Skip to main content

Photobucket
http://www.cbpp.org/...

Why not pound this fact home over and over and over again.

The very people that are calling the unemployed "funemployed" are enjoying the very same tax cuts that sunk us into deficit spending and who beat the war drums that also played/play a major role in creating/increasing our deficits.

Photobucket
http://www.warresisters.org/...

11% General Government,  how much smaller can government get?

The GOP policies caused the deficit and prolongs long-term unemployment.  

We need to call them on their lies 24/7.

The first chart above is from a 2004 report by the Center for Budget and Priorities  

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes...
 
Executive Summary

The Bush Administration has stood in favor of tax cuts through thick and thin.  In the midst of a booming economy and large projected budget surpluses, President Bush’s top economic policy initiative — both as a candidate in 2000 and upon taking office — was to cut taxes.  When the economy slowed, the Bush Administration’s response also was dominated by tax cuts.  Now, in the face of yawning deficits and its own pledge to reduce them, the Administration has again put forward large, permanent tax cuts as part of its most recent budget.

http://www.cbpp.org/...

Emphasis, mine.

IMO, this chart demonstrates that tax cuts increase the deficit because we know who implemented the tax cuts:  Reagan and Bush II

Photobucket
http://zfacts.com/...
ibid.

And that Trickle Down Theory, Bogus!  During the Bush administration, the country had the weakest economic expansion since WWII

Photobucket

For six of the seven indicators, the average annual growth rate between 2001 and 2007 was below the average growth rate for the comparable periods of other post-World War II economic expansions.  

Notably, this expansion was among the weakest since World War II with respect to both overall economic growth and growth in fixed non-residential investment.  These two indicators should have captured any positive “growth effects” of the tax cuts.

The labor market also was weaker during the 2001-2007 expansion.  Both employment growth and wage and salary growth were weaker during this expansion as a whole than in any prior expansion since the end of World War II.

The 2001-2007 expansion outperformed the average post-World War II expansion in only one area:  corporate profits, which grew much more rapidly than average.

http://www.cbpp.org/...

Conclusion:  Republicans bad for economy, good for corporate profits.

The true cause of our deficits is reported by The Center on budget and Policy Priorities.  The GOP lies are exposed.

The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation’s long-term deficit problem. But we should not mistake the causes of our predicament.

Here's a chart from the same source article, dated 1/17/2010 as the above quote:

Photobucket
http://www.cbpp.org/...

One more time:

THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE WARS CREATED THE DEFICITS, THE RECESSION MADE THEM A BIT WORSE.

Listen to the words of the grand daughter whose grandfather installed the Times Square debt clock:

And many of these very same screeching deficit hawks run and sit on the boards of many of the companies that fired.....laid off millions of Americans and are now receiving larger dividends on their investments in the very same companies that FIRED US.

For empirical evidence, you can read details here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...

How sick is this!  

We need to rub the FACTS in their faces over and over and over again.

Even the teabag people should be outraged by the facts, but not if they don't know them.  

THIS IS WHY THERE IS LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT!  imho

These two charts whisper to my intuition.  Corporate cash-on-hand has risen to its highest increased levels since 1952, from 2007-Present at the same time long-term employment has done the same and the CURVE IS ALMOST IDENTICAL.  Shareholders' dividends/stock values benefit while long-term employment rises.

Is this contributing to long-term unemployment?  The charts seem to indicate it does:

Photobucket
http://online.wsj.com/...

Photobucket

Yell the facts from the roof tops.

The GOP, no surprise, is once again speaking with forked tongues, trying to make their victims look like the perps.

It really upsets me.  How about you?

AN ASIDE OF SORTS

Here's an interesting David Hume quote from

Nothing appears more surprising.....than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few, and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.

When we inquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find that, as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.

It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments as well as the most free and popular.

Which is why Fox News was brought on board:  To Dictate Opinion

Shared as food for thought.  Although, with all the military technology developed with our tax dollars over the past ten years, I wonder if, in truth, force is on our side?

The force we have is the "power of the purse".  

How I would love to see us, united as a country, take down one multi-national at a time via boycotts.  It would have to be something with no real use or purpose like.....Soda Pop.  Just stop buying it.  It's really bad for your health anyway.

But even this is probably more then we can bare.  All those jobs depending on soda pop.  

Have we just become sitting ducks?

Originally posted to War on Error on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:29 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (219+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, TXdem, c2shiningc, hester, ferg, casamurphy, Gooserock, emal, DebtorsPrison, Shockwave, Fishgrease, tacet, eeff, frsbdg, mataliandy, expatjourno, rasbobbo, Gustogirl, opinionated, sfgb, djMikulec, srkp23, DaleA, semiot, ctsteve, splashy, wader, psnyder, TexDem, Dr Colossus, gmb, Bailey Savings and Loan, gerrilea, jaywillie, churchylafemme, Sychotic1, Catte Nappe, rockhound, AbsurdEyes, chickeee, dkmich, walkshills, Oaktown Girl, Matt Esler, djtyg, zett, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, ScienceMom, Josiah Bartlett, bibble, sawgrass727, joanneleon, humphrey, maybeeso in michigan, marina, radarlady, 3goldens, NoMoreLies, Ckntfld, wsexson, relentless, panicbean, Simplify, basquebob, Bouwerie Boy, majcmb1, jimreyn, ladybug53, Tunk, WisePiper, CWalter, Ginny in CO, wigwam, FindingMyVoice, LivesInAShoe, Ekaterin, dancewater, third Party please, vigilant meerkat, dharmafarmer, profundo, tonyahky, buckstop, deha, blueoasis, danktle, JVolvo, bleeding heart, el cid, MarciaJ720, spotDawa, Cassiodorus, blueoregon, revgerry, mariachi mama, Nulwee, DBunn, Thinking Fella, tegrat, One Pissed Off Liberal, JohnnySacks, marykk, lightfoot, Haningchadus14, Loudoun County Dem, camlbacker, leema, DocbytheBay, Dartagnan, moosely2006, yoduuuh do or do not, DWG, aliasalias, jayden, Jack58, st minutia, theChild, Uberbah, jnhobbs, NorthlandLiberal, LWelsch, A Person, willb48, Terra Mystica, JDWolverton, MyBrainWorks, rogerdaddy, JeffW, ChocolateChris, scooter in brooklyn, Involuntary Exile, elwior, jamess, Cassandra Waites, geomoo, pickandshovel, Jeff Y, petulans, o the umanity, luckylizard, James Kresnik, DixieDishrag, Karl Rover, Blueslide, allie123, jdl51, palantir, ekyprogressive, HoosierDeb, cameoanne, SciMathGuy, Turn Left, Leftcenterlibertarian, DontTaseMeBro, Are We There Yet, eltee, Methinks They Lie, shopkeeper, DClark4129, allep10, blueocean, LookingUp, ozarkspark, bryker, sulthernao, awcomeon, LaughingPlanet, eXtina, Susan from 29, jethrock, SeattleTammy, Taxmancometh, angelajean, ATFILLINOIS, Garfnobl, elginblt, ItsSimpleSimon, Benintn, juturna, DrFitz, NYWheeler, JRandomPoster, washunate, Betty Pinson, skillet, Colorado is the Shiznit, Gracian, BlueJessamine, Mistral Wind, cckids, marleycat, majii, dle2GA, BarackStarObama, tardis10, PeggyD, diceyproposition, whoknu, MadamE, whaddaya, VTCC73, SoCalSal, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Ezekial 23 20, MichaelNY, anthony21, CalliopeIrjaPearl, jacey, RhodaA, Siri, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, dance you monster, Eric Nelson, rukidingme, West Michigan Dem, Frisbeetarian

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:29:52 AM PDT

  •  Do You Have Access to a Variant of That First (21+ / 0-)

    chart that shows deficits without the Reagan tax cuts as well?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:31:44 AM PDT

    •  No, we can look for some (5+ / 0-)

      we need search language.

      What would you suggest as a search phrase?

      •  So if my income doubles and my spending triples. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo

        Then the fact my income only doubled was the cause of my deficit spending?  

        I think most in "real" life might look to the tripling of spending as the REAL cause.

        Go examine the 80's government income/expenses.

      •  Not My Speciality, Unfortunately. If I Had a (0+ / 0-)

        good idea I'd have done the search.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:31:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Used to, if you want to leave out a word (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya

      in search, you put a minus sign, -Reagan, and it wouldn't bring up any with that word in it.

      I tried that the other day on another search but it didn't work.

      It may work for you, though.

      We didn't say Wealth Care, we said Health Care

      by relentless on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:49:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also type in what you want (0+ / 0-)

        to search for:  deficit chart -Reagan.  Click the search button.  On that page click at the very top for images and it will show the images instead of the heading.

        We didn't say Wealth Care, we said Health Care

        by relentless on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:53:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Here's a deficit chart (18+ / 0-)

      It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even an economist, to see the correlation between tax cuts and deficit increases.  

      It's clear in the charts below.  When tax cuts are given, the deficit increases.

      Photobucket

      Does this address your desire for a chart?  If not, I will keep up pestering "the google"

      •  The better chart would just show (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo

        Total taxes collected and total spending, as deficits are determined by tax collections and spending.  Singer McHammer had a massive income but an even more massive spending rate so he went bankrupt.

        The deficits in the 1980s were a period of rapiid increases in social spending and military spending - federal spending increased from $591 billion in 1980 to  $1253 in 1990 a 112% increase (inflation was higher however).  The 2001-2008 period also had a rapid increase in spending from $1863 billion in 2001 to $2983 billion in 2008 a 60% increase.  This period also had a large increase in military and social spending (Medicare drug benefit for example)

        The Clinton years had a major reduction in military spending with the end of the cold-war, and a reduction in the growth of social spending.  Spending went from $1410 in 1993 to $1789 billion in 2000 a less than 27% increase in spending.  It also had a major reduction in taxes on capital gains from 28% to 20%, so it is misleading to characterize the Clinton years as one of tax rate increases.

        The surplus during the Clinton years has far more to do with restrained spending than tax rates.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:10:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. Like Your First Chart, Needs 2 Lines (0+ / 0-)

        Deficit with the tax cuts.

        Deficit if both sets of tax cuts had not happened.

        Except I'm pretty sure there'd have been no deficit.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:32:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Defict under different tax policies not really (0+ / 0-)

          known.

          Behavior of private sector can dramatically change so GDP is different, as well as different tax avoidance is taken.  For example, having a higher corporate tax rate than most all of the developed world results in companies recognizing profits (and tax liability) outside the US.  So the high tax rate results in lower tax collection to the US and enhanced collection to foreign governments.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:34:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  How much smaller can government get? (31+ / 0-)

    It could get about 18% smaller, if we halve current military. We'd still have enough money to clobber Eurasia and East Asia into oblivion.

    The GOP's pportunities are moving away due to their case of incurable, rabid incoherence.

    by Nulwee on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:32:41 AM PDT

  •  The Big Forked Tongue is the US Chamber (40+ / 0-)

    They're advertising Portman (r) for senate here in Ohio, big time, on cutting more taxes to create jobs instead of unemployment, and get rid of deficits.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:33:42 AM PDT

  •  Yes we do but HOW? (19+ / 0-)

    HOW HOW HOW?

    We need to rub the FACTS in their faces over and over and over again

    ABC News this past Friday reported on unwillingness to extend unemployment as a 'change in DC' and closing the ATM. 'We're out of money, says Congress'. What a nonsensical, no-fact based way to report this. They Out of money? ATM? what the hell does any of that mean? yes, they said to cut some spending somewhere else, so yeah go ahead AND CUT SOME SPENDING!

    when you say 18% gov't what does the 30% HR figure mean, shouldn't that really be part of the gov't making it a total of 48% ?

  •  Facts? The teabaggers don't need no stinkin Facts (9+ / 0-)

    A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy.

    by dry heat dem on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:38:19 AM PDT

  •  I am not buying anything (9+ / 0-)

    I don't absolute have to until these idiots stop the rip off of our people.

    We didn't say Wealth Care, we said Health Care

    by relentless on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:41:13 AM PDT

  •  CHARTS TEACH. CHARTS TEACH. CHARTS TEACH. (26+ / 0-)

    All day, all night, peopLe babble on the teevee machine and have pie fights on blogs, with WORDS.

    WORDS confuse.  WORDS inflame.  WORDS obscure facts.

    Thank you, woe,and all others who give us visuals.

    Remember Ross Perot, get great visuals that teach, resource the FACTS, and get on all the blogs, all the teevee shows, and bring us a change in public understanding.

    "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

    by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:41:19 AM PDT

    •  woe, could you get all the econ gurus on kos (6+ / 0-)

      to form an e-task force to get this job done??????

      The need is desperate and our future is at stake - if the people who yell the loudest win, elites win, we the people are all the losers.

      "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

      by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:52:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed, revgerry (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        revgerry, elwior, blueocean

        And, while we're at it, we need to explain how Social Security has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET DEFICIT. If any of y'all has the ability to communicate directly with Kos, MB and the front pagers, Keith or Rachel, it would be wonderful if you could get their attention directed to this subject.

        •  yes, I agree. and it does have to do with jobs. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CWalter, War on Error, whaddaya

          duh, working people pay into SS.  unemployed do not.

