Skip to main content

Rep. Paul Ryan introducing his budget. Let the posturing begin. (Jose Luis Magaua/Reuters)
Today, while Senate Republicans will be trying to stop the very popular Buffet Rule to tax the rich, their buddies in the House are mapping out new and exciting ways to screw over everyone else.

Six different House committees have been tasked with trying to make Rep. Paul Ryan's magical "budget" work, and they're tackling it with gusto, ready to decimate programs for low and middle income Americans while increasing defense spending.

Expected targets for cuts include food stamps, farm subsidies and crop insurance, federal employee pensions and health care. A repeal of President Barack Obama's health reform law would prevent new coverage expenses from occurring from 2014. [...]

Importantly, Republicans want to shield military and security spending from these cuts by shifting them to domestic programs. And fiscal conservatives want to demonstrate to voters even deeper spending cuts.

Don't forget that they're also going to gift millionaires with the lowest tax rates in 80 years (funded by getting rid of still unidentified loopholes and, apparently, unicorn poop). They've certainly made their priorities clear: more defense spending and tax cuts for millionaires, while taking food out of children's mouths and health care away from the vulnerable. And don't forget those Medicare vouchers!

It would all just be so much show, if not for the fact that Republicans are determined to try to actually enact these cuts, breaking the budget deal they agreed to in the Budget Control Act settled last year. That risks yet another government shutdown stand-off this summer or fall. Somehow they seem to remain convinced that this is what will win the election for them.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:22 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  millionaires and military. hm. (9+ / 0-)

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:27:11 AM PDT

  •  Job creators (4+ / 0-)

    Why do Democrats always go have the "job creators"?

    I'm sure that Mitt Romney will explain how his Swiss bank accounts and how his 15% in federal taxes has created hundreds and hundreds of jobs.  He is employing car elevator workers!!!

    Let's not forget how many jobs were created when Bush cut taxes on the wealthy.   Wait....we can forget that, can't we?

    On the other hand, think of all the poor people losing benefits who will now know the dignity of work.  

    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

    by MoDem on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:33:23 AM PDT

  •  I vote (12+ / 0-)
    unicorn poop
    We know Republicans are math impaired.

    They expect people working minimum wage to be able to survive on that.

    Just extend that absence of thought to how they expect this Nation to prosper when it's ability to promote the general welfare is hamstrung by eviscerating budget cuts.

    Traitors one and all.

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:34:27 AM PDT

    •  Will nobody think of the poor unicorns?!? (0+ / 0-)

      I mean, it's not like they're as full of sh*t as most of the Republicans they're supposed to be supporting. Frankly, there isn't enough laxative in the world to produce enough support for a budget that keeps all of the military spending and cuts the domestic stuff.

  •  Farm subsidies (10+ / 0-)

    I wouldn't mind if we cut the farm subsidies that make corn syrup so very very inexpensive.  Americans don't need cheap sweetener in everything.

    •  That is correct . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PSzymeczek, CA Nana, eru

      one budget cut that we can agree on.

      We subsidize corn and soybeans, but not vegetables. Agribusiness gets the benefits, but not small scale farmers growing for local markets.

    •  What needs to happen to farm subsidies is... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hannibal, NCJim, 714day, eru

      ...means-test them. The idea that these help small farmers is a myth in these days of mega-agri-business. The collectors of most of the allocation for these subsidies are giants. It should not be too hard, practically speaking, to find a way to help the "family farm" while ensuring that largest operations don't collect these subsidies.

      Practically speaking, however, is not politically speaking. And many a politician's promise to ax those subsidies has come to grief when the ... uh ... legislative sausage is being made.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:34:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep - I kind of had a chuckle at this: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The House Agriculture Committee has been told to make the biggest contribution - $8.2 billion for fiscal 2013 and $33.2 billion over 10 years. The Ryan budget documents suggested that $30 billion of this could come from farm subsidies and federal crop insurance programs - steps that would be deeply unpopular in farm states.
        Gee, ya think?

        That'll go over big in the red states - about as big as "immigration reform" has gone over in states where growers can't find anyone to work the fields any more.

        Please Click here to help me get a round 2 Netroots Nation scholarship! Thanks!!

        by Richard Cranium on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 12:35:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Cut the sugar subsidies of all kinds (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie, eru

      Sugar cause more illness than almost any other consumable, and we have a high tariff to protect sugar growers from cheap foreign producers.

      Democrats stand for Liberty, Security, Support of Families and Opportunity Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

      by Rick B on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:20:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I love the phrase "millionaire protection plan" (14+ / 0-)

    it is pitch-perfect..easy and catchy...

    that is what the Republican Party is -

     the Millionaire Protection Plan.

