Skip to main content

CPBB deficit parfait chart

The stupid is on full display today as the punditry bemoans the death of the Super Congress, mournfully declaring that it was just that both sides were so entrenched in protecting entitlements versus tax increases. So let's just try to inject a little reality into this. First, the always helpful deficit parfait chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

That black line at the very bottom, the one that stays pretty damned stable, includes the contribution of things like Medicaid and Medicare entitlements. Not Social Security mind you, because Social Security still doesn't contribute to the deficit. That's a conveniently forgotten fact by everyone who insisted on plopping it down on the negotiating table, Democrat and Republican alike. So yes, the big drivers of the deficit continue to be the Bush tax cuts, the wars and the ongoing economic downturn. But mostly, it's those tax cuts.

Now, let's look at who put what on the table. Ezra Klein does just that.

If by "at fault" we mean "unwilling to compromise," we can do better than listen to the self-serving remarks of the players. We can look hard at the movement in the actual plans. Before the supercommittee, there were the Obama-Boehner negotiations. And we have a pretty good idea of the plan that almost—but didn't quite—clear those discussions. We also have the deals on the plans that were offered in the supercommittee. And if you look at the numbers, it's pretty easy to see which party moved further towards a compromise.

Hint: It's the one that named Sen. Max Baucus as one of its six key negotiators.

The final Boehner plan envisioned tax reform that would generate $800 billion in new revenues and bring the top rate down to 35 percent. In the supercommittee, the highest Republicans ever got on taxes was the Toomey plan's $300 billion, with envisioned a top rate of 28 percent. So on taxes, it's fairly clear: The supercommittee Republicans were far to the right of Boehner. [...]

Boehner had about $150 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts in his opening bid in the negotiations with the president, and he went down from there. In the supercommittee, Baucus offered $200 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts. Supercommittee Republicans were far beyond that, however. If you read Hensarling's op-ed today explaining why the committee failed, he complains that Democrats were too focused on tax increases but also that they refused to gut the Affordable Care Act or embrace "architectural changes" like turning Medicare into a premium-support system. You can support those policies or oppose them. They're not exactly compromise plans, however. [...]

[I]f the question is whether the Democrats or the Republicans moved further in the direction of a compromise, there's no doubt that compared to the last set of negotiations, the Democrats moved right and the Republicans moved further right.

No, both sides aren't to blame for failure. That goes entirely to the Republicans. Maybe we should actually be giving credit to them for their refusal to accept the gutted sacred cows Democrats offered up on a silver platter. At this point you almost have to be grateful to Grover Norquist for keeping the Republicans in line and saving entitlement programs, this round.

So how about instead of worrying over who is to blame for killing what was a bad idea in the first place, we put some blame on who is intent upon keeping that deficit high. Look again at the chart up top. Wars and tax cuts and the people who want to keep them going—mostly Republicans, but not entirely (looking at you, Leon Panetta)—deserve all the blame.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:25 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  True, although considering the "balanced plan" (9+ / 0-)

    that was being discussed and bandied about - the GOP did everyone a huge solid, however unintended.

  •  High Broderism is so irrelevant now. (5+ / 0-)

    The "centrist" (we always blame Dems) punditry will fade away, missed by very few.

    "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil. Government belongs wherever evil needs an adversary and there are people in distress who cannot help themselves." (Robert F. Kennedy, Speech, Athens, Georgia, May 6, 1961).

    by TomP on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:30:52 AM PST

  •  Squeezing Rs - a Supercommittee Win (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DianeNYS, xaxnar

    In addition to threatening veto of attempts to reverse automatic defense spending cuts, today Obama threatened veto of extension of Bush tax cuts:

    President Obama has threatened to veto any legislation that attempts to eliminate the automatic penalties for Super Committee failure. But on January 1, 2013 — the same day the automatic, across the board spending cuts are scheduled to take effect — all of the Bush tax cuts are set to expire. And the White House plans to use the threat of full expiration the exact same way they’re using the threat of sequestration — to force Republicans to accept a higher tax burden on wealthy Americans.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

    Every American should be ashamed at what’s going on in this country. -- Emanuel Cleaver (GOP Voter Suppression)

    by RhodaA on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:36:31 AM PST

  •  I am THRILLED they FAILED. (8+ / 0-)

    Because of the way this system is set up their failure = a momentary reprieve for our collective futures.