          "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

          by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:06:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  whaddaya - Social Security (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lying eyes, CWalter

          Has nothing to do with the deficit because its not counted, but there are the trillions of unfunded liabilities that need to be addressed at some point. The more immediate issue is the feds cash flow. When SocSec flips from being a net provider of cash to the general fund to a net user of cash it will require the feds to borrow from investors an amount each year that is greater than the annual budget deficit. In the past the borrowing need was reduced by the net positive contribution of Social Security lending its excess cash to the general fund.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:09:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the unfunded liabilities come from the fund's $ (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mataliandy, dkmich, NoMoreLies, whaddaya

            being "borrowed" for other expenditures.  Show me first a chart with all of that paid back.

            "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

            by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:17:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The following is an indictment by Justice (4+ / 0-)

            I offer it here because it well describes the potential of economic kabuki.

            The FED has raped....ahem, borrowed from SS for years.  It is possible that kabuki similar to that performed by the perps listed in the indictment below lurks within the fed budget.  If so, what will our creditors demand?  That each man, woman, and child move to their country as indentured slaves to work off the national debt which stands between $30,000 and $40,000 for each citizen?

            If you have the time, I found reading this indictment eye opening in the ability of individuals and banks to collude and create bogus balances.  Maybe I just have too much time on my hands.

            You can begin towards the end of page six to save time.

            http://www.justice.gov/...

          •  Deficit looks smaller because of borrowing (9+ / 0-)

            from Social Security Trust, which is flush if it were to all be paid back, which it seems it never is.  Kabuki.

            This is a bit longish, but explains the game being played with OUR MONEY!

            Why this matters

            Bush almost cut "deficit lite" in half, but the real total deficit is still taking billions from Social Security. more Deficit "lite" vs. the gross deficit

            The gross deficit is the real "total deficit." Unfortunately, politicians talk about a smaller partial deficit, but call it the "total deficit," so you won't ask about the the real one.

            I'll call it "deficit lite" and I'll call the real one the "gross deficit."

            The gross (total) deficit is bigger because it takes into account that when the fed's general fund (mostly military spending) borrows money from the Social Security Trust Fund, it will have to pay it back. Borrowing from Social Security is still borrowing. Deficit lite, which Bush is talking about, assumes there is no such obligation — that Social Security will not have to be paid back. So the more they borrow from Social Security the smaller is deficit lite.

            Because of this, when more of us have jobs and pay more Social Security, deficit lite goes down because the general fund borrows more from Social Security — which they don't admit they have to pay back — and less from the public (and foreigners) — which is the only part they admit they must pay back.

            How can they call "deficit lite" the "total deficit"?
            As you might expect, it's a bit confusing. The "deficit lite" is basically the gross (total) deficit (military spending, etc.) plus all the extra money that comes in from Social Security. Since the Social Security surplus is added, they call this sum the "Total Deficit."

            This is what's happening. The gross deficit is about $550B and when you subtract $300B coming in from Social Security you get the $250B deficit lite. Tastes better.

            But subtracting does not sound like you're getting a total. So they turn it all upside down. They say the gross deficit is minus $550 and then they add the $300B from social security, and get minus $250. Since, with signs reversed, they are "adding" they call their answer of -$250B the "total" deficit even though its much much smaller than the gross deficit, which is the real total deficit.

            You can check out this charade in the Economic Report of the President, Table B-78. (Economists put up with this because (1) they're paid to, (2) they have a legitimate use for the deficit lite number, and (3) their political bosses love it.)

            http://zfacts.com/...

            Here's the chart from the same source cited:
            Photobucket

          •  The current balance in the SS Trust Funds (5+ / 0-)

            is 2.5 T for Trillion dollars in Treasury bills. These can be redeemed only for the purpose of paying SS benefits. That's the law. Now, if Pete Peterson and his pals can get Congress to change the law, thereby defaulting on these T bills, then two things will happen. First, the world economy will fall into chaos because the US Treasury would have defaulted on a debt owed by the people of the US to the people of the US. Second, there is no second. The end is the end.

            But, cheer up. The US government has the power to pay its own debts through credits to the Federal Reserve. In short, the US has no need to borrow anything from private lenders, no matter how they would like that. Don't forget that the Fed sets the interest rates in the US and for the payment of Treasury bonds. So, no inflation need result. As to the idea that the whole Trust Fund has been borrowed, it has but the debt exceeds the Trust Fund by something like 4 to 1 right now. Kinda argues against the SS is the Fount of All Evil argument, doesn't it?

            Now, you can learn something about this subject at the Angry Bear Blog. You can educate yourself in a day or two of concentrated reading and come away with an understanding of why the Deficit Hawks advocate destructive fiscal policies.

            The Angry Bear's Social Security Series

            Whaddaya

      •  We need to beg Bonddad to come back (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ladybug53, revgerry, VClib

        and we all need to stop the pie fights.

        There is more than one way to fight the deficit.

        The Republicans CLAIM to care about big government and spending, but no one believes them anymore.  And in this recession, the cuts they propose will cut to the bone.

        Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

        by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:00:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who would you suggest? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueocean

        Looks like bobswern is away this weekend.  Who else?

         

        •  if you all put together a task force before nn (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueocean

          and gathered/put together  charts that would get media coverage there and that we can take home, especially virtually and virally,  we could all benefit greatly.  

          I don't know who, I am not a frequent poster on econ posts (looks like that's about to change), so you know better than I.  Please make sure the facts have been well documented.

          "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

          by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:42:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  jamess has offered some help, see way below. nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angie in WA State

          "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

          by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:00:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  If the Deficit Hawks win at his juncture .. (18+ / 0-)

    we're screwed .
     Put people to work, fix the economy , the tax code,
    and then work on the deficit. I don't believe we'll starve our way out of this recession , which is really a depression for segments of our citizenry.
     We can't even get a freaking unemployment extension
    out of this congress.
     I don't feel so good.

    " We got tar balls all the time ". ~ Gov. Haley Barbour 6/8/10

    by jnhobbs on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:48:04 AM PDT

  •  The error here (8+ / 0-)

    is that inflation is some trumping evil.

    Even if our "creditors" refuse to fund the deficit, print away.

    Most of the wealth stored up by the elites was stolen anyway, and the upper-middle class stupidly aided and abetted the theft by voting for it etc.

    The evil is that our civilization is poised for a collapse and that billions will die in the ensuing conflagration.

    A little inflation is nothing in comparison.

    For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

    by Paul Goodman on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:50:08 AM PDT

  •  Deficit hawks don't have to support tax cuts. (17+ / 0-)

    In fact, increasing taxes can be a practical piece of cutting the deficit. Especially if the tax increase is coupled with real cuts to the budget.

    "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

    by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:51:56 AM PDT

    •  The point is that (as in England) (11+ / 0-)

      the axe looks to be falling first on the bottom of the social hierarchy.

      I'm insisting that the axe fall first on the thieves at the top, then, as good citizens, the rest of us will follow suit with some token sacrifices.

      For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

      by Paul Goodman on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:53:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "as good citizens" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whaddaya

        That is hardly comforting. I think everyone must make an equal sacrifice in budget cuts.

        Resentment and cheating are the only tidings of targeting one group over the other. It must be a universal cut for everyone. Proportionally the rich will pay more obviously, but everyone is going to take a hard hit to reduce the deficit.

        We all benefitted from the deficit spending and all must pay to get us back from the brink.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:59:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reversing the tax cuts will decrease deficit (13+ / 0-)

          as demonstrated in the diary.

          Cutting social services in the worst economic downturn since the Depression, now quaintly referred to by the IMF as austerity measures, is the worst possible direction to take, unless of course, creating world wide chaos is the objective, which I think it is.

          It's just Orwellian.  Creating poverty is good for the economy.

          You have to be kidding.  And people buy this?

          Shame on Milt Friedman and his cohorts like Summers and Geithner and their IMF cronies.  Shame!

          •  woe, are there figures on US investors (0+ / 0-)

            in foreign economies vs our own?

            And can you support adjusting capital gains taxation in favor of American-registered, American tax-paying, American labor-providing corporations?

            What amount of difference would influence investment behavior to return stability to US capital??

            "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

            by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:26:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  um, I mean investment in American jobs..nt (0+ / 0-)

              "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

              by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:28:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  ok (0+ / 0-)

              your questions focus on the investor.

              Volume investing is done through Funds which list a balance of  diverse stocks, many of which are now international.

              As far as tax revenue for the American tax payer, it isn't affected by the components, just the portfolio balance, plus or minus for the year.

              The capital gain to the individual investor is on their portfolios performance in whole for a tax year.

              Individual investors:  I would like to see capital gains taxes set up to reflect volume/value, or a progressive tax, with 0% to the investor with combined investment assets worth $100,000 or less and who isn't flipping/shorting stocks; and perhaps 80% for investors with investment assets worth more than $5,000,000 and a progressive tax on those gaming the system which causes problems for others based on volume of trades.  I am a proponent of per share transactions fees, but not for the small players, just the volume players.

              Corporate investors: Here is where an incentive for hiring humans could be created corporations paid less income/capital gains tax on profits/gains reinvested in JOB GROWTH and higher taxes if their profits/gains is invested in other things, especially acquisition of other companies which is creating monopolies all over again.

              The problems we see today are the hints needed to tweek our system of capitalism.

              Unless it hurts corporations in the pocket book, they won't change and long-term unemployment will become the norm, especially for those with time in, having earned a higher wage than a new hire.  

              Here's a thought:  How about all the corporations that laid off 6% or more of their employees be required to pay 25% into unemployment insurance pool?  or 50%  better yet, 100% of their new found wealth in the form of cash on hand!

              As the charts demonstrate above, under our current system the investor is receiving a higher dividend as more employees are being laid off.

              I would focus on the corporation.  Doing so raises a host of different questions.

      •  England just raised their capital gains taxes tho (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        revgerry, War on Error, Benintn

        We'll see what happens here...

        The San Francisco Bay Bridge, MADE IN CHINA

        by east bay on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:22:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  TAX INCREASEs on the elite reduces deficit. nt (10+ / 0-)

      Tax increases on the poor and middle class reduces jobs and increases the deficit..

      "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

      by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:54:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ahumbleopinion

        Tax increases on the poor and middle class doesn't reduce jobs. The poor aren't creating jobs. Taxing the poor is just foolish if the goal is to increase revenue. You hunt where the ducks are.

        Tax increases on the rich can help reduce a deficit and they aren't always a bad thing even in economic downtimes. Because right now the deficit is such a concern that credit and private enterprise are frozen in fear. So they aren't using their funds to invest. So take that money and pay down the deficit such that the real worry stunting growth is gone.

        You have to get the deficit under control though.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:57:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the poor do create jobs. they spend all their (19+ / 0-)

          income in the local economy.  If the government taxes them, it decreases gdp.

          The rich are encouraged to invest overseas to grow their personal wealth.  People miss the fact that the wealthy no longer are interested in investing in America...they have moved on.

          "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

          by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:00:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            So you don't think the rich pour money into the economy? Seriously? They stay rich by diversifying their investments, this is true, but they invest in the US and they live here so they spend a great deal of money on their comforts here.

            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

            by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:03:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But they lobby to do it for free. (11+ / 0-)

              If you honestly think that the wealthiest Americans are "paying their fair share," then I frankly disagree with you.

              Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

              by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:05:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When did I say they were paying their fair share? (0+ / 0-)

                I've said raising taxes is a viable way to increase revenue to cut the deficit in conjunction with spending cuts.

                Some just say we can cut deficits, increase spending, and just tax one group to reach harmony.

                Everyone must tighten his/her belt. Everyone will have to sacrifice. And everyone will have to pay higher taxes and get less services to cut the deficit.

                "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:08:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  seems to me the "sacrifice" is currently dispro- (10+ / 0-)

                  portionate...on the backs of the people and to the benefit of those who have stolen the treasury blind by extracting wealth from America and investing it elsewhere,

                  "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

                  by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Few sacrifice in America today. (0+ / 0-)

                    Most borrow and spend money they don't have to maintain lifestyles they don't need and can't afford.

                    But if you want to get rid of the deficit it can't be a disproportionate sacrifice in any direction.

                    "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                    by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:13:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK, this is where I get pissed. (17+ / 0-)

                      That is a load of crap.

                      We've got 10% unemployment.

                      We've got a military that's bleeding and dying overseas.

                      There is a small, loud, nasty minority of people who aren't sacrificing.  But your claim is a load of crap.

                      Millions of Americans are making sacrifices right now.  You've got empty nest parents with boomerang kids. You've got young graduates doing Teach for America and other public service jobs.  You've got HUGE underemployment.

                      There is a lot of sacrificing going on in this country - lots of people going without what they want and many going without what they need.

                      The politicians don't sacrifice and they're convinced that Americans don't want to.  But it is not true.  Americans want to do the right thing and they want to sacrifice for something noble and great.  But they don't want to bend over and take it from BP, multinational conglomerates, and elected officials who seem to act like they know how to spend our money better than we do.

                      Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

                      by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:19:42 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Being unemployed sucks, but isn't a sacrifice. (0+ / 0-)

                        The term sacrifice denotes volunteering to give up something, usually for a greater good/reward later.

                        Being unemployed is not a sacrifice. It isn't a choice. It is a miserable situation to be in, but it isn't sacrifice.

