and a few less senators (and R state takeovers) because the kids didn’t vote.
The kids (20 somethings) I talk to have generally progressive views, were stoked re Obama and are pretty disillusioned at this point. They are inherently apolitical (and now cynical would be another good descriptor). The key thing to watch is whether they engage with politics again this coming cycle.
@23 Agreed, youth turnout in 2010 was abysmal, around 20%, but I know the second I submit this the trolls will come out from under the bridge and screech something about how youth dominated the Tea Party in 2010 and were single-handedly responsible for the GOP take back, because young people can’t wait to make abortion and interracial marriage illegal again.
@ 24
The 20-somethings are the ones who will be worst hurt by Obama’s policies. What’s funny in a sad, sad way is that they are digging their own graves and have zero realization that they’re doing it.
National debt load will be staggering and by the time it’s pay the piper season all those the left wants to tax so heavily will be retired and then it’s “Hands off my Social Security”, leaving only the Obama voters to pay up.
“We’re building a religion”……
Republicans don’t need a majority of voting age people to win. At best 55% of registered voters show up at the box for presidential elections and significantly less for mid-terms. Keeping as many they can away from the voting booth is central to GOP strategy. As long as GOPers can disenfranchise a large fraction of youth, minorities etc they have a chance of keeping it close to steal it like in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. In the meantime, they are doing their best to prevent students and others progressive demographics from voting by requiring drivers’ licenses or other ID knowing full well that youth/minorities are less likely to have the proper documentation. I suspect the hatchet job on ACORN wasn’t haphazard either considering ACORN’s critical role in registering millions of minority voters.
@25 Please give us some clarification when exactly this “pay the piper season” will come to pass so we may all be prepared. If you’re worried about the national debt then we need to end both wars, now. That’s the only way to get out from under it. Spending $412 million per F-22 which then flies sorties exactly nowhere might have something to do with the debt load you’re speaking of.
expect @ 22
In addition to overwhelming people with too much information…
Lot’s of money spent on marketing.
Developing weasel words, like the crap Frank Luntz concocts.
Microtargeting and message silos, telling each voter precisely what they want to hear.
@ 26 You seem to think there are only two groups, GOP and Dems. Those are fairly closely split.
It’s the independents who went for the GOP last year and caused the House swing to the right.
Dems lost the independents they had only two years previously. It wasn’t voter suppression. It was poor Dem turnout at the younger age range and independents going heavily for the GOP. Period.
@ 27 Cut spending. Not just on what you want to see cut. Cut spending and cut it substantially and sustainably. There isn’t enough income by the rich to tax only the rich. Pulling us out of two wars reduces some costs but not $1.6T per annum. Cut spending. Or the middle class can bend over and lube up just like the rich.
Oh, raise my taxes, some, too. In exchange for a spending cut I’m OK with that.
Pay the Piper season probably isn’t that far off. S&P served notice of that this morning. So did the market.
I forgot my main point which is that the great number of people disenfranchised from the political process are more critical to election results than a relatively small number of people who vote against their best interests. Republicans won the 2010 mid-terms not because they increased the number of people who vote for them, but because progressives stayed home in large numbers. Increasing eligible voter turnout should be priority number 1 for progressives.
Blue John @ 21
Exactly.
Money is not speech. If money were speech, then we could no longer call it free speech.
@29 No. The GOP won because voter turn out was low whereas traditional right-wingers were energized. Many independents stayed home because they are on Obama’s left on many issues (wars, single payer HC, taxing the wealthy, etc ..) and were very disappointed in the 2 first years of his presidency.
Bob @ 29
I’d be fine with everyone paying their fare share of taxes. And leaving Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anon @ 32
That’s the trap all centrists face, isn’t it? Tact right (or left) to win the Presidential, only to lose the elections 2 years later.
Anon @ 26, 30
2000 there’s that nagging 7-2 decision that cherry-picking the counties to recount violated the 14th Amendment. Damn.
2004 if OH GOP could steal 80,000 votes why can’t the WI Dems steal 7,316 votes to beat Prosser?
2010 no way of telling how many ‘progressives’ stayed home. It sure as hell is a lot easier to find how independents voted by exit polls. Independents pulled their support from Dems and gave it to the GOP.