    This stupor-committee was to be the bad cop of the 'good cop-bad cop' arrangement the 2 parties decided on. "How can we FUCK the commoners, give the Filthy Rich another needless tax break and not take the heat for in the polls? was the ENTIRE mission of these fuckheads.

    They still want to steal our money and give it to the rich and not have this rammed up their asses at election time.

    Nothing has changed. They simply failed.

    Now somebody will re-propose everything we have been saying is wrong all along.

  •  Impact of Dems' compromise offers (6+ / 0-)

    No question that the Dems were more willing to compromise; and it's a good thing that their proposed compromises were rejected.  I liked Jeffrey Sach's take on the Super Congress:

    The big political lie of the Super Committee is that the deficit must be closed mainly by cutting government spending rather than by raising taxes on corporations and the super-rich. Both parties are complicit. The Republicans want to close the deficit entirely by cutting spending; Obama has brandished the formula of $3 of cuts for every $1 of tax revenues. On either approach, the poor and middle class would suffer grievously while the rich and powerful would win yet again (at least until the social pressures boil over).

    The problem is that in future budget discussions, there will be an assumption of cuts in Medicare since representatives of both parties have said they support cuts.
    The 2012 election season is just around the corner. What will Democratic candidates for House and Senate say to the voters? I think defending Medicare, combined with calling for the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes is a position that many voters would support. I somehow don't think that telling voters that we want to cut Medicare too is a good strategy, as well as being a total abandonment of what Democrats should stand for.
    •  Tax cuts (0+ / 0-)

      Indeed, the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 have taken center stage once again now that the “super committee” charged with finding $1.2 trillion in spending cuts admitted failure.  The Washington Post wrote that the super committee’s undoing has thrust the “much-contested Bush tax cuts into the forefront of next year’s presidential campaign.” As the Post goes on to note, Democrats will “portray Obama’s opponent in the presidential election as a defender of tax cuts for the rich.”

      “The wealthiest of Americans, those who earn over a million dollars every year, have to share, too. And that line in the sand we haven’t seen any Republicans willing to cross yet,” said one of the United States Senate’s most uninformed members, Patty Murray (D.-Wash.).

      Dan Pfeiffer, official White House hack and Obama bootlicker said the expiration of the tax cuts “should be a powerful incentive to the Republicans to abandon their politically foolish and substantively absurd position on taxes on the wealthy.”

      And the beat goes on.

      Except, of course, these shopworn liberal objections to tax cuts are filled with more shinola than Michael Moore’s colon.

      Seeing that the Democrats are reviving their favorite campaign talking point, let’s review the facts about “tax cuts for the rich.”

      First off, what President Bush enacted into law cut taxes across the board on everyone, not just the upper echelon. The 15 percent rate dropped to 10 percent, 27 percent to 25 percent, 30 percent to 28 percent, 35 percent to 33 percent, and 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Now go ahead and ask a lib which income bracket received the highest cut. Oh, snap: That would be the lowest income threshold, which nosedived five percentage points.

      The whole “tax cuts for the rich” is pure bunk, a lie that liberals shamelessly popularize. Not that this should surprise us one bit. Here we have a Democrat Party in America that couldn’t agree on a puny $1.2 trillion in spending reductions over a 10-year-period. That means that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s minions refused to slice off what amounts to $120 billion dollars a year of a federal budget nearly topping $4 trillion. Instead they insisted that taxes be jacked up to pay for their statist programs.

      Next up, we have the line that tax cuts blew the lid off of our deficit. That’s funny, because during the last year a Republican budget controlled Congress (fiscal year 2007), the deficit stood at a minuscule $161 billion dollars. $161 billion! That’s at least five years into the tenure of those evil tax cuts. Moreover, as HUMAN EVENTS has previously reported, federal tax receipts actually went up while the tax cuts were accelerating. In other words, the United States Treasury received more money not less because of the Bush tax cuts that Democrats allege ruined America’s economy.