                        I don't feel you are being realistic. I think you are living in a dream world where most Americans are really wanting to do right and help everyone, but a small minority keeps blocking it.

                        That isn't so! This type of worldview clouds your judgment. Since you believe there is only small group (somehow they are all powerful though) that are blocking the vast majority from doing what's right, you then logically conclude (from a false premise) that we should just target that small group because everyone else is on board.

                        It isn't so. You've got people that bought houses they couldn't afford and went to school to get degrees that weren't marketable (and really majored in partying). You've got old people that don't care about how the next generation makes it because they want their Medicare and Social Security now and fuck the rest of us. You've got middle class families buying every luxury on credit to keep up with other white middle class families that are buying every luxury on credit.

                        This is a culture of debt in the US. It isn't a small group. It isn't rare to see. It is everywhere. We wouldn't have the deficit we have if this were isolated to a small group. We wouldn't have the debt problems in American families if this was isolated and small.

                        You must realize the entire country has been running up debt like there was no consequences. Not just the rich. Not just republicans. It was everybody.

                        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                        by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:28:41 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The entire country hasn't been running up debt... (7+ / 0-)

                          ...the people who run the country have been leaving wages stagnant for the past thirty years so people can't keep up. Deciding to become willfully homeless because wages are stagnant isn't really an option, and what's leading to them becoming homeless now wasn't caused by the American public.

                          The sleep of reason produces monsters.

                          by Alumbrados on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:32:23 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Wow. (5+ / 0-)

                          You're telling me people without jobs don't have to make sacrifices?

                          So ... people who suffer at the hands of others' neglect don't count?  Because they're not making sacrificing?

                          Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

                          by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:32:44 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Not if the term sacrifice has any meaning. (0+ / 0-)

                            From webster:

                            Sacrifice

                            destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents </p>

                            The word sacrifice is not the correct term.

                            I'm talking about sacrifice because I'm picking the word carefully and not trying to gain emotional points.

                            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                            by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:08:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  a classic internet tradition: (5+ / 0-)

                            he who resorts to websters, loses the argument

                            people know where they are hurting, what they are doing without, and who is bearing the brunt.

                            the also know who who isn't.

                            words mean nothing when people are evicted, when college grads have no future, when people get laid off can not find another job, and when kids go to bed hungry every night.

                            the disconnect between REALITY and TALK ends when people start feeling pain.

                            we're there.

                            300 college hours; three degrees; no job. Seeking graphics arts, video editing job. Email at home page.

                            by LivesInAShoe on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:17:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Pay no attention (0+ / 0-)

                            to those who continue to try to convince The People that all this is The People's Fault.

                            Because it's not.

                            Yeah, we're pissed, but at least WE don't have to make shit up like teabaggers do...

                            by o the umanity on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:36:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  it's already tightened to the point of gangrene (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Angie in WA State

                  And everyone will have to pay higher taxes and get less services to cut the deficit.

                  300 college hours; three degrees; no job. Seeking graphics arts, video editing job. Email at home page.

                  by LivesInAShoe on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:09:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  excuse me (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NoMoreLies, o the umanity

                    i didn't c&p the entire quote:

                    Everyone must tighten his/her belt. Everyone will have to sacrifice. And everyone will have to pay higher taxes and get less services to cut the deficit.

                    as i said, the belt has been tightened so much the patient is now getting gangrene in his lower extremities.

                    300 college hours; three degrees; no job. Seeking graphics arts, video editing job. Email at home page.

                    by LivesInAShoe on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:12:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  and I don't think so either. Do you have numbers (0+ / 0-)

              that say that the rich put more into the US economy then they are paid from the US economy?

    •  Revenue is the key right now. (5+ / 0-)

      Military spending is small relative to US history.

      Debt to GDP is relatively low.

      The issue is revenue - nothing more or less.

      Obama wanted to grow the economy in the short term, increase liquidity, and stabilize the banking system.

      Mission accomplished.

      But more to be done - now we need to find a sponge to soak up that liquidity - and the sponge is taxation.

      Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

      by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:02:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Revenue and spending cuts. (0+ / 0-)

        Across the board spending cuts. You can't cut deficits by just raising revenue. You might get revenue up to matching current spending, but that does nothing to cut the deficit already created it just halts expansion.

        You have to raise revenue and cut spending to actually cut a deficit. It is probably one of the more difficult things to do in a representative republic because every interest group with a sacred cow on the chopping block will scream bloody murder.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:05:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. I don't advocate across the board cuts. (6+ / 0-)

          I advocate for cuts that get rid of programs we don't need.

          We need to spend MORE on education, more on mass transit, more on green jobs, more on clean energy, more on energy independence.

          We need to spend more on research and development, more on tech and science, more on job creation, more on a smart grid, more on broadband access.

          Short term, we need to grow revenue and we can't do that if the economy keeps shrinking.

          Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

          by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:08:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Growing revenue alone won't cut it. (0+ / 0-)

            We are already spending more than we bring in. Raising revenue, at best, can only match what we are currently doing. Assuming you mean cutting bad programs and shifting that money to things like education, you are still only talking about actually paying for the projects rather than borrowing to fund them.

            That doesn't cut a deficit. To cut a deficit you must not only increase revenue, but you have to stop spending as much as you were when you brought about the deficit.

            Increasing revenue alone will simply allow you to stop expanding the deficit. You won't cut it.

            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

            by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Neither do spending cuts. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              revgerry, Betty Pinson

              We need revenue.

              Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

              by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:20:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I do not advocate across the board cuts. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              opinionated, revgerry, Betty Pinson

              That is not smart.  And it won't help.

              Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

              by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:20:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure it will. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk

                To cut a deficit you have to increase revenue, ie increase the money flowing in, and cut spending, ie the money going out. Then with the excess funds you gained from tax increases and saved from cutting spending you begin to pay down the deficit.

                That's how it works.

                "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:30:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  umm, that doesn't make any sense (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              opinionated, wsexson, east bay, revgerry

              deficit (surplus) = spending - revenues

              If revenues exceed spending, you have a surplus. You can certainly create a surplus by increasing revenues to exceed spending.

              That's basic arithmetic, elementary school stuff.

              •  But revenue increases along (0+ / 0-)

                Cannot possibly eliminate the deficit.  

                Significant, across-the-board (including middle class) tax increases can just reduce the deficit to 3% of GDP.  That study is pretty sobering.  

                •  but he made a universal claim, which is clearly (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias

                  nonsense, about deficits in general, not a specific claim about the current deficit in the US.

                  And, yes, we need to cut health care inflation.

                  •  You neglect to factor deficit spending. (0+ / 0-)

                    You can't just increase revenue to cut our deficit when we are spending borrowed money right now to just "break even" as it were. Our budget is such that right now increasing taxes will bring in enough revenue to break even. So how do you cut the deficit you already have when tax increases just allow you to meet your fiscal responsibilities of the current year?

                    Obviously you have to cut the costs so you can meet your budgetary needs and maintain a surplus to pay down the deficit.

                    "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                    by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:03:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  learn the difference between deficit and debt (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emal, NoMoreLies, east bay, aliasalias

                      before you start lecturing people on the budget, okay?

                      And learning some basic budget accounting would help, too. Interest payments on the debt are part of "spending"; they're not some magic third category. You can look it up in the budget; it's all accounted for.

                      •  Well hold on now. (0+ / 0-)

                        Obviously interest is separate from other spending in the budget because you can't cut it.

                        In regards to what can be cut (which is our interest here) you would want to make it known that you can't cut the interest you pay, right?

                        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                        by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:20:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  it's still spending (0+ / 0-)

                          and therefore the budget includes a line item for the interest rates. When you see a deficit number, that number includes the cost of servicing the debt.

                          Now, if you want to break the budget up into parts you want to cut and parts you want to leave alone, then you generally do want to classify interest payments as uncuttable.

                          But that's more detail than you've been interested in so far.

                          •  Perhaps you're just not a generous reader. (0+ / 0-)

                            Especially when you don't like when other people say. From the beginning I've been speaking of raising revenue and cutting spending. You can't cut interest payments so it is fair, in speaking of cutting spending, to consider it separate.

                            I have no idea why you just jump to being snotty and condescending with others, but on this one you were wrong.

                            I'm under no obligation to make you feel as if I meant something in a certain way. Especially when your only interest so far has been to tear me down. In my opinion, you are actually reading it in ways to try and tear me down rather than reading it as a reasonable person would.

                            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                            by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:32:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  selective enforcement is a problem (4+ / 0-)

                            The problem is, deficits only become an issue while a Democrat is in the White House. The Concord Coalition disappeared during the Republican debt-fest. So I just plain don't trust anyone who claims to be concerned about the deficit when it's a convenient time to cut social spending. There are an awful lot of right-wingers and libertarians who cheered Bush's tax cuts and who now claim to be deficit hawks.

                            In this case, if you understood enough of the actual budget situation to delve into details, I'd have respect for your position.

                          •  I understand skepticism of Republicans. (0+ / 0-)

                            But my position is probably closer to your position than I've been able to articulate here.

                            I'm in "Code Red" mode on the budget, but I'm in the same position the party was in with Clinton, Gore, and up through Dean where fiscal responsibility was the watchword.

                            I think right now it's time for scorched earth to get the deficit under control and perhaps codify fiscal sanity while people are shocked by our problems.

                            My opinion is that we win when fiscal responsibility is considered because when people are forced to actually pay for their policy they'll pick our policies over buying the pentagon.

                            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                            by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:25:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Let's try it this way. (0+ / 0-)

                If you are in debt and want to pay it down, there are a couple of options. Assume you have baseline needs and therefore costs you have to cover every month and work an hourly job so you get paid regularly.

                1. Make more money! This would be nice b/c you wouldn't lower your quality of living and you'd still be able to have more money to pay down your debt. Do this if you can...but if you could at a sustainable rate why weren't you already making more money?
                1. Don't spend as much! This is what you do if you have a lot of debt and can't increase your wage. Here you start skimping on things and use the money you save on luxuries (and maybe necessities) to pay down your debt. This sucks, but usually is the way most have to go.
                1. Make more money AND don't spend as much! This option is actually the fastest way to pay down your debt. Because not only will you save by cutting your expenses to the bone, but since you are making more money you have even more to devote to paying down your debt. In the long run you'll save on the interest and this is the optimal option.

                But individuals rarely can do that. The government can and should.

                The Government also has baseline costs they have to cover. Right now they also have a lot of costs that could be cut (think of the Pentagon as a teenager wanting a new Mac every year).

                Unlike the individual, the government is actually only covering their budget through borrowing. That means every dollar spent after a certain point is a dollar added to the deficit.

                So when you are spending borrowed money to reach even, an increase in revenue will only have you reaching even and not getting a surplus.

                To get the surplus necessary to pay down the deficit, the government needs revenue to increase and it needs to cut spending such that it can have a surplus of money to pay down the deficit.

                "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:01:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you've never looked at the budget, have you? (5+ / 0-)

                  which is why you've relying on analogies and bland generalizations.

                  Here's the story of the deficit in reality:

                  1. health care inflation
                  1. health care inflation
                  1. health care inflation
                  1. restore Clinton's tax rates
                  1. restore Clinton's spending rates (including the military and reversing the damn big-pharma giveaway)
                  1. tweak social security

                  But you're not interested in that, are you? If you argue for vague spending cuts, then you can get what you really want:

                  1. cut social and education spending
                  •  Actually I just want balanced budgets. (0+ / 0-)

                    We have a chronic problem in this country of not respecting the price of our behavior. We want to act in certain ways and if we don't like the price of that behavior then we'll ignore it, delay it, or distort it.

                    Of course price functions as a communcative tool to allow people to prioritize their behavior. When you distort, delay, or ignore price you run a great risk of behaving in foolish ways based on false premises.

                    I don't want to cut social and education spending. I just want everyone to understand the cost of things we do! Because once we realized the cost we could prioritize correctly. Now most people think we have endless resources and thus have no need to prioritize.

                    I believe if this country felt the ramifications of prices for policy we'd cut the pentagon to the bone and increase education spending. Because there is a more likely return on our investment on education and infrastructure than there is on fighter jets and tanks to fight monsters under the bed.

                    But I know I don't fit your meme so it doesn't compute. For far too long both sides of the aisle have insisted that we can cut taxes, increase spending, protect all sacred cows, and cut the deficit.

                    Sure...those on the left will get hawkish on cutting defense spending, but if you touch any of their sacred cows BEWARE. The right is the same way except they never saw a defense budget increase they didn't like and never saw social spending they did like.

                    If we hadn't spent the last 30-40 years ignoring the importance of price and balanced budgets we wouldn't be in such a hole today. But we are here and we have to make very difficult choices now to get out of it.

                    "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                    by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:28:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  then you need to understand the details (6+ / 0-)

                      Worrying about the long-term deficit is fine, but you need to learn enough to worry properly.

                      The one thing you need to know about the long-term deficit is that it's all about health-care inflation. Nothing else matters.

                      And what's up with the blaming both sides equally? That's just factually false. Clinton produced a surplus. Gore wanted a lock-box to pay down the debt entirely. In contrast, Reagan and Bush II blew up the debt, not by accident, by policy (I'll give Bush I credit on the deficit but he's hated by the Republicans). The false equivalency doesn't help you understand the actual issue.