Rewriting history doesn’t make it true, Anon. OH ’04? C’mon. Be a Big Boy/Girl. 80,000 votes down in a state means you lost the state.
@29 You’re living in as much of a fantasy as you think I am if you think cutting defense spending and raising taxes on the top 1-2% of income earners won’t help, but defunding Planned Parenthood and the NEA will. WE HAVE HAD THREE DECADES OF SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS THAT HAVE DONE NOTHING TO CREATE JOBS OR PROMOTE REAL WAGE GROWTH. Or rather, that top 1-2% has seen their incomes grow, sorry. DEFENSE SPENDING HAS GONE UP 81% IN TEN YEARS. And what about the legion of disabled veterans we’ve created, should we cut their benefits too when they lost their limbs and their minds making sure markets are open and petroleum is liberated?
Darryl, you said yourself last Tuesday the US is the ONLY industrialized nation that has to vote to raise its debt ceiling, jump in here.
@ 36
I don’t think I was specific on where to cut. We could back out all money spent on the two wars and it might add up to a year, maybe of Obama deficits. How about the rest? Bush tax cuts eliminated on the wealthy? That’s $700B over 10 years. Now you have 18 months covered. How about the next 10 years of red ink?
Start cutting. You have your two Dem wet dreams of war spending and Bush tax cuts in the above paragraph. You have less than 20% of your problem solved.
Start cutting. Or start raising taxes, by a lot, on the middle class.
Or get ready to Pay the Piper.
@35 denying that progressives demographics (including many independents) stayed home during the 2010 mid-term IS rewriting history.
Despite the wailing and nashing of teeth, the deficit isn’t really that hard to cut. All we need to do is return to our tax and spending policis in effect on the day before George W. Bush’s inaugeration in Jan. 2001. This means return to the tax rates on the wealthy which helped pay down the debt and balance the budget over the preceeding eight years, wrap up our involvement in Iraq and Afganistan.
Only two other things need to be done.
(1) Fix funding for George W. Bush’s Medicare Part B program, where he gave seniors present by paying for their prescriptions, then prohibited the federal government from negotiating the prices with the drug companies, and left the funding issue for others to deal with.
(2) Allow the economic recovery to raise tax collections to the point where they offset the increased money spent on unemployment and other programs made necessary by the George W. Bush economic collapse.
I figure it will take us another ten years to get back to a balanced budget, but that assumes the Democrats are in charge. Anytime you put the Republicans in charge it’s like giving a six year old the family visa card and let them loose in the toy store.
@38 Of course you weren’t specific about where to cut. Why would you be? You condemn progressives for wanting to maintain funding for basic human services as opposed to suggesting something, ANYTHING, that actually makes sense to cut. I’ll give you another on the defense side, the F-35: the Air Force and Navy want 2,457 of these planes planes for $383 billion. I say scrap it, there’s TWENTY-FOUR PERCENT of your precious fucking debt load right there (You know how I got there? With a calculator, and FACTS). If you think we can honestly cut $1.6T in HALF OF A BUDGET YEAR you deserve to work for the CBO or GAO, stop wasting your fiscal prowess educating us! You display your idiocy by defending the rich when you obviously aren’t rich. And let’s face it, sniping people with nonsense and falsehoods on a local blog is probably not going to get you rich, but go ahead, keep repeating the same, empty GOP talking points as opposed to making a cogent argument. That right there is the hallmark of the right-wing.
By the way, the Standard & Poor’s credit rating report on the U.S. will be Republican fodder for their anti-Obama diatribes, ignoring completely the important factors highlighted in the report itself, which are more damning to the Republicans than the Democrats.
But at the same time Standard & Poors issued yet another report which showed that the accumulation of cash and cash-equivilent accounts in the U.S. has reached record proportions. All that capital is looking for a place to invest it, but the risk and returns aren’t looking good. Most don’t want to invest in treasury certificates, bonds, stocks, etc. because the rate of return isn’t impressive. And overseas investments look rather shakey right now, especially Chinese real estate. So they are holding onto the cash, hoping to find an annual rate of return in excess of 15%, which at the moment can only be found in consumer credit cards.