  •  Robs the poor to protect the rich = the R's (8+ / 0-)

    real motto and motive.

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:09:29 AM PDT

  •  Top marginal rates are MEANINGLESS (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigOkie, VClib, nextstep

    without consideration of things like exemptions/deductions.  

    I wish people would stop looking at top marginal rates ALONE to say things like "it's the lowest tax rate since Hoover."  That's what the link did.  That's really not intellectually honest  when you are talking about whether the top 1% are paying more, or less, in taxes.  It is effective tax rates that matter -- see the second chart here.  The top 1% paid more under Clinton's 39.6% than they did under Carter's 70%.  You simply cannot honestly compare top marginal rates without considering things like (1) the level of income rates apply to; and (2) deductions/exemptions/shelters (drastically changed in 1986).  

    Here's why this bugs me so much.    

    I SUPPORT a re-vamping of the individual income tax rates forth the top 1%.  It's crazy to have some in the top 1% pay an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 15%, and some to pay an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 30%, depending on which deductions/exemptions they can claim.  It is much, much better to lower the top marginal rates and get rid of most deductions/exemptions.  If you do it correctly, you could RAISE the effective rates a couple of points (maybe  back up from 19%, where it is now, to 22 or 23%) and get MORE money from the top 1%, without the wild disparities in what people are paying.  

    It is a fair criticism that Ryan has not designated which exemptions/deductions he would eliminate. That's absolutely fair.

    However, I wish Democrats would stop dismissing the approach of lowering top marginal rates while also eliminating deductions and exemptions a "massive tax cut for the rich."  That borders on disingenuous.   The approach is completely sound and is, in fact, the only way you are going to, as a practical matter, get increases in revenue from the top 1%.  Even the President has acknowledged that this approach is essentially what needs to happen, both with respect to individual rates and corporate rates.  

    If it is correctly done, the approach is not a massive tax cut for the rich -- instead (for a party so concerned about fairness) it is a way to increase what the top 1% pay in a much more fair and equitable way.

     What IS a fair criticism is that Ryan hasn't yet identified which deductions/exemptions to eliminate.

    •  But they ARE the lowest RATES, aren't they? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, wishingwell, PSzymeczek, Matt Z

      And Yes, deductions, credits and preferential rates on things like capital gains and so-called "carried interest" drop the effective tax rates of the wealthy (and some of the rest of us) even more.

      The virtue in emphasizing the highest rate bracket is that people get that message in a few words. Your explanation - valuable insight, I grant you - takes a lot more words and leaves the issue somewhat more confused for all the details.

      As for slicing out some - I suspect, in the reality, very, very few, if any - of the deductions, let's see what gets through a GOP-controlled House Ways and Means Committee before we pay that kind of proposal any compliments.

      Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

      by TRPChicago on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:29:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it's dishonest and destructive in the long run (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's dishonest when it's meant to imply that what the rich PAY in taxes is discernible by the rates.   That's clearly what it's meant to imply.  That's dishonest and it misleads people into thinking, for example, "going back" to the rates before Reagan is some kind of massive tax increase on the rich, when the rich paid MORE under the Clinton tax rates than they did in 1979, before Reagan.  It means that, when it's time for the real debate over tax reform, you've mislead people for a year.  

        Moreover, it's destructive in the long term.  Sure, it makes for a nice sound bite now.  But when it comes time for real tax reform -- probably after the election -- Democrats are going to HAVE to look to real tax reform -- lowering of top marginal rates and elimination of deductions/exemptions -- if they want any shot of increasing tax revenue from the top 1%.  If they spend a year telling people all you have to do is look at top marginal rates to see what "the rich" are paying, and that any decrease in top marginal rates -- even if it's coupled with elimination of deductions and  exemptions so that the rich pay more -- is a "massive tax cut for the rich," what happens when they want to adopt that approach as a way of raising more revenue from the top 1%?  How does any kind of meaningful tax reform get done?  

        •  Well, I don't want to argue (much) with someone (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell, Meteor Blades

          ... who has studied tax issues and tax reform as you obviously have.

          You think people think "rates" are what what the rich pay. But we've seen stories about big corporations who pay nothing, or far, far less than the corporate rate. And we know Romney pays way below the top rate bracket.  I think people who are paying Federal income taxes this season know better than to equate rates with payments, because they themselves aren't paying the bracket rate on their own income. (Do some not pay attention? I don't know how you can fill our your own tax return and not, but you may have me on that point.)