                      •  I give credit to Clinton and Gore. (0+ / 0-)

                        To be fair though, Clinton worked with Republicans in Congress to balance the budget. It was a two-way street that arguably couldn't have happened without both sides.

                        I think this country was done a great dis-service when Gore's plan was ridiculed and discarded in favor of Bush's foolish tax cuts.

                        I guess my frustration has stemmed from the recent cry of "deficits don't matter" that is on the front page and rec list here.

                        Many on this site seem to feel we should continue to spend borrowed money with no long term consequences. I know all don't feel that way, but it seems to be the standard view.

                        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                        by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:45:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  you nailed it, ferg (4+ / 0-)

                    the country is sick to death with conservative talking points.

                    even lambs going to the slaughter eventually figure out they are simply meat on the hoof as far as the butchers of the world are concerned.

                    300 college hours; three degrees; no job. Seeking graphics arts, video editing job. Email at home page.

                    by LivesInAShoe on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:23:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  reduce capital gains from companies who pay Ameri (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias, divineorder

            American taxes, register in the US, hire American workers.  Raise capital gains tax on foreign investments.(not registered and paying taxes in US)

            "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

            by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:20:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  way more (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            divineorder

            despite whatever the common nonsense of the day may say.

            my criticism of obama is that he did not address this problem BEFORE tackling healthcare.

            We need to spend MORE on education, more on mass transit, more on green jobs, more on clean energy, more on energy independence.

            We need to spend more on research and development, more on tech and science, more on job creation, more on a smart grid, more on broadband access.

            300 college hours; three degrees; no job. Seeking graphics arts, video editing job. Email at home page.

            by LivesInAShoe on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:20:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Common Cents, please look at this: (4+ / 0-)

          Almost half of our current deficit is from Bush's tax breaks.  A solid third more is from the wars.  But all you can see is entitlement spending (which you call sacred cows), which is just 10% of the problem.  Do you really not know about taxes and their role in controlling deficits? * See this in pie-chart form at http://www.dailykos.com/...
          Now look at the numbers and tell me again that "across the board spending cuts" are what we need.

      •  You mean undo the tax breaks for rich? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State
  •  Do the Debt Calculator project - good stuff (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    revgerry, jnhobbs, divineorder, whaddaya

    and easy to share.

    I was able to easily reduce the debt to 60% of GDP by 2018 by simply raising taxes on the rich and making a few other adjustments.

    Follow on Twitter.

    Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

    by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:58:43 AM PDT

  •  The phrase was "starve the beast." (19+ / 0-)

    That's what neocons said they would do if they got control of the federal government, and that's what they did in the previous two presidential terms.

    They did it in four ways:

    1. Record increases in military spending, even without the war of choice.
    1. The war of choice.
    1. Increases in general spending - especially the medicare bill that gave away money to the drug companies.
    1. The huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

    This was all intentional, and the goal was to create such a large governmental debt that it would be impossible to fund any bills that would help the general non-wealth public.

    They almost succeeded.

    However, the debt is still not as large relative to GDP as they would like you to believe, and good economics still means that more stimulus will produce a net positive effect on the economy and on employment in particular.

    Don't let the neocons and teabaggers sell the argument that the debt is as large as they wanted it to be so that we can't afford to do anything with the government.

    "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

    by LookingUp on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:59:50 AM PDT

  •  Following your theme of... (16+ / 0-)

    "We need to call them on their lies 24/7."

    I just read an excellent piece over at TPM this morning:

    Republicans are Undercutting National Economic Recovery -- and Dems Need to Say So 24/7

    ...The public has no idea what is going on, and just blames Democrats, who appear to be in charge in DC. Now it is happening gain with vital public spending for national economy recovery -- state aid, unemployment relief, and adjustments in taxes and Medicare payments. This legislation is not just important to this or that group. It matters for keeping any semblance of national economic growth going, for creating and saving hundreds of thousands of jobs.

    The President, Congressional leaders, and Democrats of all stripes should be yelling day in, day out, that REPUBLICANS ARE SABOTAGING NATIONAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY. AND PREVENTING JOB GROWTH, JUST FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That should be the message all the time, led by the President. Stop the murky compromises and the whining about "helping the unemployed." Stop pretending this is about the deficit -- nothing will hurt the deficit more than delayed economic growth. Say what it happening in terms of the national interest...

    "Trying to hold back the revision of history is always a good thing." -- Peter Christopherson

    by jethrock on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:01:06 AM PDT

    •  Yes they are. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angie in WA State, NoMoreLies

      Been my thought for a couple of months now.

      Companies are flush with cash-on-hand now that they slashed their employees from the payrolls.  Shameful.

      And they may not rehire, ever, or not until their enablers are back in control of government.  Still, doubtful.

      There are greener pastures overseas now.

      Watch China open up.  Isn't it becoming the emerging market that can replace the US market?

  •  This isn't a winning strategy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, NoMoreLies

    because they'll simply say "the money is ours, not the government's."

    What you need to remind them is where were they when the Republicans raised government spending without acquiring the means of paying for it.

    You can't talk about taxes in this country, because while we are one of the least taxed, we are almost certainly the one who complains about it the most!

    •  "They" are a shinking bunch. (0+ / 0-)

      I totally disagree with you.

      Bush won in 2000 (though the win is debatable) by arguing that "the money belongs to the people".  But government IS of, by, and for the people.  Government spending is simply a reflection of the belief that together everyone achieves more.

      We hear a lot of complaints about taxes but if you look at polling you hear something different.

      And for what it's worth, the Tea Party is a dying breed and a failed effort.  They're loyal and tend to be active, but it's a small minority of American voters.

      Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

      by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They aren't a dying breed (0+ / 0-)

        because stupidity will always be with us.  I'd say if anything, they will only increase in numbers simply because the simpler and less coherent the message, the easier it is for many to follow!

        After all, that's the entire basis for all organized religion- I don't know how that works, so there must be something causing it.  Rather than determining the root cause, it is easier to believe the bullshit.

    •  need to remind them their wealth was never possib (4+ / 0-)

      possible absent a civilized society with education, infrastructure, etc.

      It is FALSE to assume anyone "earned" wealth all by themselves...unless they are in a jungle alone.

      "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

      by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:13:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think the majority of the country agrees (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, bustacap, Common Cents

        with that sentiment now:

        It is FALSE to assume anyone "earned" wealth all by themselves...unless they are in a jungle alone.

        I think much of the country believes that, with some exceptions, the capitalist system rewards intelligence, hard work, ingenuity, and/or financial risk.  Sure, most people realize that nobody earns money in a vaccuum.  But much of the country still believes that most people can make a good living through those things.  If you talk to anyone who, for example, built a small business, they don't think they got any more help from the government than anybody else, just that they took what support the government provides to everybody and added their own intelligence, hard work, ingenuity, and/or financial risk.  

        If you want to convince people that they owe a large part of their financial success to the government, that's a big uphill road.

        •  then just remind them of all the things that the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, Coastrange

          the road to success in business, in These United States runs through:

          Highways and Freeways - built and maintained by taxes

          Education - Public schools and colleges and universities, built and maintained by taxes

          Safe Food - Inspected and Certified via taxes

          and those are just the building blocks of society, there are literally thousands of ways that taxpayer funds have created and continue to support the society that allows so many to create wealth, here in These United States.

          No man is an island - and no one in this country builds a succesful business here, without using the tools of this society to get there.

          •   most Libertarians are freeloaders I guess (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Angie in WA State

            (this includes all those that subscribe to it)because they want all the benefits of society but don't want to pay. Our taxes are the price of living with all the services in Society. That covers a trustworthy water supply , food, roads, power, fire and police protection...the list is long because it's part of the web of society that surrounds us all but I don't think their imaginations go even that short distance. They should consider it the entry fee for living here.
            Somalia has cheap land, virtually no govt,  no oversight, or rules on how you operate anything. Carry any kind of weapons you want and forget any bothersome Police this is the tax free Free Market heaven.

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:58:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You misunderstand the argument that they make (0+ / 0-)

              No reasonable economic conservative makes the argument that there should be NO government. They will agree that government is necessary for the few things that the free market cannot provide, like infrastructure, keeping the peace, and national defense.  

              Instead, their argument is that, specifically with respect to the federal government, the government should be limited to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 -- and they read things like "regulate interstate commerce" very narrowly.  

              •  so the 'promote the general welfare' part in the (0+ / 0-)

                beginning means nothing?
                The Constitution was never meant to be considered a finished product and that was made clear in the by including the right to amend it.
                for example...
                There is nothing in there for highways, or the FDA. or the FAA ( uh oh better skip the next flight) , to make this short...a list of everything protecting your safety and health in this society. Govt. is there to protect the citizen from abuse and fraud by businesses with regulations to cause compliance with truthfulness in representation of services,along with the rules ensuring the health and safety of consumers. Too many lives to count have been saved due to Govt. intervention in the how business operates.
                To use just one example, altho a pretty important one..Industry didn't put seat belts in cars for any other reason than Govt. forced them to. Even that didn't happen until after Ralph Nader pushed the issue in Court, helping to bring Public awareness to it as an issue that could no longer be ignored. That wasn't the result of Free Mkt using self regulation because there was no concern about the deaths from their faulty design, they fought hard against that change just like any other requirement 'for the good of the general public' because that cuts into profits.  
                That's just one quick example.

                without the ants the rainforest dies

                by aliasalias on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:38:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's actually a debate that's been (0+ / 0-)

                  going on since Madison (who promoted the more limited view of that clause) versus Hamilton (who promoted your view).  And the catch is that, even if you agree that Congress' spending power is virtually unlimited -- that is, that Congress can spend money any way it wants -- Congress' regulatory powers are nonetheless limited by its enumerated powers.  In other words, even if it can SPEND for the general welfare, it cannot use taxation as a matter of regulating conduct that it cannot otherwise regulate under its enumerated powers.  

                  The wiki on the subject provides a brief summary of the debate.  

      •  Absolutely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        opinionated

        This is the great failure of conservativism and more critically, libertarian economics.  Without the infrastructure and the legal system, as well as the protections provided by national and local defense, any business would have a much harder time of surviving, let alone thriving.  Imagine if your mom and pop store had to pay for their own police protection, as well as handle foreign invaders and build their own roads and sewer systems.  You can't voluntarily pay for what you use every single day, and expect it to continue forward tomorrow.

  •  WOE - regarding your first chart (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Gooserock

    The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. How could they continue to contribute to the negative slope of the "Deficits with tax cuts" curve if they are no longer in place in 2011?

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:03:18 AM PDT

    •  I cannot wait til they expire! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, RenMin

      I can hear the excuses now.  Believe me.. I am done with Obama and the dems if they don't expire.  they should have been rescinded ASAP!

      The San Francisco Bay Bridge, MADE IN CHINA

      by east bay on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:16:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They will expire, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, Gooserock, VClib

        but the deficit projections already factor in that expiration.  In other words, we have the deficits that the President called "unsustainable" EVEN ASSUMING that the Bush tax cuts on those households over $250,000 will expire.  Just letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not nearly, nearly enough.  There are going to have to be (1) significant spending cuts; and (2) tax increases across the board in addition to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on households over $250,000.  See the Tax Policy Center study linked in my post below.  

    •  Interest, for one (5+ / 0-)
      we will continue to pay interest on the debt incurred by those tax cuts for the rest of our lives, at least.

      Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ---Plato

      by carolita on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:21:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dirty little secret... (8+ / 0-)

      The GOP is trying to claim Obama will "raise" taxes when in reality all he's doing is holding the line on a decision made by Congress 5 years ago.

      Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

      by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:21:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama WILL raise taxes on everybody (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, Gooserock, VClib, Common Cents

        There's no way around it.  Once the President's Deficit Commission reports in December, they will HAVE TO recommend both significant spending cuts in defense and other areas as well, AND signficant tax increases on everybody (in addition to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the rich). See, for example, the numbers in the Tax Policy Center report below.  There's no way around it.  Unfortunately for Obama, he's going to have to be talking about the absolute necessity for that in 2011 and 2012.  It's going to be a difficult and painful message to deliver to the voters.  

        •  that Cat Food Commission is focused on cutting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gooserock

          Soc. Sec., Medicare/Medicaid and "Defense spending" is virtually 'off the table'. That Commission is nothing more than a right wing ideologue's wet dream, and the Chair has marshaled app. a Billion dollars putting the skewed town hall fiascos to try to generate a fake 'voice of the people around the Country' meme. A meme that says, surprise surprise, cutting Social Security is necessary and they are wording their questions with leading words like 'taxing the rich costs investments in creating jobs but...'...
          That folks is rigging the question.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:55:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It'll Be the Real Voice of the People in a Year (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias

            Democrats have a fundamentalist faith in not doing voter education, EVER even between elections. Frankly leadership is so conservative that they're happy letting the global economy take over the entire mainstream conversation now.

            They'll do another grass roots GOTV this year of course, and that'll help contain their losses for a while, but with the conservative air war now underway the public will be economic rightwinger by 2012 which is just fine with the party.