Cutting a few tax loopholes and raising corporate tax rates to access those idle funds would go a long way toward providing funds needed for infrastructure investment in the U.S.
Senator Kastama protects elder abusers.. Read
http://www.for-the-love-of-mother.com/
Which part is damning to republicans exactly?
This?
“In 2003-2008, the U.S.’s general (total) government deficit fluctuated
between 2% and 5% of GDP. Already noticeably larger than that of most ‘AAA’
rated sovereigns”
Or This?
“More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S.
policymakers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal
deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures,”
“it ballooned to more than 11% in 2009 and has yet to recover.”
President Bush ran deficits that were to high. That’s for sure..President Obama makes Bush look like an amateur when it comes to deficits.
Our national Debt is skyrocketing under Obama.
So where again is this bad for republicans politically?
Heh. When I heard that about Standard and Poor’s I thought “is that the outfit that gave AAA ratings to CDO’s sporting sub-prime garbage”??
Yep:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/0...../index.htm
Yeah sure. That’s what Obama gets for inheriting and in some cases continuing the Bush policies and their attendant failures.
(florida) beef…its whats for dinner.
42 Are you really the Brawny paper towel guy?
Please explain to us what role President Obama had in developing the 2009 budget. Hell, let’s cut to the quick. You can’t offer an explanation because that wasn’t Obama’s budget.
I say good things about you, Right Stuff, and deservedly so, but if keep pulling that kind of shit pretty soon you’ll be emitting psycho-laughs like that street corner loon most of us now ignore.
The conservatives in England no longer believe that banks serve any useful purpose.
Snowpack at 162% of normal.
Snow in during the afternoon commute.
Globull Worming! Globull Worming!
Bob @ 38
What should their tax rates be?
@ 52
My point was that you can tax the ‘rich’ at 100% of their income and still not come close to eliminating the deficit.
You can increase taxes on the middle class as well as on the wealthy, back to where rates were before the ’01 and ’03 rate reductions.
You still will not come close to eliminating the deficit, although raising taxes on everyone helps a lot more than just doing it on the rich – $2T over 10 years, vs. $700B if only the rich are taxed at the old rates, if I recall correctly.
You can pull troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan.
You still will not come close to eliminating the deficit.
You need to cut spending. You need to cut spending in ways you do not want to do it.
It is where we are as a nation.
If you want to cut less, then raise taxes more. On everyone. 45% of households paid NO federal taxes, that was one of the big stories on NPR. If taxes are paid by more people, then more people have skin in the game and it isn’t just a ‘soak the rich’ mentality. It becomes more of a shared sacrifice.
Blame whomever you want for the situation. It is where we are as a nation. Spending needs to be cut.
Bob @ 53
You clearly have a keen grasp of the situation. Thank you!
NY Times’ You Cut The Budget explains the issues much better. Here’s my solution for solving the deficit.
Briefly, let Bush’s tax cuts expire, reduce military spending on unnecessary wars and weapons, raise the age for SSA and Medicare.
Fair, simple, logical.
I’d love to see what you propose.
@53…. That just makes me feel sorry for you.
# 44: Because the defict (and resulting federal debt) are entirely the fault of the Republicans, despite Republican’s insistence (i.e., outright lies) on trying to pin it on Obama. Here’s why deficits are Bush’s fault:
BUSH TAX CUTS
Most of the deficts were caused because the Bush administration created structural deficits when it cut the taxes in 2001, giving most of the benefit to their rich buddies. Even in a good economy, the resulting inflation would result in INCREASING deficits, despite rising revenues. So even if the Republican reliance on the Laffler Curve was correct (which it isn’t), then the tax rates under the Bush plan won’t help the deficit.
WARS/DEFENSE SPENDING
Then there were the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. I’ll give Bush a pass on the first year in Afganistan. But the war in Iraq was entirely of his own creation, and the diversion of resources and attention from Afganistan caused what should have been a rather easy occupation (as the Taliban had already been defeated) to turn into an extended guerilla war which we are still fighting.
Add to that the insistence of Republicans to try to even out-source the war effort resulted in an incredibly bloated spending, huge profits for companies closely connected to the administration, and fiascos as private contractor companies made huge mistakes along the way.
