Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama news conference #2 (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well let's see (12+ / 0-)

    his actions have expanded medicaid, added 8 years to medicare via the ACA, protected social security and medicare benefits from the sequester cuts.

    Pretty good track record so far.

    •  All that's good, but where he's wrong is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Picot verde, Laconic Lib

      shown in this statement

      But Obama says it seems as though the GOP isn't primarily interested in deficit reduction, rather they are on a ideological bender and are obsessed with going after things like Social Security and Medicare.
      That still indicates he still buys the whole premise that the government needs "debt reduction".

      That's a fundamental misunderstanding -- we need a BIGGER deficit.

      If he maintains that misunderstanding, it will substantially harm the economy and his legacy.

      The problem is, even most Progressives don't understand this.

      And we need to understand in order to teach him.

      We've been living in a modern monetary reality (aka Modern Monetary Theory) but being taught we're still living in a neoliberal world.

      United We Understand

      by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:03:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What part of "10 years" do you find confusing? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glynis, askew

        For some time now, every spending/tax/financial plan that comes out of DC is described over teh next ten years.

        That's a fundamental misunderstanding -- we need a BIGGER deficit.
        LIKE F**K WE DO!

        Not over a 10 year horizon. The entirety of American governance ought not to be done under Keynesian deficit spending principles. At some point in the next 10 years the recession will be over. Like HELL we don't want to reduce the debit over that period.

        There is name for the policies you favor. It is REAGANOMICS and what you are calling for is the primary culprit behind America's existing wealth imbalance.

        I'll leave defending Reaganomics to you.

    •  BUT BUT BUT (6+ / 0-)

      He's just waiting for the right moment to unilaterally abolish the whole safety net.

      Honestly, the argument that so many here try to make is the other side of the coin to people at red state that scream he is trying to unilaterally take all the guns away. They say he wants their guns, people here say he wants granny's thyroid pills.

      •  He doesn't want to "abolish the whole safety net" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrooth, Laconic Lib

        But he does think that the deficit needs to be reduced.

        And, already, by allowing the payroll tax reduction to expire, has shown he is willing to cut spending.

        So, that means, that, in the end -- whether or not there is a shutdown -- there will likely be cuts.

        To balance the budget.

        When the deficit should be INCREASED.

        United We Understand

        by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:10:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ok (0+ / 0-)
          When the deficit should be INCREASED.
          weren't the Republicans howling because the deficit was increased with the tax cuts, UI extension, and other stimulus extensions he just signed?
          •  Last -July- a WH spokesman said (0+ / 0-)

            that the extension of payroll tax reduction was always known be temporary.

            … the White House Web site continues to brag that the president last year fought for “middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from losing an average of $40 per paycheck, enabling them to keep about $1,000 of their hard-earned money.” That sentence is referring to the payroll tax cut.
             A White House official argues that a) the debate currently is about income taxes and no one is trying to solve all outstanding tax issues and b) the payroll taxes were always known to be temporary. In contrast, this official argued, the Bush tax cuts — at least for the middle class — were always supported as being permanent, even though Congress did not write the law that way. (Got that?)[emphasis added]
            That's his mindset. He -- like Dems AND most progressives -- has bought the malarkey.

            United We Understand

            by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:28:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  But, as an indicator, he thought (0+ / 0-)

            the payroll tax reduction was always intended to be temporary

            From WaPo last JULY

            … the White House Web site continues to brag that the president last year fought for “middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from losing an average of $40 per paycheck, enabling them to keep about $1,000 of their hard-earned money.” That sentence is referring to the payroll tax cut.
             A White House official argues that a) the debate currently is about income taxes and no one is trying to solve all outstanding tax issues and b) the payroll taxes were always known to be temporary. In contrast, this official argued, the Bush tax cuts — at least for the middle class — were always supported as being permanent, even though Congress did not write the law that way. (Got that?)[emphasis added]

            United We Understand

            by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:33:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  what's your point? (0+ / 0-)

              there was a great deal of progressive howling about the payroll tax cut to begin with being seen as weakening social security.  So now you're saying it shouldn't have been temporary?

              •  Right -- iiuc, progressives were, (0+ / 0-)

                in the big picture mistaken to buy the linkage between payroll tax and social security.

                The big picture is that the government is one entity -- in and out from the one entity. It's called "sectoral balances" in MMT (and elsewhere).

                There are smaller arguments like about the $100K limit, etc.

                But, by buying into the discussion about whether "it pays for itself for xx years", we've already lost.

                We have a monetarily sovereign government -- a social construct that "We, the People" created for OUR benefit.

                We can create money -- for "social security", "environmental security", "infrastructure integrity", you name it. The debate should be what to spend on and biggest benefit for the buck.

                That's where the debate should be.

                And can do so without fear of inflation in down times. Lots of it. Up to the point of full employment (where resources start being constrained and prices therefore rise).

                Please read the MMT literature I pointed to.

                United We Understand

                by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:51:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Elections (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site