            We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

            by Gooserock on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:36:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Benintn - some semantics for sure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        But with tax rates rising for nearly everyone with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts it's hard to argue that it is not a tax increase. The increase in taxes is not because of some legislation President Obama advocated, and its happening automatically. However it is a tax increase, that is just a fact. The Dems may pass legislation restoring the middle class tax cuts although Hoyer stated that the feds could not afford to make even those permanent.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:49:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If they expire (0+ / 0-)

      If we lose in November, do you think they will expire?

    •  See new chart added in diary. (0+ / 0-)

      it's recent and projects deficit until 2019.

      It also blames the bulk of the deficit on Bush tax cuts and wars.

  •  However, it is a myth that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Common Cents

    we can ultimately get the deficit down to where the President promised with tax increases alone.  From the Tax Policy Center:

    Washington spends more than it takes in through tax revenues, resulting in a projected budget deficit of almost $1.35 trillion in 2010, or 9 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Couldn't we get rid of the deficit by raising taxes?

    No. A study we conducted at the Tax Policy Center found that Washington would have to raise taxes by almost 40 percent to reduce -- not eliminate, just reduce -- the deficit to 3 percent of our GDP, the 2015 goal the Obama administration set in its 2011 budget. That tax boost would mean the lowest income tax rate would jump from 10 to nearly 14 percent, and the top rate from 35 to 48 percent.

    What if we raised taxes only on families with couples making more than $250,000 a year and on individuals making more than $200,000? The top two income tax rates would have to more than double, with the top rate hitting almost 77 percent, to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP. Such

    The study referenced in that quote can be found here.  

    People need to drop the myth that simply raising taxes on millionaires is going to be enough to reduce the deficit to where it ultimately is going to need to  be.  It is a sure bet that the President's deficit commission, when it reports in December, is going to recommend a combination of (1) some spending cuts in defense AND in other areas of the budget; (2) signficant tax increases on the "rich" (depending on how you define that); AND some increases in taxes on the middle class, whether in the form of a VAT or something else.  

    People need to be realistic here.  You can't just say "let's tax the Wall Street millionaires and that will solve the problem."  The numbers just don't work. There aren't enough Wall Street millionaires to pay down the deficit (not to mention the debt) to where the President has said he wants it to be.  Once we see stronger signs of a recovery, we are ALL going to have to pay significantly more.  There's no way around it.  

    What is going to be most difficult politically that the President's deficit commission is surely going to come to the conclusion that the President must break his pledge that the middle class will not see "one more dime" of taxes.  And that's not a good thing for a President to have to run for re-election on.  (Remember GHWB "Read my lips . . ."?)

    •  Indeed. Raise revenue + cut spending. (0+ / 0-)

      You don't get in these type of deficit holes and find a magic bullet to fix it.

      Everyone will have to sacrifice.

      The president would do well to prepare people now for the inevitable hard cuts.

      "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

      by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:16:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's slap a tariff on goods (0+ / 0-)

      coming from third world countries.  That should put a dent in it.  

      The San Francisco Bay Bridge, MADE IN CHINA

      by east bay on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:25:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  put people back to work; they pay taxes, not (4+ / 0-)

      collect unemployment.

      That requires govt stimulus for US (not global) business and jobs, as well as tax reform that increases revenue immediately.

      I like that the President is working with China on economic and monetary policy...but allowing the US manufacturing sector to die a slow death in order to reduce labor costs and price of imports was one of the worst thefts by the global elite from America.

      "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

      by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:32:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you look at the numbers in that study? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Common Cents

        That's not NEARLY enough revenue.  There are going to have to be (1) significant cuts and (2) broad based tax increases in addition to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on households over $250,000.  

        People need to be realistic.  In 2011, after the deficit commission reports, Obama is going to have to start talking to the country about both.  

      •  Government stimulus is not sustainable. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk

        If you want people to have sustainable employment it must come from the private sector and that can't be done in the current fiscal environment. Credit will continue to be frozen with this type of uncertainty due to deficits. In turn there will be no job creation and here we bloody sit.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:37:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who says? (6+ / 0-)

          "If you want people to have sustainable employment it must come from the private sector. . ."

          That's a common Republican meme (e.g., Amity Shlaes refusing to count government jobs in order to argue that the new deal didn't help the unemployed), but I see no evidence.  A government job is a job just as much as a private sector job, government employees pay taxes on their wages and spend their disposable income, which stimulates the economy, just as much as private sector employees do.  We have a mixed economy, with the government (state and local as well as federal) playing a significant role.

          In fact (and now we're getting into some basic concepts of political economy, which are too often overlooked), the private sector could produce few if any jobs without government.  The libertarian conception is nonsense because it assumes that markets are self-regulating and correcting.  We've recently seen that that isn't true.  More fundamentally, without an effective legal system (government), and effective monetary system (government), national defense (government), police (government), infrastructure (government), and so forth, commerce would grind to a halt.  There'd probably be a reversion to feudalism, where masses of the weak and powerless would associate themselves with powerful "lords," exchanging labor for protection.  (This is what we see in failed states like Somalia, ruled by warlords.)

          "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

          by RenMin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:05:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So the Census jobs are just like any other job? (0+ / 0-)

            I agree that stimulus jobs are like any other job in the sense that they provide pay for work rendered. They are not like private sector jobs in that they are temporary.

            Unless we want to hire people to perpetually dig holes and fill them back up, there is only so many infrastructure projects and busy work the government can find to hire people to do.

            At a certain point there will be no tasks the government needs completed by a mass workforce. At that point, if you don't have a private sector to absorb them, then you are back at square one.

            The government can't simply pay wages to people to do nothing. They also can't continue to find things of value such that it justifies paying a massive workforce. And even when they find things for a massive workforce to do those jobs are necessarily temporary (when the project is done the job is done).

            As far as I know, no one wants a temporary job. They'll take temp jobs, but they would like something permanent so they can plan for their future and settle down.

            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

            by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:14:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  A thought to go with this (0+ / 0-)

            the private sector could produce few if any jobs without government.

            Isn't the issue in the private sector, especially the small-midsized business that they cannot get reasonable loans?  Therefore, they can't expand, can't hire and often layoff?
            I'd say it's time for the government to stop loaning to the banks and start loaning to small and midsize business. Even to individuals for startups. At the same rate they do to the banks.
            I'm sure that'll go like a turd in the punchbowl, but reality is, the loans aren't happening in the private sector and shit's hitting the fan. If the government is serious about averting another crash, it will become the loaner. Who else will?
            The upside of loans? They get paid back, for the most part. It's not a deficit like the stimulus package which was meant to go into circulation (some did, not really enough though).  It's a deficit that invests in the people of the country, not big business who invest it in foreign countries.
            The right wing and libertarians scream about individual liberty but they don't actually trust individuals. People can pull themselves up by the bootstraps- but you have to give them bootstraps.

            I just wanted to vote in the primaries. Honestly, I am much too liberal to be a Democrat.

            by WiseFerret on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:30:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There seem to be a lot of those memes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias

            floating around in this thread.

            If Obama sides with Peterson and his rich friends (who are after all looking out for their own interests) in the middle of a deep recession, the Democratic Party will go the way of the Whigs.

            www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

            by chuckvw on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:39:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Well They're Going to Keep People Working More (0+ / 0-)

        years before retirement.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:38:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think this quote from page 10: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NoMoreLies

      Combining tax increases with spending cuts would allow smaller changes on each dimension—we would not have to raise taxes nearly as much as in our examples. However, cutting spending could well have adverse distributional effects, falling relatively more heavily on low-income households than any of the tax increases we examine. A more basic change in how we raise revenue could offer a fairer and more efficient approach. Reducing the federal budget deficit to a level that is sustainable over the long run will likely require either more comprehensive tax reform or tapping a new source of revenue, such as a value-added tax. Any move in that direction would require a thorough analysis of potential distributional and efficiency
      consequences.

      Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

      by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:35:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What they are talking about there (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Common Cents

        is SIGNIFICANT tax increases ACROSS THE BOARD.  And, while that is necessary, it is going to be politically very painful for Obama, in 2011, to tell the middle class that he is going to break his pledge to them and raise their taxes significantly.

        Painful, yes.  Avoidable -- no.  

      •  So don't cut spending b/c it will hurt? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk

        How about let's make the budget a "bummer free zone" where everyone gets what they want?

        Interestingly enough if you attempt to raise revenue through taxes at a high enough level it will also lead to problems such as contraction of the private sector and loss of jobs. It will also have to increase the taxes on the middle and lower class as well to even hope to reduce the deficit at all.

        Spending cuts, as your quote suggests, allo for smaller changes on each dimension. Which is geek for balancing out the sacrifice on everyone.

        The tax increaes will hit the rich harder. The spending cuts will hit the poor harder. The point is we all have to take it on the chin.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:43:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  do you have any specifics? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NoMoreLies, wsexson, east bay, aliasalias

          From long history, people who advocate vague "spending cuts" without specifics, generally exclude military spending, corporate tax giveaways, the homeowner tax credit, the big pharma giveaway, the oil, mining and agribusiness subsidies, and instead focus on firing schoolteachers and cutting food stamps.

          •  Cut EVERYTHING. (0+ / 0-)

            The Pentagon should be the first piggy on the chopping block.

            As I said earlier in the thread. ACROSS THE BOARD spending cuts AND tax increases across the board.

            This is the only way to do it. Everyone must take a hit.

            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

            by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:15:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  across the board is just dumb (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NoMoreLies, wsexson, aliasalias, Benintn

              both from an economic sense and a political sense.

              If you're arguing for across the board cuts, you're not serious about the deficit, you're just playing games.

              •  And what makes political sense? (0+ / 0-)

                I'm assuming you think what makes political sense is cutting the projects you don't like and expanding those you support.

                The fact is the only way to make real cuts is to make it universal. Any interest group that perceives they have to be hurt at the expense of another will raise political hell to shut down legislation.

                Since we are in a cooperative system the across the board cuts are the only ones politically palatable to the broad public. If everyone is making sacrifice, then no one can complain. If anyone is spared cuts when everyone else takes a hit...then you'll have problems.

                "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

                by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:39:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  political sense (0+ / 0-)

                  Two issues: first, health care increases are the big debt problem, and second Congress would carve out exemptions.

                  Since health care inflation is the true problem, if you impose across-the-board cuts without addressing that inflation, you still haven't solved anything, really. It's like saving money on pencils. Look at the "doc-fix" or the drug cost cave-in. Those are huge expenses, but even those pieces are off limits.

                  The political problem is that Congress would carve out exemptions. All the Republicans (and 41 in the Senate) would oppose any military cuts, and they'd be joined by the blue dogs. But the military is half of the discretionary budget. Farm subsidies are uncuttable, the "doc fix" must go through, etc.

                  You'd end up with an "across the board" cut with so many exemptions that it would really turn into a "cut all social spending" cut.

                  Instead, use something like PAYGO, which proved itself during Clinton's term. That keeps the budget under control, and avoids the problems with across the board cuts with the inevitable exemptions. It also automatically balances tax increases with spending cuts.

            •  Yes, no sacred cows. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw

              The hippies must be punched.

              The beatings will continue until morale improves.

              Because it is only fair.

              Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

              by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:05:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Of course it should be (0+ / 0-)

              but you've only beat that horse a couple times today, in your zeal to pretend that Libertarians speak for anyone here.  

              The Pentagon should be the first piggy on the chopping block.

              Notice that there's no real discernible butchering to that pig going on, either in your fantasies, or in reality.

              Yeah, we're pissed, but at least WE don't have to make shit up like teabaggers do...

              by o the umanity on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:48:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  End the wars. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, wsexson, Betty Pinson

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

      by srkp23 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:26:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Does this study even think outside of the box (4+ / 0-)

      on taxation? What about taxing capital gains at ordinary income rates? What about an 0.25 percent (of the amount traded per transaction) financial transaction tax? What about a carbon tax with a refundable credit for those below the 90th percentile of income? What about removing the cap on FICA taxation?

      "Trickle down economics 101: They get the golden parachute, we get the golden shower"

      by NoMoreLies on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:34:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WHY THERE IS LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opinionated, revgerry, lams712, Wom Bat

    Very simple: demand in our economy, specifically consumer demand which constitutes 70% of total demand, has been slack for the past 3 years which corresponds directly with the long-term unemployment.

    Forget about the debt, taxes, deficit, etc. We need to stimulate consumer demand to pre-recession levels in order to reduce unemployment.  Nothing else matters, as Obama has demonstrated over the past year with his phony stimulus package that was mostly tax cuts and transfers to state and local governments.

    •  ANSD THE BEST WAY TO STIMULATE (18+ / 0-)
      consumer demand when unemployment is in double-digits? Unemployment benefits! Without income, there is no demand. Furthermore, Congress' incessant playing games with funding of unemployment benefits causes even workers with jobs to curtail purchasing because they are fearful that if they do become unemployed, there won't be any benefits available.

      We can congratulate the Senate for both curtailing consumer demand and almost assuring a double-dip recession.

      Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ---Plato

      by carolita on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:27:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Off to Top Comments with You! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, DBunn, mayim, princesspat

        for succinctly stating the obvious:

        Low consumer demand?
        High unemployment?

        Want to flip them?

        Pay unemployment benefits.
        Increase spending.
        Increase demand.
        Hire workers.

        It looks fairly obvious to me.