REPUBLICAN WASTE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Moreover, the Republicans spend money when in government like they just got access to their granddaddy’s trust fund. They eliminate government workers who are responsible for making sure there are responsible controls and oversight of federal spending, and out-source the entire program to their buddies who can spend the money as they like (often, returning the favor in big campaign contributions). When the predictable breakdown occurs, like in the failed aftermath of Katrinia, they just start throwing money at the problem, without controls, until the media attention evaporates.
As we say, why would you hire somebody to run an enterprise (government) who confesses their hatred of it?
MEDICARE PART D
Additional deficits were caused by the Medicare Part D program, which went against everything Republicans have preached for the past half-century (they never have liked Medicaid), but gave it out anyway in an attempt to (a) deflect calls for government action on escalating prescription drug prices, (b) buy senior’s votes in the 2004 election, and (c) give insurance companies a huge slice of government-guaranteed business, while expressly prohibiting the government from doing anything to control prices, and (d) not provide for any funding for the program, thereby kicking the funding problem down the road to the next administration.
ECONOMIC MELTDOWN
Then, of course, you have the economic collapse of 2008 which was entirely preventable with adequate controls of financial markets, but the Bush administration wanted to put the economic throttle all the way to the firewall, even if it was entirely financed on unsustainable debt. We all know how that turned out – the “Great Rescession”, the lose of almost 40% of stockholder value in four months time, collapse of the housing market, loss of 40% of stock value and 20% loss in net worth for most Americans. Decreased tax revenues and higher costs for unemployment and aid programs, combined with stimulus money (from Bush’s TARP plan to Obama’s guarantee of loans for the auto companies), caused a lot of extra red ink. But blaming Obama for this is like complaining to the fire department about the water bill while they are trying to fight the fire.
@ 54:
Briefly, let Bush’s tax cuts expire, reduce military spending on unnecessary wars and weapons, raise the age for SSA and Medicare.
How far into the deficit do you think this gets you?
Not nearly far enough.
You have to cut the things you don’t want to cut, in order to make a substantial difference. I’m OK with raising age eligibility for SSA, but it doesn’t do enough.
$1.6T is a HUGE number. You have to cut what you do not want to cut. Period.
# 57: Care to be specific?
@ 57:
10 years of deficits might be in the area of $13-14 trillion dollars.
Eliminating Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, I read, covers $700B of that over 10 years.
Eliminating Bush cuts at ALL income levels covers $2T, I read.
So you still have $11-12T to cut, AFTER you have raised taxes across the board – that means not just on the wealthy. So tax increases become more of a shared sacrifice, and everyone has some skin in the game.
Specific beyond that? Ending two wars would save, what, maybe $1.5 – 2T over 10 years?
So you’re down to maybe $9-10T still to cut. And that’s after you have been given what you want most, tax increases and end to wars.
How will you cut nearly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS per year thereafter?
First of all, you won’t. Some of that will be covered by economic recovery and higher Federal revenues in addition to those from the tax increases (assuming the tax increases do not harm the economy, a different argument but thought I would mention it), and some will be covered by a sustained ‘healthy’ deficit.
The left will have to stop referring to Clinton’s ‘surplus’ because unless really, really, really difficult decisions are made there will likely never be a surplus again. Sooner or later comparisons to the Clinton ‘surplus’ will harm a Dem incumbent or a Dem wannabe and then the Left will cease mentioning it.
What is a ‘healthy’ deficit? I don’t know. Maybe one-fourth or one-fifth of what we are running now.
My point is, after you get everything you want and the wars go away and the rich have their taxes raises, you are still in a very, very, very deep hole. You will either be serious about addressing it, which means deep cuts to things currently considered untouchable and unmentionable, or you will not be serious, debt will overwhelm the nation, and Obama will not be able to keep pointing to 2008 as the reason he quadrupled the deficit and kept the spending pedal to the metal.
Your call. Mine would be some increase in taxes on the wealthy so the Dems can claim some gains politically, and steep cuts in places no one is comfortable with in order to address the reality.
That’s as specific as I get. You CANNOT make a material dent in the deficit by taxing the rich. There isn’t enough money there, as I pointed out above. The pain must be shared. No other serious approach to it. Not anymore.
