Skip to main content

View Diary: Waxman channels many of us (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's not just the media (0+ / 0-)

    I still stand by previous statements that I won't vote for ANYONE for president who doesn't have a serious deficit reduction plan in 2012. Obama included.

    •  the ONLY serious deficit reduction plan is this: (7+ / 0-)

      raise taxes on the wealthy.

      •  That is a major portion of it (0+ / 0-)

        However, I don't take people who pooh pooh trying to cut spending very seriously, though.  Much like I don't take people who pooh pooh raising taxes on the rich very seriously either.

        •  But the one part of the budget that NEEDS cutting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is the one part that pretty much can't be cut. "Defense" spending. Our members of Congress are too chickenshit to stand up to the military-industrial complex who provide jobs in almost every district in the country. We need to make our military more efficient and effective, but the way things are set up right now, we can't. Shame too, since if we could cut our military budget by half, that'd go a long way towards fixing the deficit.

          The super-bloated defense budget is the one thing that makes me support giving the President a limited line-item veto. Since executives of both parties tend to be more pragmatic than Congress.

          "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." --Obama, 1/20/09

          by SouthernFried on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:21:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  what can you cut? (0+ / 0-)

          I ask this seriously... what can be cut from the Federal budget, that is actually substantial?

          •  90% of the military budget (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, fizziks

            The US spends more on its military than the entire rest of the world combined--while maintaining hundreds of bases in most countries of the world---------against nobody.

            The Cold War ended two decades ago.  May I respectfully suggest that continuing to fight it today, is a really really stupid idea? Our opponent no longer even exists. It's time to declare that the war is over.

            There is no one on this planet--absolutely nobody--who presents any realistic threat to our society, and certainly nobody who can justify the massively bloated military super-state that we waste trillions every year to prop up.

            It's time to end it.

            And by the way, the very idea that we need a massive Cold-War-level military state to defend us against . . .  twenty guys with boxcutters . . .  is too stupid to even take seriously.

      •  It Begins There. But As Some Have Pointed Out (0+ / 0-)

        the deficit concern meme is not more important to the public at large than creating jobs.

        Yes, the poll indicates that 42% approve of the Obama approach to the economy while 57% disapprove.  It even indicates that Americans feel the current economic conditions are poor.

        But the poll also indicates that President Obama should stimulate the economy (57%) or create jobs (74%) even if it means "less deficit reduction."  

        While collective deficit hysteria fully grips Washington, what the American people really care about is jobs and the economy. According to a new CBS News poll,  38 percent of Americans think the most important problem facing our country is the economy and jobs. Second is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at seven percent. Health care comes in third at about six percent, and all the way back in fourth place, with a mere five percent, is the budget deficit and national debt.

        And the priority placed on quality of life issues as the deficit is reduced is reflected in polling as well.

        The question posed was "If Congress and the President had to reduce spending, which of these areas would you reduce spending?"  The areas included were Social Security, Medicare, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, education, unemployment compensation for people out of work and looking for jobs, healthcare, Medicaid (which provides health care for low income families)  and defense spending other than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Here are the results for these questions:

        Category Would reduce, % Would not reduce, %
        Social Security 12 86
        Medicare        16 82
        Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 55 41
        Education        17 82
        Unemployment compensation for people out of work and looking for jobs 34 63
        Healthcare        28 68
        Medicaid, which provides health care for low income families                20 77
        Defense spending other than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan             46 50

    •  oh. sorry. didn't know you were a deficit hawk :) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, jennylind

      I disagree that deficit is major problem of our time. or even in top 5.

      There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

      by srkp23 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:54:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, you would have been for Landon in '36? (0+ / 0-)

      The only newscaster on Fox that you can trust is Kent Brockman.

      by Van Buren on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:55:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Landon (0+ / 0-)

        was on the GOP ticket in 2012 it would be an extraordinary change for the better for the GOP since he wasn't actually all that bad.

        •  From all I've read (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, Betty Pinson

          he was a decent guy. And I know that permanent large deficits are unsustainable. But now is not the time to be a deficit hawk-especially since all proposed cuts hit the wrong targets.

          The only newscaster on Fox that you can trust is Kent Brockman.

          by Van Buren on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:03:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not opposed (0+ / 0-)

            to smaller, targeted stimulus, or aid to states or unemployment.  Those are things that typically go directly into the economy while being, relatively anyway, small.

            However, I read something on one of the dem blogs, I can't remember if it was here or TPM or what, which essentially advocated putting everyone to work via federal spending on infrastructure.

            While this sounds like a great plan to begin with, I immediately had to think exactly how much money that would take, how much more in the hole that would put us (unless you countered it with some sort of take hike) and whether, after you had finished all the projects after 5 years, how much better shape we'd be in.  Private employment is the only way to get the economy back long term.  Publicly funded employment like the stimulus can help stop the bleeding or can help nudge a recovery, but publicly funded jobs (even if the technical employers are private) should not, and really cannot, sustain the economy for very long.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site