      See for your self:

      $1.88 trillion in 2004

      $ 2.15 trillion in 2005

      $ 2.4 trillion in 2006

      $ 2.6 trillion in 2007

      The last figure was actually the highest dollar amount brought into the Treasury Department… ever. That’s right, folks. While Democrats wail and whine about tax cuts as the main culprit for this country’s deficit woes, it turns out that we were bringing in bag fulls of money at historic proportions during that same time.

      Idiots.

      Then there are the politically-savvy, but totally fallacious, calls for "shared sacrifice." Naturally the Democrats don’t use that phrase to describe the nearly 50 percent of Americans who don’t pay any federal income taxes, but instead those who already pay the bulk of all federal, state, and local taxes. That aside, it’s the spending side of the lever that is completely out-of-whack, and has been so for a while. We’re now in our third straight year in a row with deficits exploding past $1 trillion dollars.

      So when a lib is babbling to you about “shared sacrifice,” you can remind him that his great leader Messiah Obama shattered two spending records: Giving America her first-ever $1 trillion dollar deficit, and number two, extending that history-making deficit three consecutive years.

      Heck, this guy has managed to increase the national debt by more than the first 41 presidents combined (George Washington to George Bush), and he’s done so in a mere 32 months.

      You go, Barack!

      And there you have it, the cutting evidence you need at your finger tips to eviscerate those unending lefty desires to slam us against the locker room and raid our wallets some more. Time to hit these Dems back with what they can’t get around -- a little something, something called: Facts.

  •  "hands off social security, hands off medicare" (4+ / 0-)

    i can't think of a campaign theme more destined for victory...democratic politicians are just fucking hopeless

    Kick a "job creator" in the balls today!

    by memofromturner on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:39:25 AM PST

  •  so now (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DianeNYS, snazzzybird, Alice Olson

    so now one of the two parties is 100% loyal to a 12 year old ideas on bus rides.  Nice.  I wonder when the republicans will ban homework, and make ice cream a vegetable.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:50:21 PM PST

  •  GOP Puts Country Last... (9+ / 0-)

    ...and its allegiance to Grover Norquist and his pledge first. It's no way to run a country, and these GOP clowns have far more than earned their total and complete political extinction.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Gandhi

    by alaprst on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:51:32 PM PST

    •  GOP pretends to put country first. which is why (0+ / 0-)

      They constantly call liberals anti-american yet we are the ones who have proven to be FOR the people not for the corporations!

    •  One good development over the past coupla months: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, DSPS owl

      I have heard the name "Grover Norquist" used in our mainstream media more in the past two or three months than I had in the 20 years previous. I can assure you, Grover Norquist and his employees in the GOP are NOT happy about that. They prefer to work in the shadows.

      Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

      by RickMassimo on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:18:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  well, then God Bless Grover (0+ / 0-)

    so wrong, he was right.... far right. +

    It's not a fake orgasm; it's a real yawn.

    by sayitaintso on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:53:00 PM PST

  •  Top 4 Reason Why I Love Me Some Norquist (7+ / 0-)

    4.  He ain't no strawman. He's the real thing.  He is a villain. Hell, he looks like villain.  "I AM your father!"  Muuuu haa haaa haaa!  

    3. Grover?  Seriously?  Talk about repealing the 20th century...

    2.  He hasn't had a new idea since 1968, when he was 12 years old.

    1.   Neither have the Republicans.

  •  Ezra has said this before: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyta, Matt Z

    When the healthcare battle was at its peak and Nancy Pelosi brought out a plan with a public option, which was not going to succeed, she didn't turn around and create a single payer bill.  However, the Republicans consitently see their bills getting stopped in the Senate, wherein they turn around and submit something even less acceptable.

    Its pretty obvious who has been willing to take up compromise and governance.

    Do not ever look at my Twitter feed! @Ralpheelou

    by Ralpheelou on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:59:04 PM PST

  •  Any member of the US Government (3+ / 0-)

    (every stinkin' Republican in congress) who signs a pledge of loyalty to a non-elected individual DC CORPORATE LOBBYIST (Grover Norquist) and his insane anti tax dogma over their pledge to the US Constitution, should be removed from office immediately and tried for treason.