By the way, increasing the Social Security & Medicare retirement age seems painless enough for those of us who (a) have desk jobs, and (b) have a job which they expect to retain until retirment, unless they find something better.
But those who work with their bodies (mechanics, assembly workers, shipping, delivery persons, waitresses, etc.) often barely limp through until they can collect social security benefits. Even if they can avoid the all-to-common back injury, the accumulated affect of work on their body begins to be felt in their 40’s, and by their mid-fifties they are often limping through each day, taking more Advil than is advisable, and collapsing in pain when they get home, trying to recover just enough to make it through the next day. So think of that whenever you want to push the Social Security retirement age back another two or three years.
And even for us aging “desk jockeys”, the last couple of rescessions haven’t been very kind to many of us. The number of people being laid off in their 50’s is staggering, and their ability to get equivilent jobs after the rescession ends isn’t encouraging. For many of them, they find they are just getting by moving from one temp position to the next, trying to bridge the gap and keep employed until they are eligible for social security and medicare benefits. The older they get, the less likely they are to find suitable permanant jobs. Getting by this way for five to ten years is extremely difficult. Adding another five years on top of that is near- impossible.
Also, remember that for those receiving Medicaid, moving the age of eligibility for Medicare outwards just keeps that liability on the Medicare books longer. You aren’t saving any money, you are just keeping the liabilities in one account longer than you would otherwise. (Yes, this has limited applicability, not everyone on Medicaid is eligible for Medicare).
I’m not saying we won’t have to do this. But it’s going to take a more carefull and nuanced approach than simply raising the retirement age another few years.
@ 60:
The body breakdown point is oft-made. My first comment would be to say, “Noted.”.
My second would be to point out that the percent of manual laborers in the market is continually declining and is far below what it was, say, 3-4 decades ago. Outsourcing to other countries, mechanization, computerization, etc. We also have become smarter about how we work to minimize injuries.
At some point it becomes untenable to resist an increase in the age eligibility, which seems necessary if one looks at actuarial changes, because of an ever-shrinking segment of the population that claims they can’t make it to 67, 68, 70, whatever.
I suppose one could create a bridge program to cover broken down bodies for a few years until the nationwide plan kicks in. Perfect opportunity for graft and corruption – just think of all of the doctors willing to provide a note claiming inability to work, etc. Our state is currently having trouble with the long-term disabled and L&I payments to them. Imagine that on a national level.
It’s a good point, to a limited extent. But that point becomes smaller over time. Should it hold back reform? I would argue it should not.
# 61: A reasonable answer to my comment, and I appreciate that.
I actually had one couple in mind when I wrote that observation. He is a truck mechanic, and is often sent out to repair trucks on the roadside. The company doesn’t want to tow them unless it is absolutely necessary, so lots of repairs are made by the side of the road. He was complaining a couple of winters ago about how hard it is for him now to get out in cold, wet weather, climb under a truck, hold up heavy truck parts with one hand while turning a wrench, screwdriver, etc. with the other hand, etc. He’s in his mid-50’s now.
His wife has been in food service all her life, she worked at a catering company until they went out of business in the fall of 2008 when all their business dissapeard in the financial crash. She took any number of temp jobs working catering at events, etc., involving moving food trays, equipment, ice, etc., and doing some waitressing on the side. She’s the same age, and it’s hurting her quite a bit too. She finally secured a part-time job as a school food service worker, which provides some steady (but small) income plus partial benefits. But she’s back to square one there – she’s washing dishes for almost four hours a day, which isn’t as bad as washing dishes for eight hours a day, but it’s still hard on the body.
Yep, they could go back to school and try to get desk jobs. But somebody’s got to do that type of work. I don’t see those types of jobs getting mechanized or outsourced in the near future, except perhaps to the extent that they are “out-sourced internally” – which is another way to say that they are out-sourced to companies which hire illegal immigrants to perform the labor at low pay, no benefits, and if they get hurt it’s their problem.
@ 62
Civility on HA.org. Who knew?
I wonder what the percentages are. We can talk people – I have a friend whose medical issues made me rethink a lot of what I believed about insurance and now I’m less of a smartass about it – but what probably matters is demographics.
Oh, and the dollars supporting the politics on each side of the issue.