      •  Necessary, but not sufficient (0+ / 0-)

        You are absolutely right that UI benefits are critical and must be sustained to preserve consumer demand in the economy.

        But we must go well beyond that to incentives for consumers to purchase what they otherwise might not, e.g., programs like Cash 4 Clunkers that worked spectacularly to stimulate demand for autos that brought that entire industry back from the brink of total collapse in 2009.

        •  I'd rather they start with some public works (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          infrastructure projects, which require hiring workers, who will then start pumping cash into local economies, which will increase demand for goods and services which will...

          ... increase hiring!

          If they simply give what amounts to tax cuts or rebates to consumers to buy something in particular, well, it'll work - for as long as the stimulus dollars that support the increased demand last - but when it's over, it's over.

          Yes, eventually these jobs will end - but the increase in the local economy that started hiring in a variety of sectors... if we could start enough projects in enough areas of the country at the same time...

          by the end of these projects (1-3 years), the wider economy will have had a chance to rebound, and for consumer confidence to return, and insure a long-term recovery based on widespread drop in unemployment and rise in GDP.

          •  "when it's over, it's over" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens

            When Cash 4 Clunkers ended after less than a month, was the recovery of the auto industry over?

            In case you haven't heard, GM is now profitable instead of bankrupt which it was before C4C.  Chrysler is profitable too and Ford is doing record business.

            You seem to have missed the point that CONSUMER DEMAND = 70% OF THE ECONOMY.

    •  "Stimulate demand" (0+ / 0-)

      How much increase in our CO2 emissions do you want?

      Q: How many Pentagon spokespersons does it take to change a lightbulb?
      A: We're not prepared to discuss specific numbers at the present time.

      by ben masel on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:56:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, let's reduce our CO2 emissions to zero (0+ / 0-)

        by shutting down all our industries  and starving to death.

        Why don't you ask the American people: should we stimulate the economy to increase jobs or should we shut down the economy to reduce our carbon footprint while China, India and all the rest of the "developing" countries do nothing and overtake us economically?

        •  300 million people in India have (0+ / 0-)
          no access to electricity, and the per-capita CO2 footprint of India is currently only about 1.3 metric tons per person, compared to China's at around 5 tons, US' 19 tons, and the World's around 4.5 tons.

          "rest of the "developing" countries do nothing"

          You are wrong on that. India (as does China) invests heavily in many renewable energy projects (India is leader in wind energy deployment, as is China now, even though India's economy is significantly smaller is aggregate size than the US'), probably a greater share of their respective GDPs compared to the US, at least during the Bush years.

          "and overtake us economically"

          That's probably too much fear than is justified. After all, the poor of the world also need a fighting chance to lift themselves out of poverty. And I believe that that can be realized without the richer nations giving up good and satisfying life styles. For example, people in developed countries going from 2-3 cars per family down to 1-2 cars per family (supplemented by a newly commissioned massive public transportation system, if we can get there) isn't such a bad thing if that helps the poorer parts of the world get a little less poor, and it's good for long-term sustainable use of the environment too.

          Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

          by iceweasel on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:55:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  WTF does "per capita" matter? (0+ / 0-)

            China produces more CO2 than we do and will overtake us economically in the near future due to an economic growth rate that is 3 times ours.

            Meanwhile, you suggest we reduce our auto consumption by a third thereby bankrupting the entire auto industry in this country.

            Like I said, why don't you survey the American people and see what they want?  This is a democracy, right?

            •  If you have 6 people in your houshold, (0+ / 0-)
              it takes 3 times the food, energy, money, attention, and other resources to cater to their needs compared to the case where you only have 2 people in your household.

              As for China and its economy and CO2 emissions, I am not a defender of the Chinese regime, but if they managed to make a few hundred million Chinese people from going to bed hungry, then credit must be given to that positive change in their country.

              As for the emissions policy, we can let facts and figures guide what should be an objective and fair-minded policy applied evenly across the board and which allows currently non-developed countries to improve their economies as well. For this, you need to get familiar with the actual data on the history and trends of emissions.

              I think that we need to target a global per-capita emissions level by 2050 that's about half of what it it is today (i.e. go from 4.5 tons per person down to 2.25 tons), using population figures as of 1990 or 2000 for per-capita calculations, and that per-capita target level applied across the board to all countries.

              Every country would have 40 years to meet the target, and if a country wants an exception (for whatever set of reasons), they should make their case for it. For example, one could try to make a case that US should be given a 50% allowance over the global target based on Obama's Nobel prize speech about US' contributions to the world.

              Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

              by iceweasel on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:04:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "an objective and fair-minded policy " (0+ / 0-)

                is completely irrelevant to climate change.  Only the real numbers matter because AGW is not a function of per capita emissions.  It is a function of total emissions period.

                If you want to shut down American industry so that the Chinese can increase their CO2 emissions, then you will have to explain that to the American voters.  Good luck with that.

                •  If you had a certain number of (0+ / 0-)
                  kids and some wealth in cash, how would you write your will? Evenly divide it up? Or give more to your richer kids? Or more to the poorer kids? That's the sort of question that's in play at a moral level.

                  That every person has the same right to how much CO2 he or she can put into the atmosphere, given that there a limit on how much we can together put in, is the obvious egalitarian principle. In order to circumvent higher population growths in typically poorer countries, we fix the base year for population (1990 or 2000 in my prescription.)

                  'If you want to shut down American industry so that the Chinese can increase their CO2 emissions, then you will have to explain that to the American voters.  Good luck with that.'

                  First, who knows what the state of technology will be in 20 years or 40 years. A hope is that our scientific progress will invent new and efficient technologies that would only emit 2.25 tons per person in 2050 while not sacrificing life styles beyond comfort. If this hope turns out not to be realized, then at least some significant part of the world will continue to be extremely impoverished.

                  In my method, China would be required to lower their emissions from the current 5 tons per capita down to 2.25 by 2050, and the US would have to do that from 19 tons to 2.25 in the same 40 years (ignoring Exception Allowances or credits purchased, if we have those in place). If you think about it, if this reduction is performed on some sort of ramp schedule, it's the US that would still get to emit about twice as much as China over the next 40 years.

                  I am formulating my solution based on globally agreeable common principles, i.e not favoring one country over any other (except for the exceptions provision). If you go the full-bore exceptionalism route, then no implementable agreement is reachable. One can try to take the latter line, but the consequences are unpredictable at best, and dire at worst. The entire humanity is connected in more ways than it maybe apparent upon a peripheral look.

                  Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

                  by iceweasel on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:58:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not a moral question (0+ / 0-)

                    AGW is not a moral question; it is nature, just like a flood or tornado.  It doesn't care about your moral or fairness perspective.

                    And China doesn't care either about your "globally agreeable common principles."  They have never done anything that wasn't in their self interest.  Their moral outlook on AGW is very clear: the West caused the problem and now needs to solve it; China has no responsibility for AGW.

                    Face the facts: your utopian solutions are just a fantasy.

                    •  Sure, AGW itself is a nature/science question, (0+ / 0-)
                      but how we deal with it in terms of how we distribute the CO2 capacity translates into a moral question, particularly since their is much variance in the economic/developmental parameters across nations as things stand today.

                      I share a good deal of your political cynicism towards the Chinese regime, but having a decent solution at hand can be good starting point towards persuading (or "strong-arming" if need be, and if possible) them, with good verification mechanisms in place.

                      The track that the US has been pushing is based on a quantity called "economic intensity of emissions", which is the ratio of emissions over GDP. There are some serious shortcomings in that method, but I'd consider it "Plan B" in lieu of an approach along the lines I suggested.

                      Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

                      by iceweasel on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 11:47:57 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Copenhagen failed (0+ / 0-)

                        All the intricate "fair and reasonable" plans to reduce CO2 emissions were unacceptable to the delegates, many of whom like the Chinese, simply left the premises.

                        The idea that we should not stimulate growth and reduce unemployment in order to stop AGW is simply absurd because the rest of the world will not cooperate.  They have made their positions very clear and we would be fools to ignore them.

        •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
          As an addendum to my comment above, China trade continues to be extremely unbalanced (whereas, in contrast, US' trade with India is both tiny as well as quite balanced), and I think balancing China trade alone would bring back millions of jobs, lower unemployment a few notches, and make the American economy sustainably strong. See my post on the 2009 trade data here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Yes, call on the Obama administration and the congress (but do so without fear-mongering about China or the Chinese people) to bring China trade into balance, i.e. exports to China should be brought up to be roughly on par with imports from there; in 2009, the China trade numbers were


          China: exports $69.5bn, imports $296.4bn, US trade deficit $226.9bn

          which is an entirely different story compared to the small and balanced trade exchange with India:

          India: exports $16.4bn, imports $21.2bn, US trade deficit $4.7bn

          Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

          by iceweasel on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:17:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So exporting more to China (0+ / 0-)

            would not increase our carbon footprint?  You can't have it both ways.

            Either you take jobs away from China by doubling the relative value of the yuan to dollar, or you massively grow our economy to balance Chinese imports with exports to them.

            Not that you, or anyone else, could do either one of those options of course, because the Chinese couldn't care less about our unemployment situation and the jobs we have lost to them.

        •  The question was analog, not binary. (0+ / 0-)

          Artificial stimulation of demand just means producing and consuming a bunch of junk. Better to target investment toward the long term.

          Indoor marijuana production consumes the equivalent of 1 million tons of coal each year. Get it legal, out of the closets, under the sun.

          by ben masel on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right, more bridges to nowhere (0+ / 0-)

            The Japanese already tried infrastructure stimulus in the 90's and they are still stuck in a recession.

            I understand that consumption is not politically correct, especially when there are millions of imaginary highly paid "green" jobs ready to be filled, but once you return to Planet Earth, you need to talk to the millions of unemployed who would gladly work to satisfy the demands of American consumers if that meant they could get a job.

    •  Something doesn't square (0+ / 0-)

      Companies are cash rich, profits have soared because they sell necessities like bandaids and have slashed US jobs getting labor from children overseas.

      •  Companies won't hire until they are forced (0+ / 0-)

        to do so to meet rising demand.  They will pay all their cash as bonuses to executives before they hire any workers.

        We can't bring all the jobs back from China and if we stimulated demand for products made in the U.S., we wouldn't need to worry about China.

    •  won't happen (0+ / 0-)

      the 'consumer based economy' is the dumbest economic concept that has ever been propagandized in this country ... besides the propaganda that the republicans are 'conservative'.

      "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

      by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:48:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh really? (0+ / 0-)

        Consumer demand has driven our economy since WWII to record levels of prosperity and jobs.  How did you miss the obvious record of the past 65 years?

        •  And the worst period of economic weakness (0+ / 0-)

          was from 2001-2008

          See chart in diary.

          Wages and employment tanked while corporate profits soared.

          •  Two wars and a shutdown of the stock market (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War on Error

            (you do remember what happened on 9/11, right?)put a serious dent in consumer demand, or have you forgotten that the travel industry basically collapsed for 6 months?

            Obviously, the road ahead is dangerous and rough, but we have passed through many troubled times before and the American consumer has never completely lost optimism about the future.  Hopefully, consumers will come back again and provide demand to drive the economy forward, because it should be clear by now that politicians around the world have no clue what they are doing and saying.

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              I lived through this period.  Yes, travel dipped after 911 for some.  But we were in a recession at the time anyway.

              After 911?  People were drunken spenders.  Young housewives just couldn't get enough stuff from pottery barn-like outlets.

              Their homes became furniture store showrooms.
              All touted designer bags in many colors. (Justice finally busted the importers of knock offs, btw).
              Hair became multiply highlighted.
              Restaurants flourished.
              All drove new SUVs.
              All wore designer labels.

              My dog received credit card offers (well, not quite)

              That this was a period of economic weakness, so reported, surprised me.

              Also, housing prices quadrupled at the very least, and no mention or impact of or on inflation.

              Again, some reporting just doesn't square with what I witnessed.

        •  I didn't miss it (0+ / 0-)

          we used to manufacture what we consumed.  I didn't say we didn't consume things.  Foreign trade was for things we couldn't produce ourselves, now trade is a global wage war which we are losing miserably.  It wasn't consumer demand that created wealth, it was the production of consumer goods that did, the consumption part of the full circle of a healthy economy ...that's why china has gained tremendously and we have lost tremendously ... its very simple I thought you understood these things.

          "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

          by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 02:46:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  U.S. is the world's biggest manufacturer (0+ / 0-)

            Sure we need to pressure China to allow more of our goods into their country, but your protectionist fantasy is just an illusion.  GM already sells more cars in China than in the U.S., so the future should be clear: get Chinese consumers buying our stuff just like Americans buy theirs and everyone will be better off.

  •  Restore the progressive income tax... (17+ / 0-)

    ... and get us out of the wars, and we'll be a hell of a lot better off.

    Not just in terms of national debt, but it would free up monies for true investment in alternative energies, in education, in our infrastructure - basically, in everything that is needed for our nation's future.

    The inadequate is the enemy of the necessary.

    by JRandomPoster on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:20:44 AM PDT

    •  When the Bush tax cuts expire (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Common Cents, RenMin

      we will again have a more progressive income tax system than we did in 1979, before the Reagan tax cuts.  The Clinton tax rates in the late 1990's were the highest effective federal income tax rates on the top 1% since the CBO began tracking effective tax rates in 1979.  See the CBO report and go to the chart labeled "Effective Individual Income Tax Rate.  In 1979, before the Reagan tax cuts, it was 21% on the top .01%.  In 2000, it was 22% on that same group.