    "He's the one, who likes all our pretty songs. And he likes to sing along. And he likes to shoot his gun. But he knows not what it means" - Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:01:02 PM PST

  •  Grover Norquist was gloating today... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y, lyta, Matt Z, bythesea

    at The Guardian: This tax battle is for the soul of America

    There is a fight going on in the United States. Will the federal government raise taxes on the American people to pay for the increase in federal spending from 20% of GDP to 25% of GDP in Obama's first three years? Or will the American people wrestle federal spending back down towards the 20% of GDP range that has been the norm for 30 years. Will taxes go up to pay for Obama's supersized government? Or will the size and cost of government come down? Does America become a European welfare state or return to be America?

    [...]

    What would a compromise look like if one person wished to move east and one wanted to move west? Any movement is a win for one and a loss for the other. Democrats want higher spending and higher taxes. Republicans (post George W Bush, and chastened by the Tea Party and the 2010 elections) want lower spending and lower taxes. There was no compromise to be had. The good guys won round two...

    The Republicans will hold their majority in the House of Representatives in November 2012...

    The 2012 election will also be more generous to Republicans running for Senate...

    And, of course, the presidency is also up for grabs.

    This will be round three in this historic fight. Will America ratchet up taxes to make the higher levels of spending permanent? Or will the statist play to turn America into Europe fail, forcing the American left to retreat again, like Sisyphus, embittered, but determined to keep trying? This coming election will decide the issue.

  •  The pundits love the Green Lantern Theory. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    America2028

    Why didn't Obama just make the committee reach a deal?  You know, with a speech or something.  He's the President of United States fer chrissakes!

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:02:41 PM PST

  •  GOP = Grover's Own Patsies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, DSPS owl

    Show me a politician that doesn't want to gain, and/or hold onto power, and I'll show you one who can't get elected.

    by HarryParatestis on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:03:50 PM PST

  •  "Inject reality into this"? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon, maryabein, Matt Z, DSPS owl

    Now, Joan. Why ever would you want to do such a thing?

    The part that makes me nervous is Obama's clear statement that he will veto any attempts by Congress to get around the deal they made last summer.  Can we count on that?  Oh, I do hope so -- but I fear it's another precedent to caving.

    And, the Democrats in the Senate are said by the New York Times to be planning "to use the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of next year, as leverage in future attempts to avoid large cuts to the budget."  I read that to mean they are willing to cave on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

    Woe is us.

    The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

    by Alice Olson on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:04:17 PM PST

  •  85% of the Bush Tax Cut goes to income (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    under $250,000 for Joint returns and under $200,000 for single returns. Continuing this part of the Bush Tax cuts  is supported by most all Democrats and Republicans in Congress and Pres Obama.

    This is important to keep in mind when seeing the "deficit parfait chart" with that very large area of Orange.  

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

    by nextstep on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:07:47 PM PST

  •  Yeah, I was awaken this morning (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyta, asm121, Matt Z, Caipirinha

    to the Morning Joe garbage about "both sides".  Joe even said that Grover had nothing to do with the failure and that ultimatley Grover is just another citizen but Obama is the President so he deserves a great deal of blame.  Wow???  I guess Joe's been living under a rock the past year.  The GOP controlled House didn't sign a pledge with President Obama.  They signed one with Gorver.  The will not work with the President...period.

     I agree, Grover is just another citizen but the elected GOP officials do not treat him like that.  Look no further than the idiots running for president all saying that they wouldn't even accept a 10:1 deal.  How is it the dems fault when 10:1, 100:1, 1 million:1 will not work for the GOP?  But somehow this is President Obama and dems in Congress fault because they didn't cave to 100% spending cuts to zero tax increases on the rich?  

  •  The chart says it all. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, Matt Z, Caipirinha, DSPS owl

    This chart should be put in front of as many voters as possible, as often as possible. Democratic candidates for any office should use it as a backdrop for their speaking engagements. In fact, it should be the Democratic logo.

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

    by itsjim on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:14:30 PM PST

  •  Norquist did us a favor (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, Matt Z

    albiet for atrocious motives.  Why the rush to attach blame for something that was a good thing? It's not like there aren't plenty of things to criticize Grover for.  

    Austerity is deeply immoral, terrible economics and worse politics.  

    Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

    by David Kaib on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:16:09 PM PST

  •  Our new mantra should be: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, DSPS owl

    "Who elected Grover Norquist?"