Bob @ 57
I balanced the budget.
You could have simply clicked the link. Play a little “what if”. Propose your own budget. Takes about 3 minutes.
But you didn’t.
What you did do, to great benefit, is wave your arms and voice all sorts of concerns and make sweeping unsubstantiated statements.
Please.
Continue.
rhp @ 60
Were I King…
We’d have universal healthcare, mooting the medicaid retirement issue.
Given our chronic unemployment, due to increasing productivity, raising the SSA retirement age doesn’t make sense. I’d plough money into domestic growth (green collar jobs, more teachers, etc), reduce the work week to 35 hours, increase vacation times.
@ 65
You’re right, Jason, I didn’t do exactly what you did.
I didn’t know there was a rule.
Forgive me for my perspective that, as this is representative democracy and I speak through my elected representatives, my going to the NYT site and filling in blanks is no more helpful than if I go to NYT and do their daily crossword puzzle.
Forgive me for not going line by line through the results of your own labors and engaging you directly on what you did.
In fact, I did not even see what you posted and I responded instead to a more recent post in the thread.
I didn’t know there was a rule that I had to recognize Jason or be called out for not doing so.
Forgive me, Jason. Please.
Steve at 49
No it was not his budget, however it was his spending….ARRA = 787 billion, followed weeks later by 410 billion omnibus spending…
So there was the budget, then there was the additional spending all falling on President Obamas plate.
So to the quick.
You brought up the budget…fy2009 federal budget signed by President Bush.
That budget was trashed by the reckless spending (deficit) which was paid for by barrowing (debt) the money by Democrats.
Standard&Poors reported on Defits and Debt.
The deficit was ballooning due to democrats spending….That spending was paid for by barrowing money, see ballooning debt.
Chickenshit democrats were unable or willing to pass a FY2011 budget. No leadership from the WH. No plan to stem the deficit or debt crisis….Just a punt…..
Bob, what happened to economic growth as a means to taming the debt beast??
Oh I get it – taxes are too high which is why corporations barely support even 10 percent of the federal tax burden (it’s been that way a long time) – and that’s probably the smaller, medium sized businesses paying almost all of that.
Couple that with the health care sector delivering care more efficiently and you’ll have a deficit that you can live with.
I used to believe in balanced budgets and eliminating debt until economic histories showed a high correlation with recession and depression from Andrew Jackson onward..
@ 68
Maybe do a little work so you can remove the word ‘probably’ from your post.
Yes, corporate taxes have fallen as a total percent of federal revenues.
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%
But:
Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%
And we can look at the income distribution of those who paid those taxes, but you know the answer to that already.
Yes, corporations pay less. And the owners of corporations pay more.
These numbers don’t exist in a vacuum. Cherry-picking only gets you, and me, so far.
Bob @ 66
Post your plan. Any plan. And I’ll consider forgiving you.
Or you can keep concern trolling.
Your choice.
@ 70
If I really cared what you thought I would be concerned about earning your forgiveness.
You get bonus points for cutting some domestic spending, even if you did pick and choose. I assume you noticed that the deficit after your work is still $1.5 trillion in 2030.
My ‘plan’ is to watch people who actually make decisions realize that they will have to tax less and cut more, as seems to be the case.
My ‘plan’ is to work to elect the people I would prefer to see enact changes.
My ‘plan’ is to make sure that the NYT does not receive a federal bailout as it continues its death spiral. I spend no more time on that site than is absolutely necessary.
BTW ask yourself if a computer-generated interactive check-box ‘plan’ created by some unknown entity at the NYT five months ago has any relevance today. For all you know it was done by some intern.
Cut more. Tax whatever you can get through the system. That’s my ‘plan’.
Gotta pay the bills now.
Bob you’re a piece of work and a totally disingenuous SOB. Right wingers like you LIVE for cherry-picking.
“Owners” like shareholders, i.e. the “job creators”? Whose taxes on capital gains and dividends have been cut over the years to the point where the top 400 households in this country pay an average of 17 percent of their income to the Feds..
WAY TOO LOW..
Where’s the jobs Bob?
And that argument on individuals isn’t worth crap. An increase in individual tax collections only indicates that if corporations pay less then someone has to take up the slack.