      •  and Clinton's rates weren't progressive (5+ / 0-)

        between the middle class and the rich (even ignoring the tax breaks given for unearned income to the rentier class.)

        If you include the FICA tax rates that the middle class pay, but the rich do not pay (at the margin), the marginal tax rate for the middle class and the rich were the same, i.e. flat, not progressive. Currently, we have a regressive tax system.

        •  FICA is not intended to be a (0+ / 0-)

          progressive system in the way federal income taxes are.  It is intended to be a wage insurance program, where you "get what you pay for."  Those who pay more into the system get more in the way of retirement benefits when they retire.  What people pay in is capped BECAUSE, AND ONLY BECAUSE the retirement payouts are capped proportionate to that.  Ask any senior, who will tell you they are entitled to their SS benefits because they paid for them.

          It is precisely this "get what you pay for" set up that made Social Security so popular for so long.  It is one of those nasty political truths that if you remove that element, you change it from a "get what you paid for" system into a system that can -- and undoubtedly will -- be attacked as another "welfare" program.  And that will make it MUCH easier for opponents to dismantle it.  

          That's the risk you run by removing the cap. Ironically, removing the cap removes much of the popular support and more likely leads to its demise.    

          •  Then give a few more benefits at the top end (0+ / 0-)

            so they "get what they paid for" with raising the cap. The US as it stands is a third world tax haven for the super rich, with the lowest top rates of any developed country.

            "Trickle down economics 101: They get the golden parachute, we get the golden shower"

            by NoMoreLies on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:39:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And those effective tax rates (0+ / 0-)

        on the top .01% were 51% in 1955 under Eisenhower. How about bringing that back?

        "Trickle down economics 101: They get the golden parachute, we get the golden shower"

        by NoMoreLies on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:38:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Spending cuts need to go with any tax cuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Common Cents

    It's a simple fact that when taxes are cut, and spending isn't, it will create a budget deficit. This includes Obama's tax cuts too.  The only way this problem is EVER going to be fixed is to pass a balanced budget amendment like we have at the state level. Otherwise there will be no end in sight to these deficits and the debt they create.

    "The more laws, the less justice."

    by Denverlibertarian on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:31:38 AM PDT

    •  We need PAYGO and balanced budgets. (4+ / 0-)

      You have to increase revenue and cut spending to cut a deficit. No way around it. People want to increase services and cut a defict. That's impossible. At best you can raise taxes to keep pace with spending, but not only is that unsustainable, but it also does nothing to cut deficits. It only stops the expansion of the deficit.

      If we could have a balanced budget amendment it would do this country a world of good on all sides. People would be forced to really feel the price of their policies. Wars wouldn't be entered so lightly because we'd feel the real price upclose in our wallets. Same thing for every pie-in-the-sky proposal.

      This is why it will never happen.

      "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

      by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:34:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd say we're still 3-5 years from balanced (8+ / 0-)

        budgets.  The short-term risk of Great Depression II is greater than the long-term risk of deficits.

        Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

        by Benintn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:36:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We'll never have balanced budgets. (2+ / 0-)

          People have a real problem with prices and avoid them at all costs. We don't want to know how much things really cost. We prefer to get them and be done with it. Let someone else figure out how to pay for it later.

          Of course this is dangerous because prices are a means of communication. Prices tell us how we should behave. Prices are a regulatory measure in human behavior and when we avoid that information or distort it, that fucks up our ability to act.

          Then we look back and wonder how we got in the mess in the first place. Simple. We ignored the price or distorted the price so we started off working on a false premise and every step of the way we got further and further off track.

          "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

          by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:47:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hear, hear! (0+ / 0-)

          www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

          by chuckvw on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:42:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  from a good article "Deficits Fascinate the Media (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ferg, War on Error

          Its Causes,Not So Much"
          Bush tax cuts seldom mention as source of red ink

          http://www.fair.org/...

          Elite papers lately issue near daily alarms on the deficit—"gargantuan," "unprecedented," "unimaginable a few years ago." Virtually all accounts speak portentously of the costs of benefit programs like Social Security, often described as "the main causes for expanding federal spending and deficits" (Washington Post, 3/1/10) or "the major factor behind projections of unsustainably high deficits" (New York Times, 1/26/10)—and sometimes, dismayingly, as "goodies" (New York Times, 2/7/10).

          But even the most discerning reader might not suspect that, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains (2/17/10), "just two policies dating from the Bush administration—tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019," impacts that "easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues."

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:11:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And the weakest expansion since WWII (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias

            Photobucket

            For six of the seven indicators, the average annual growth rate between 2001 and 2007 was below the average growth rate for the comparable periods of other post-World War II economic expansions.  

            Notably, this expansion was among the weakest since World War II with respect to both overall economic growth and growth in fixed non-residential investment.  These two indicators should have captured any positive “growth effects” of the tax cuts.

            The labor market also was weaker during the 2001-2007 expansion.  Both employment growth and wage and salary growth were weaker during this expansion as a whole than in any prior expansion since the end of World War II.

            The 2001-2007 expansion outperformed the average post-World War II expansion in only one area:  corporate profits, which grew much more rapidly than average.
            http://www.cbpp.org/...

            Conclusion:  Republicans bad for economy, good for corporate profits

      •  It won't happen unless the public demands it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Common Cents

        The politicians will never self-impose a budget amendment. As far as wars go, there needs to be some kind of allowance for national emergencies.  The language I've seen in most proposals allows for deficits in any year in which WAR IS DECLARED which would have ruled out any overspending associated with Iraq.  I think this is an issue the public will have to fight for, and when the fallout from our rampant overspending really hits the fan I think they will. Bill Richardson is the last Democrat I've seen mention a balanced budget amendment in public, but unfortunately his pres. campaign was not well received in Dem circles.

        "The more laws, the less justice."

        by Denverlibertarian on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:41:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The public wants services. Not a bill. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Denverlibertarian

          The problem is no one will demand it. There is no will to really feel the price of our policies. At this point people are fainting at the realization of the hole we're in and they haven't even begun to feel the real pain of it.

          I know what you mean about wars, but even with the allowance for deficit spending in a war, it would have to be declared as you point out (not happened since WW2 right?) and it would still make people think up front about the cost and the deficit spending would have to be discussed in terms of where we would likely have to cut later.

          Balanced Budgets make people consider the real price of their actions which in turn allows them to regulate accordingly. We sorely need it, but few really want it.

          "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

          by Common Cents on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:50:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  they might want it when.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...they experience the inevitable inflation that will result from the recent monetary expansion. That's going to pinch a bit.  It won't be easy to force the government to lives within its' mean but it HAS to be done or it's going to be "game over" for this nation in our lifetime. California, now projecting a 37 billion budget shortfall, will be the shape of things to come everywhere if we don't. People there keep voting for european style social democracy but aren't willing to pay the taxes needed to support it. Worse yet, CA has figured out that with Obama in the WH they can just go to washington and rattle their tin cup and wait for the feds to bail them out from their budget mismanagement.

            "The more laws, the less justice."

            by Denverlibertarian on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:46:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  services? what services are at issue? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias

        We have to look at the places where spending CAN be reduced.  It's like John McCain running on and on about earmarks, a convenient strawman for the undereducated public - since earmarks are a tiny part of the budget.

        I thing defense spending is the place to cut back...along with raising capital gains taxes on foreign investments (or keeping them smaller on investment in American companies that pay taxes here and hire American workers.

        "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

        by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:16:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  right on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, RenMin

    taxation is the obvious solution to our fiscal situation.

    It's understandable why Republicans oppose taxation. What I wonder is why it's acceptable for leaders in our party to ignore the obvious.

    When you cut taxes on the rich and spend lavishly on wars of choice, guess what happens? Budget deficits.

    What a shocker.

  •  deficit data (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, revgerry

    Great diary. The truth laid bare, the reasons for our economic woes exposed. Thank you.

  •  Legalize and tax (5+ / 0-)

    Abandoning our failed Drugwar saves at least $40 billion a year in revenues, with perhaps an equal amount in revenue.

    Q: How many Pentagon spokespersons does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: We're not prepared to discuss specific numbers at the present time.

    by ben masel on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:15:32 PM PDT

  •  Why not embrace the Tea Party? (0+ / 0-)

    Politically, the bailouts were one big major league loser.  

    If the Democratic Party is going to be the bailout party, it is in one big heap of trouble.

  •  Great focus on Economic Stats, WarOnError (8+ / 0-)

    WTG! woo hoo!


    BTW, I put together some Tax Rate charts a while back you may find interesting?

    "Being Rich" ain't what it use to be

    Top Bracket Tax Rates meet your qualifying Income Threshold (aka the Wealthy, the Top 5%)


    (larger image)


    for more "tax trends", including that lower-end bracket:

    Historical Income Tax Rates for the Top Tax Bracket -- with Charts
    by jamess -- Dec 27, 2009


    Cheers!

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:26:01 PM PDT

    •  jamess, will you help set up a kos CHARTS" ECON (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, jamess, Benintn

      TEAM...you all have the knowledge and know where to find the resources, you know who the kos experts are, the rest of us urgently need CHARTS  to change the public conversation.

      My dream is that with some concerted effort, by nn there would be a virtual armada of help to get undisputed, resourced  facts out to the whole public with visual aids...if you all would work together to create them.

      "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

      by revgerry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:41:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Outstanding diary. (3+ / 0-)

    I love me some irrefutable data that can be shoved down their throats.

    -8.00, -8.26 "Fascism is capitalism plus murder." - Upton Sinclair

    by djMikulec on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:59:56 PM PDT

  •  Why is it (5+ / 0-)

    our party seems completely unable to get the point across that the Republicans are completely fine with deficits caused by tax cuts for the wealthy who don't need them. The tax rate on these people must at the present time be the lowest in decades. They are just against deficit spending that actually benefits, you know, the "small people".

    If the economy is robust enough to take government spending cuts, and throwing thousands of state government employees out of work, teachers, firefighters, police officers, those who keep us safe and teach our children, then it is damn well robust enough to take tax increases on the wealthy!

    These idiots are harping about deficits, but at the same time want to keep the inheritance tax off of huge estates so that trust fund brats can buy more yachts.

    WHy is it soooo hard to put these asshats on the defense for a change?

    Is there nobody on our side able to get these simple points across?

    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:01:57 PM PDT

  •  Hey, I got an idea... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State

    Let's TAX THE RICH.

  •  C'mon (0+ / 0-)

    The first chart is from 2004. To be "topical" you need something a bit more current.

    On your chart the derelict with tax cuts is only supposed to be $450 billion this year. In reality we are around $1.5 trillion (more than triple).

    So basically your chart is too far out of date top be of any use. (not arguing with the concept - because I can't. I need accurate data first).

    I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman

    by taonow on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:18:51 PM PDT

    •  The 2004 Chart is a projection (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angie in WA State

      and the deficit depicted is really the deficit added each year, not the total deficit.  You have to be aware of how they play with the numbers.

      The numbers are played with in manners than can deceive as clarified in one of my comments, cited, above.

      The 2004 chart remains prescient.  The point being that there is a huge deficit created as a result of reducing the tax on the higher income producers as opposed to having left them alone.

      It is interesting that these tax breaks preceded the billions made by millions on the housing bubble.  If taxes hadn't been lowered, we would probably have a surplus!

      •  I know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        War on Error

        I know it is a projection, and I know that it was wildly off  base. What we need is actual numbers from 2004 to 2010 and then some new projections.

        I agree the tax cuts were stupid beyond belief, but I also think that the problem is now so big (at least partially because of the tax cuts) that some really big changes are now required. That is why we need accurate up to date information.

        I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman

        by taonow on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:15:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  All tax cuts are not created equal (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, NoMoreLies, revgerry

    that's why the stimulus included tax cuts in payroll tax rates. Lowering the taxes on wage earners payroll withholding not only increases the purchacing power of wage earners but it also raises the overall multiplier effect of all economic activity. The lower the rate, less is removed from all payrolls as money circulates thru the economy and more stays circulating to the next cycle. The optimum tax system would not withhold taxes from payroll but instead allow all payroll dollars to circulate in the economy and extract taxes from the increased economic activity generated.

    Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

    by RMForbes on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:26:32 PM PDT

  •  The debt per person is bogus...just a scare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice in Florida

    number. If I caclulated my mortgage per family member, it would cause us all nightmares. But it doesn't mean anything because we know we will not need to pay off the mortgage or the debt in one year or even in ten years.

    A lot of this is to scare us into doing drastic things to shrink the government, and de-regulate the economy. Exactly the WRONG direction.  Thanks for the tax cut info. People need to see how BUSHco. created this mess even more than the financial collapse.

    We need to end the bush tax cuts and cut defense spending.

  •  Deficit Hawks are a bunch of CLUELESS fucks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, aliasalias
    who have ABSOLUTELY NO understanding of economics, namely business cycles and government financing.

    And the next "deficit hawk" that seriously suggests cutting cutting the military budget will be the fucking first!