  •  Send Grover a thank you card! (0+ / 0-)
  •  so we are thankful to Norquist (0+ / 0-)

    who saved the day?  

    i have a foreboding of what will happen in the future to Medicare and SS.

    Proud Socialist Whore.

    by Muggsy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:27:31 PM PST

  •  This Thanksgiving I'm thankful for Grover Norquist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ky DEM, Matt Z

    Perhaps my conservative relatives will be pleasantly surprised as long as I don't explain myself during the football game.

  •  The Press Can't Be This Stupid. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caipirinha, DSPS owl

    They are hired and paid for by Corporations, or bought and paid for. They are an arm of the rightwing 1% class. To tell the truth to the American people is not going to happen.

    But al least Lawrence O'Donnell had it right last night. This worked out perfectly for cutting the hell out of defense and ensuring that the bush tax cuts will phase out. And Obama should read Panetta the riot act, now.

    •  Yeah, Panetta should not have made that comment (0+ / 0-)

      It's all you hear all day is this notion that we are going to all get blown up because this debt panel failed.  No one is going to gut the Pentagon.  Nice going Panetta.  Scare the shit outta everybody into thinking that maybe gutting medicare and social security with zero tax increases is a good idea because at least we will all still be alive. ...idiot.  

  •  Look For The Rethugs To Try And Eliminate The (0+ / 0-)

    "automatic spending cuts" in defense that are slated to go into effect in 2013, now that the Super Committee has failed to reach an agreement.  So Democrats in Congress - ARE YOU LISTENING TO THIS?? You can use the Rethugs desperation to eliminate defense cuts as a BARGAINING CHIP. Here's the deal the Dems should offer to the Rethugs: whenever X amount of dollars in defense cuts are restored, X amount of dollars in new tax revenues MUST be raised through taxing the rich and corporations.  Taxing the rich is defined as: 1. Increasing the estate tax and lowering the exemption amount that is protected from estate taxes, 2. Taxing hedge fund income as EARNED INCOME not capital gains, 3. Increasing the long term capital gains tax rate, 4. Instituting a securities transaction tax, 5. Expanding the upper tax brackets to 39.6% (the upper rate bracket during the Clinton presidency), 6. Eliminating ALL corporate tax loopholes and ridiculous deductions (like deductions for corporate jets, etc.), 7. Eliminating multi-national corporation subsidies (particularly the oil companies), and 8. Revamping the tax code so multi-nationals CANNOT defer paying income taxes on profits earned overseas. DO NOT INCLUDE THE BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRATION IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS.  NO extension of the Bush tax cuts should be negotiated, period.  If Democrats do what I have suggested, in conjunction with the Bush tax cuts expiring, an increase in tax revenue should offset any cuts in defense spending, and the long term deficit will be reduced.

  •  NORQUINISTAS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ky DEM

    One and all of these lemmings who signed on to Grover's oath of bondage:

    NORQUINISTAS

    "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

    by oregonj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:31:38 PM PST

  •  Failure Was Always The Plan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Kaib

    Shorter Kevin Drum and Digby: Republicans win because they now have the Democrats on record calling for cuts to Social Security, Medicare, AND raising taxes.

    They never cared if the SC delivered or not - they just wanted to keep kicking the can down the road while continuing the propaganda push. The Pentagon will escape most of the cuts - and the majority will come out of the safety net side. What's not to like for the GOP? - they can blame the Democrats for all this, and the media will let them.

    P.S. For those who want to see the Pentagon cut back, the cuts will fall largely on enlisted personnel - thrown back out into the civilian world without a job - and by cutting benefits, allowances for housing, healthcare, help for military families, etc. etc. You won't see it coming out of Halliburton, Xe Services, General Dynamics, Raytheon...

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:33:47 PM PST

  •  This diagram (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crazy like a fox

    misses the full extent of the increase in the Defense Budget since 2000.  There are two components of defense spending:  the Wars (which have been covered by supplemental bills) and the baseline DOD budget.  

    In 2000 the Defense Budget was 290 Billion.  The FY12 budget is 737 in Defense spending.  On top of this is another $127 Billion for VA benefits (as opposed 46 Billion in 2000).