And those poor little rich boys and girls who are the “job creators” – if they’re falling down on the job creating jobs then that doesn’t bode well for the not-so-rich being able to keep up their end of the bargain.
For the longest while we’ve been arguing let’s let the taxes on the wealthy go up to what they were under Bill Clinton, those awful times where no rich person apparently got any richer. Or let’s close some tax loopholes so GE pays something more than – zero???? Or maybe it makes sense for Medicare to pay out less so the health care sector can finally get their heads out of their butts and find a way to cut costs, line up the incentives appropriately and live within their means instead of continuously greasing the palms of the most well-connected players.
I’ve been here a while Bob and the farthest thing on my mind is to expect to get anywhere with the likes of you.
Why do you hate America Bob?
Gotta a right wing site that’s done something comparable?
I don’t think too many around here would be unwilling to check out that intern’s work.
A match up would be interesting.
@ 72
Keep it up. Out of a country of 300,000,000+, focus like a laser beam on those 400 households. Making those 400 people pay more is far more rewarding to you, personally, then maybe addressing the fact that 45% of households pay no federal income tax at all.
The meat of the US income is in the $50K-$500K range. If you want more tax revenue, that’s where it has to come from. Includes an awful lot of people Obama promised not to tax more heavily.
Shared sacrifice. Spend less time on those 400 people and more time on the heart of the nation’s wealth and capacity to pay more – it isn’t just above the $250K level. Break Obama’s pledge. It’s not like it was a hard-and-fast pledge like closing Gitmo, after all.
Why is that Bob??? Are they all breaking the law? Like the tax dodgers who the IRS just persuaded to come in from the cold of Switzerland??
Evil IRS picking on those “job creators” huh?
@ 73:
A deficit-reducing game like the NYT did on a conservative site? No, haven’t seen it.
It’s not a game. It’s not simple, it’s not boxes, and the decisions don’t exist in a vacuum. If you reduce something, there’s a response that will affect other parameters, which the NYT doesn’t come close to covering. It’s not Where’s Waldo?.
A reasoned analysis of what Obama was forced to propose last week, if you are interested, is here:
http://KeithHennessey.com/2011.....budget-v2/
I’m sure it takes longer to work through that link than it does to play the NYT game. Maybe skip Jeopardy tonite.
76 – Too sad for words. Hennessey is a big supporter of Randroid Paul Ryan – ’nuff said.
“the only budget plan”.. Sheesh..
Have a nice life Bob.
@ 77
You’re right. Those of us who lean conservative would save a lot of time and effort if only we would check boxes at the NYT. Because it’s all so simple. Hopenchange an’ all.
78 – Instead you would have us “check the box” on a glib dope who assigns his staff to read “The Fountainhead” – Jared Loughner would fit in just fine.
@78. So in other words, you won’t commit to standing FOR anything, good or bad, you will just pick apart other people’s plans.
“What’s your plan?…not gonna tell you.”
@ 81
OK, so no one here can express an opinion unless they have a line-item plan to go with it?
Goalposts, they keep being moved.
Maybe I could wait for the Gang of Six before sending my own team into the OMB and the CBO to redo all of their work? Maybe the rest of us could as well? Or is it a Ryan v Obama cage match, winner take all?
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
82 – Everyone’s favorite moron returns..
GE paying 0 taxes on their 14 billion dollar profit really fires the two synapses in his practically vacant skull…
Bob @ 71, 76
No, just like Clinton, I balanced the budget. Their UI is a bit confusing. The goal of the “game” is to fill the empty white boxes with blue boxes. You’d need to clear my selections to see the difference.
Hennessey, Bush’s senior economic advisor, picks apart Obama’s budget plans. Oh yes, very reasonable.
I know you won’t understand this, but I have to say it any way:
Being correct takes much less effort than being wrong. In other words, you’re working way too hard.
Sorry the country is not with the the Bobs and the chickenshit trolls @82 of the world:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201.....icits.html
I’d just add to that: bend the health care cost curve and put the DOD on a diet. Making it accountable with passing a GAO audit would be a good first step.
@74
The top 400 households have approx. 50% of our country’s money. The other millions of Americans share (unequally) the other 50%. So let’s go after the millions who share 50% ?