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:30:08 PM PDT

  •  Does anyone know what's going on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, War on Error, Bluefin

    with auditing the Federal Reserve? I'd like to know where 4trillion tax dollars went and how we might go about getting them back...seems like that could go a long toward cutting the deficit.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:37:33 PM PDT

  •  Republcan fiscal conservative? (6+ / 0-)

    no such thing.

    "A lie isn't a side of a story. It's just a lie." The Wire

    by glutz78 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:50:42 PM PDT

  •  deficit "hawks" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, Bluefin

    care about deficits only when

    1. a Democrat is President
    1. the money is spent on something other than defense, "security" or corporate welfare
  •  Every Dem should carry a copy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eltee, War on Error

    of this diary.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:24:59 PM PDT

  •  get it on teevee (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with you, but we can't get our message across unless it gets the same kind of airtime all the lies and liars get.

    WHY do we not get this simple fact?

    Yeah, we're pissed, but at least WE don't have to make shit up like teabaggers do...

    by o the umanity on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:30:35 PM PDT

  •  In the meantime, (0+ / 0-)

    President Obama ends his G20 presser with

    Next year i'm going to call the bluff of the people hollering about the deficit, and we'll see.

    I fear the President aspires to be Deficit Hawk in Chief. Yeah, that'll show the Republicans.

    DON'T TROLLRATE ME, BRO!

    by WisePiper on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:39:38 PM PDT

  •  the self proclaimed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluefin

    deficit hawks of today were dumb and mute while in office when bush was leading the nation into a ditch  with tax cuts and 2 wars were launched all at the same time.

    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

    by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:01:30 PM PDT

  •  See "Choose your own deficit" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kovie, Bluefin

    Ezra Klein has written a very good column summarizing the deficit and what could/should be done:

    He deals with the Republican confounding of the immediate deficit with long term debt, where in my opinion they're either being stupid, or they're doing it intentionally, and counting on us being so.  He also blows up the present consensus, which is extremely favorable to the GOP (and appears to have come from teabaggers, who don't realize that Federal tax rates are the now the lowest that they've been in decades) that the only thing to talk about regarding deficits is budget cuts, not raising taxes.  He points out that in the near term, worrying about deficits is ridiculous, because if the economy doesn't recover, they will get A LOT worse, and in the medium term, the problem could be pretty much solved if we get rid of all the Bush tax cuts (sorry, middle class ones too), but keep a patch to correct the AMT problem.

    Somebody with the time and inclination should diary this - it has a lot of commonsense info packed into a short column.

    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:07:33 PM PDT

    •  Or Krugman, who's been saying the same thing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orrg1

      Anyone who thinks that the deficit is our biggest problem and that we have to cut spending ASAP is either an idiot or clueless. And we shouldn't be taking our advice from, let alone trying to cater to, either. Let's stick to reality, not beltway CW.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:31:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The more they hawk the deficit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orrg1

    the more they are scared Obama will get the economy going again.

    This is their last chance to sink his ship.

    Anybody over a certain age (who lived through Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush(es)) KNOWS this is bullshit. We heard the same crap back when Clinton was elected. And....like POOF! magic! the deficit was GONE.

    •  Yup, you can google it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, Bluefin

      Google the comments made by the goopers regarding the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, some of whom like Newt Gingrich are still around making wrong-headed pronouncements. It's hilarious - to a person they all predicted that Clinton's tax increases would cause a massive recession, but the opposite happened - the economy boomed! Listening to their empty predictions will provide you at least minutes of hilarity.

      And then, Bush reversed course on economic policy, and the economy itself reversed course as well!

      Why don't we remember this?

      "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      by orrg1 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:42:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It class war: their fortunes vs ours. But ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... which side is Obama on?

  •  Republicans could care less about the truth (0+ / 0-)

    If they can get away with a lie, they're more than happy to do it. And this country is filled with millions of stupid people who will buy it. For some reason we Democrats don't have the effective attack dogs out there evening the score. Republican presidents have run up close to 90% of all the debt created yet they have been able to use mock outrage to cast themselves as innocent. Without more Grayson types this sad condition will just continue to get worse.

  •  So long as Dems keep "fighting" Repubs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orrg1, Betty Pinson

    on Repubs' terms, by trying to show how they can be just as "tough" on:

    Terrorism
    Drugs
    Deficits
    Abortion
    Unions
    Teachers
    Nurses
    Immigrants
    Kittens

    Then they will NEVER EVER EVER convince the public that they're better suited to run the country. Remember, Dems are in control mostly because Repubs completely screwed things up. But if Dems are seen as no better, then voters will put Repubs back in charge eventually. Maybe not in '10 or '12, but soon enough. That is a mathematical CERTAINTY. The ONLY way that Dems can stay in charge and win over the public's confidence is if they finally stop trying to be GOP Lite (and sorry folks, but that's what Obama is still trying to do, pretty picture diaries proving nothing to the contrary), and start being progressive Democrats. They have to fight this war on THEIR terms, not the GOP, and Dems' terms have historically been progressive, not conservative.

    This is a framing war as much as it is a policy and politics war. We have to re-set the terms of debate to be progressive, not conservative ones. We don't need to "tighten our belts" (and what the hell does that even mean?!?). We need to stimulate the damn economy back to life, and then we have to rebuild its "fundamentals" (which McCain said were sound, which they clearly are not) so that it doesn't need to be kept on life support forever. This means rebuilding our transportation, communication, financial, industrial, commercial, medical, environmental, energy and educational infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st century--not the 19th century as Repubs have been trying to return us to, if not the 18th century. We need MORE government spending, and TONS of it. And we need it freaking yesterday.

    Hey Dems: Stop trying to out-conservative conservatives. Their ideology doesn't work and you just look pathetic when you try to pretend otherwise. Grow a pair, remember what our party is supposed to be about, stop being afraid of being seen as too liberal, rebuild the damn country, and do your freaking jobs already.

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:28:52 PM PDT

    •  You make some good points n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie

      Democrats who are afraid to act like Democrats is certainly part of the problem. Don't they have any interest in breaking out of habits that they developed way back when Reagan was in office?  If not, the Reagan era error will go on forever!

      "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      by orrg1 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:46:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm forgot to remove the n/t when I went on n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

        by orrg1 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:47:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They keep shooting themselves in the foot (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Betty Pinson

        You can almost SMELL the fear whenever Repubs try to bait them on issues that force them to choose between going the liberal or GOP Lite route, and how most of them quickly go right in herd-like fashion lest they be seen as limp-wristed liberal sissy boys. It's quite pathetic, and the ACTUAL reasons voters don't respect them.

        We've become pathetically and embarrassingly soft as a party. Obama has lately shown signs of life, but we're talking a heroin-like addiction to instinctive weakness in the face of RW challenge, and it's going to take years to fix, and lots of fresh blood.

        "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

        by kovie on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:52:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You are not going to like the news from the G20 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War on Error

    G20 leaders agree on Canadian-led plan:
    Commit to slashing deficits, stabilizing global economies

    TORONTO — G20 leaders have agreed to a Canadian-led plan to cut deficits and stabilize the world economy.

    A leaked draft of the final G20 Summit communique shows that advanced economies have committed to cutting their deficits in half by 2013, and putting their debt loads on a stable or downward path by 2016.
    http://www.thespec.com/...

    G20 delays new bank rules to safeguard recovery

    (Reuters) - The G20 has agreed to give banks more time to adopt tougher global rules in a concession that the body tasked with coordinating reforms said would both safeguard the recovery and ultimately lead to stronger banks.
    http://uk.reuters.com/...

    •  Deficit Austerity really means dismantle (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      social safety nets.  They are such a bother and a drain.

      I'd bet dollars for donuts the IMF is behind this move, and the likes of Peter G. Peterson and the other neoliberal, Milt Friedman devotees.

      As Alan Greenspan hadn't already admitted their philosophy a complete and utter failure.

  •  These aren't your father's Democrats. (0+ / 0-)

    Democratic leadership is actively partnering with Pete Peterson to repeal the New Deal: * http://firedoglake.com/...

    * http://firedoglake.com/...

  •  In a country with a functioning press (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War on Error

    this sort of debunking would be a daily front page story.  But we live in the USA where the corporate interests want you to believe a whole pack of lies. Why even NPR repeats the prattle that the only way to "save" the country is to throw the old and the sick under the bus.  Disgusting.  They won't stop until this country has been returned to the middle ages.

    The Long War is not on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. It is on the American people.

    by Geonomist on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:29:11 PM PDT

    •  Opinionators not journalists, too often (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      or worse.

      Reminds me of TV programming in the movie V for Vendetta.

      Viruses, security danger, give up freedoms to be safe, militarize the country, etc.

      Fiction seems to be morphing into non-fiction before our very eyes.

      The impetus for writing this diary was my concern for the drive by the Peter G Petersons of the world to impoverish the downtrodden even more and calling it good for the deficit.

      That is so Orwellian bas ackwards it makes my head spin.

      Poverty and chaos is good for the country.  What an obvious crock!

Meteor Blades, jbou, Thumb, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, paradox, Angie in WA State, Alfred E Newman, TXdem, hester, ferg, dalemac, slinkerwink, casamurphy, Trendar, Liberal Thinking, Gooserock, emal, Bob Love, DebtorsPrison, TechBob, tommurphy, Shockwave, Fishgrease, Wintermute, tacet, eeff, frsbdg, xynz, mataliandy, Jerome a Paris, expatjourno, Gustogirl, opinionated, TracieLynn, wonkydonkey, djMikulec, srkp23, DaleA, chuckvw, gayntom, ctsteve, splashy, Chrisfs, wader, tidalwave1, psnyder, danthrax, gmb, gerrilea, jaywillie, churchylafemme, ohiolibrarian, Chirons apprentice, Catte Nappe, AbsurdEyes, chickeee, RebeccaG, Timbuk3, lcrp, alizard, Democratic Hawk, dkmich, walkshills, Oaktown Girl, side pocket, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Josiah Bartlett, bibble, bay of arizona, environmentalist, sawgrass727, joanneleon, humphrey, bloomer 101, marina, radarlady, 3goldens, Kewalo, Ckntfld, m16eib, relentless, panicbean, basquebob, Bouwerie Boy, owlbear1, majcmb1, jimreyn, nyseer, Tunk, Geekesque, Savvy813, Ginny in CO, wigwam, deepsouthdoug, Brian B, bookwoman, Lindy, Ekaterin, dancewater, Snud, third Party please, tarheelblue, vigilant meerkat, RogueStage, dharmafarmer, profundo, tonyahky, cookseytalbott, rhetoricus, blueoasis, TalkieToaster, danktle, A Siegel, JVolvo, bleeding heart, el cid, MarciaJ720, doinaheckuvanutjob, Pilgrim X, Cassiodorus, blueoregon, zedaker, revgerry, mariachi mama, Nulwee, Thinking Fella, tegrat, lams712, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, nathguy, lightfoot, Haningchadus14, Loudoun County Dem, byDesign, DocbytheBay, Dartagnan, yoduuuh do or do not, DWG, bnasley, jayden, Uberbah, beemerr, jnhobbs, owl06, pioneer111, NorthlandLiberal, LWelsch, JML9999, A Person, Terra Mystica, JDWolverton, rogerdaddy, bkamr, mconvente, glutz78, JeffW, scooter in brooklyn, ScottyUrb, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, elwior, Akonitum, jamess, robroser, Cassandra Waites, pickandshovel, bluesheep, Jeff Y, petulans, o the umanity, j7915, luckylizard, James Kresnik, DixieDishrag, Karl Rover, Blueslide, allie123, Robobagpiper, ekyprogressive, Ellinorianne, HoosierDeb, lissablack, cameoanne, SciMathGuy, Turn Left, Ran3dy, Leftcenterlibertarian, DontTaseMeBro, ARS, Are We There Yet, Boycott for Peace, eltee, Methinks They Lie, Partisan Progressive, shopkeeper, allep10, blueocean, Kiku, maxzj05, DoggiesWatches, Leftcandid, LookingUp, ozarkspark, brentbent, swaminathan, awcomeon, spunout, Captain Marty, eXtina, Johnnythebandit, cindiloohoo, jethrock, SeattleTammy, angelajean, AZphilosopher, ATFILLINOIS, BonnieSchlitz, Garfnobl, madeup64, elginblt, ItsSimpleSimon, Benintn, juturna, DrFitz, NYWheeler, JRandomPoster, shel3364, washunate, Betty Pinson, Nada Lemming, Oh Mary Oh, yellow dog in NJ, BrowniesAreGood, Colorado is the Shiznit, ozsea1, Bob Duck, bgblcklab1, Gracian, jardin32, La Gitane, BlueJessamine, the national gadfly, Mistral Wind, dry heat dem, marleycat, majii, Cinnamon Rollover, Element 61, gman123, dle2GA, BarackStarObama, floridablue, tardis10, PeggyD, marshstars, vzfk3s, whoknu, whaddaya, VTCC73, SoCalSal, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Ezekial 23 20, thejoshuablog, jobobo, MichaelNY, CalliopeIrjaPearl, James Robinson, RhodaA, FireBird1, Siri, NancyWilling, IndieGuy, James Renruojos, Eric Nelson, Alpha99, SocialRazor, Trotskyrepublican, West Michigan Dem, SFUSA17, NCIndy

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site