    So in nominal terms the explosion in defense spending has increased from roughly $337 Billion to $851 Billion.  

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:44:24 PM PST

  •  Facts just confuse media. They got Thugs to elect. (0+ / 0-)

    At this pt, that agenda is undeniable.  The only alternative is mass brain-death, and since they're clothed we can rule that out.

    Well, except Andrea Mitchell who is both a Thug and brain dead.  Really, Andrea?  You sit there and eat up Bloomburg's 'Obama just needs to say he'll raise taxes on the middle class and that'll elect him!"?  Seriously?  Even hubby Alan isn't so stupid as to try and peddle that blatant concern troll.

  •  Republicans for 0.1% (0+ / 0-)

    I just saw a recent statistic:  1/10 of 1 % of all Americans "earn" 50% of all Capital Gains!

    That seems to put the OWS issue in perspective doesn't it?  We really need to protect the tax breaks for Capital Gains.  That really is a "Greater Social Good".  Isn't it?

    It's hard to believe that we almost half of all of Americans relating to one Political Party that is intent on destroying America's Middle Class.  It's unbelievable that Americans could consistently continue to vote against their own economic interests because of the moral issues that the Republican Party uses to befuddle its base.

    Until we have upward mobility, our nation will be defined by its stagnation.  The Republican Party is against any policies that will provide opportunities for young, ambitious people to move upward to challenge their plutocrats.

    Impeach Grover Norquist! Defeat a Republican!

    by NM Ray on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:52:54 PM PST

  •  The meme needs to be pushed.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caipirinha

    ..that republicons have sworn allegiance to a lobbyist that takes precedent over serving the people who elected them and to the country.

    It's beyond disturbing and I think most Americans would find it disturbing. It needs to be framed correctly so people understand that this is what they chose to do.

    O great creator of being grant us one more hour to perform our art and perfect our lives. ::: Jim Morrison :::

    by Kevanlove on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:53:51 PM PST

  •  The GOP isn't stupid... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and they're shedding alligator tears over the failure of the supercommittee.  It's a gamble; they're trading a weaker negotiating position in 2012 for a possible fait accompli in 2013, but it's not out of the realm of impossibility, particularly if the economy continues to muddle along.  Should they capture the White House and the Senate again--no matter how thin the margin, we could lose health care reform, see lock in for the marginal and capital gains rates as they stand, and a whole lot worse.

    If we're going to the mattresses, the Democrats must at least must hold on to the Presidency.  Question is, will a certain segment of the netroots soldier for this Administration or will they sit on their thumbs stewing over first-term shortcomings and dreaming of nonsense?

    A quant and damned proud of it.

    by Cera on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:57:37 PM PST

  •  Super Congress failed because of Republican (0+ / 0-)

    allegiance to Grover Norquist's anonymous donors.

    To be more precise.  

    Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

    by Lefty Coaster on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:06:20 PM PST

  •  The GOP nominee isn't Romney (0+ / 0-)

    No matter who wins, it's Grover Norquist.

  •  Bingo, we have a winner. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caipirinha

    Norquist and his pledge is indeed exactly why the Super Congress failed. Based ona  story on how the GOP became the party of/for the rich I read in Rollingstone, I think there are only maybe 25 Repugs. in Congress who have not signed his childish pledge. And I get sick and tired of their mantra that " we can't raise taxes on the job creators". Why the hell not? reagan did it THREE times when he was President and we survived just fine as I recall. I love the new meaning of GOP I saw the other day. Its stands for Grand Overreach Party!!!

  •  What are we doing about the Dems... (0+ / 0-)

    ...who were so eager to gut Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security? Every one of the "SuperDems" (following orders from the White House) was ready to give it all away. And they still are.

    The greatest threats to our social programs are 0bama and Democrats in the Senate! The Republicans can't unilaterally wreck the safety net. Why are the Democrats in such a hot sweat to obliterate the New Deal and the Great Society? Is it because they're all one percenters? Or because they are OWNED by one percenters?

  •  In this one case, thank you, Grover Norquist... (0+ / 0-)

    Super Congress failed because of Republican allegiance to Grover Norquist

    Reform the Democratic Party. We've been lulled to sleep by false promises of hope from a corporatist cabal for too long.

    by masswaster on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:36:52 PM PST

  •  correct: (0+ / 0-)

    "Super Congress failed because of Republican allegiance to Grover Norquist"

    yes.

    The Right beats its chest over the symbols of America, while the Left works to guard its substance.

    by Gentle Giant on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:30:03 PM PST

  •  super Commitee (0+ / 0-)

    Indeed, the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 have taken center stage once again now that the “super committee” charged with finding $1.2 trillion in spending cuts admitted failure.  The Washington Post wrote that the super committee’s undoing has thrust the “much-contested Bush tax cuts into the forefront of next year’s presidential campaign.” As the Post goes on to note, Democrats will “portray Obama’s opponent in the presidential election as a defender of tax cuts for the rich.”

    “The wealthiest of Americans, those who earn over a million dollars every year, have to share, too. And that line in the sand we haven’t seen any Republicans willing to cross yet,” said one of the United States Senate’s most uninformed members, Patty Murray (D.-Wash.).

    Dan Pfeiffer, official White House hack and Obama bootlicker said the expiration of the tax cuts “should be a powerful incentive to the Republicans to abandon their politically foolish and substantively absurd position on taxes on the wealthy.”

    And the beat goes on.

    Except, of course, these shopworn liberal objections to tax cuts are filled with more shinola than Michael Moore’s colon.

    Seeing that the Democrats are reviving their favorite campaign talking point, let’s review the facts about “tax cuts for the rich.”

    First off, what President Bush enacted into law cut taxes across the board on everyone, not just the upper echelon. The 15 percent rate dropped to 10 percent, 27 percent to 25 percent, 30 percent to 28 percent, 35 percent to 33 percent, and 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Now go ahead and ask a lib which income bracket received the highest cut. Oh, snap: That would be the lowest income threshold, which nosedived five percentage points.

    The whole “tax cuts for the rich” is pure bunk, a lie that liberals shamelessly popularize. Not that this should surprise us one bit. Here we have a Democrat Party in America that couldn’t agree on a puny $1.2 trillion in spending reductions over a 10-year-period. That means that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s minions refused to slice off what amounts to $120 billion dollars a year of a federal budget nearly topping $4 trillion. Instead they insisted that taxes be jacked up to pay for their statist programs.

    Next up, we have the line that tax cuts blew the lid off of our deficit. That’s funny, because during the last year a Republican budget controlled Congress (fiscal year 2007), the deficit stood at a minuscule $161 billion dollars. $161 billion! That’s at least five years into the tenure of those evil tax cuts. Moreover, as HUMAN EVENTS has previously reported, federal tax receipts actually went up while the tax cuts were accelerating. In other words, the United States Treasury received more money not less because of the Bush tax cuts that Democrats allege ruined America’s economy.

    See for your self:

    $1.88 trillion in 2004

    $ 2.15 trillion in 2005

    $ 2.4 trillion in 2006

    $ 2.6 trillion in 2007

    The last figure was actually the highest dollar amount brought into the Treasury Department… ever. That’s right, folks. While Democrats wail and whine about tax cuts as the main culprit for this country’s deficit woes, it turns out that we were bringing in bag fulls of money at historic proportions during that same time.

    Idiots.

    Then there are the politically-savvy, but totally fallacious, calls for "shared sacrifice." Naturally the Democrats don’t use that phrase to describe the nearly 50 percent of Americans who don’t pay any federal income taxes, but instead those who already pay the bulk of all federal, state, and local taxes. That aside, it’s the spending side of the lever that is completely out-of-whack, and has been so for a while. We’re now in our third straight year in a row with deficits exploding past $1 trillion dollars.

    So when a lib is babbling to you about “shared sacrifice,” you can remind him that his great leader Messiah Obama shattered two spending records: Giving America her first-ever $1 trillion dollar deficit, and number two, extending that history-making deficit three consecutive years.

    Heck, this guy has managed to increase the national debt by more than the first 41 presidents combined (George Washington to George Bush), and he’s done so in a mere 32 months.

    You go, Barack!

    And there you have it, the cutting evidence you need at your finger tips to eviscerate those unending lefty desires to slam us against the locker room and raid our wallets some more. Time to hit these Dems back with what they can’t get around -- a little something, something called: Facts.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site