          As for sound bite politicking at election time, I think that about matches the public's attention span. But if it doesn't, I'd rather see Obama surrogates reel off the names of corporations who don't pay "the rate." And the study groups trot out the numbers of taxpayers - in the tens of thousands - who do not pay at their rate bracket, than get mired in details about how deductions favor the wealthy, so they pay a lower rate ... and that is somehow even worse.

          You want "meaningful tax reform." Good night, so do I, but I watched Congress up very closely in the past when it had lots of chances - with some bi-partisan support - and I firmly believe it cannot muscle itself up to doing it. There are just too many powerful constituencies in favor of each and every tax break from the small one-company/one-industry breaks to the biggest ones like the mortgage deduction.

          What we're likely to get, at best, is a little chipping away that will authorize the GOP to cut top rates more. And I'm not at all confident of how some key Democrats in Congress would vote on these issues, either.

          I simply do not want to offer those untrustworthy bargainers any such fig leaves.

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:01:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  One deduction (0+ / 0-)

            For corporate and individual income tax.

            Money spent on wages and the labor associated with services is deducted.  Everything else is taxed.

            Bob "Trans-Vaginal" McDonnell...just saying...again ... and again....

            by NCJim on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:07:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  TRPC - comparing marginal rates (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        before the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and those after is comparing apples and oranges. TRA86 transformed the IRS code for individual tax payers. While it may be useful political fodder comparing the pre-86 rates and those since is disingenuous.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 12:24:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Disingenuous". Why? The tax code changes ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... almost every session of Congress. Would you have us get mired in the details of every alteration - OK, every major alteration - in the Code before we can compare rates? Will the other guys be so nuanced when they make their claims about rates and tax fairness?

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:33:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  TRPC - you don't have to discuss every change (0+ / 0-)

            But TRA86 was transformational and to not even give it a nod is not honest.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:01:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, let's more than nod. Brackets were compressed, (0+ / 0-)

              ... and some deductions died. The 1986 act was billed as ground-breaking simplification. Perhaps it was, relatively. But not in terms of exceptions, conditions, rules and regulations that followed. And it screwed some middle income taxpayers with the alternative minimum tax which now produces so much revenue that Congress cannot afford to kill it ... all in the name of simplification.

              Now, help me understand why we can't compare rates. Perhaps we can agree after all, but to do so, we need more than just a declaration that rates aren't comparable because a lot changed in the tax laws.

              Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

              by TRPChicago on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:35:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  TRPC "some deductions died" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                An entire industry that structured tax shelter investments was wiped out with the stroke of a pen. Prior to TRA86 you could drop your federal rate as low as you wanted and all top earners participated at some level. At the time I was a top 1% earner and never had an effective federal rate higher than 10%, when the statutory maximum was 70%.  The effective rate for all of  the top 1% was about 35% prior to TRA86 and that dropped to about 25% when the top rate dropped to 28%. My personal effective rate tripled. Effective rates are a combination of what income is subject to tax and what rate that income is taxed. What TRA86 did was subject nearly all earned income to tax which was not the case prior to TRA86.

                So when you compare the top statutory rates prior to TRA86 what the reader doesn't know is that high income earners were sheltering their income from tax so they were not subject to those high rates. After TRA86 nearly all the earned income is subject to the statutory rate which makes comparisons not valid.  

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 07:14:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I see why you're sensitive about comparisons. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I agree that we should be focusing on effective tax rates, particularly those paid by the wealthy since their current tax preferences are things like (1) a much heavier reliance than the rest of us on preferential rates for long term capital gains and interest, (2) alchemy tricks like "carried interest" that magically changes income into investment, and (3) offshoring income in tax havens and untraceable accounts. Mitt Romney's 13.9% sounds pretty small compared to the rate for the top bracket. And it is!

                  What you and I won't be agreeing on is that rate comparisons can't be made without emphasizing a lot more detail about the tax code. Those levels of detail certainly can be significant when we talk about tax reform. But ...

                  But there's no way Progressives should help the GOP divert attention to raising taxes on the wealthiest by talking about how much lower their rates were in 1985.
                  I'll go with subtleties about taxes when the Republicans start using them. Then, I agree, there's at least a chance of having a square-on honest discussion. But the GOP goes the other direction every time it conflates tax increases with discouraging job creation by small businesses. And confabulates about supply side economics and trickle-down tax policy. And puts out proposals to bump off a few deductions as a way to euchre support for lower tax rates on high income brackets. And refuses to split the linkage in the "Bush tax cuts" of tax rate cuts between the high and the middle brackets. Or proposes a regressive tax structure that would, say, replace taxes on income with VAT-type taxes on sales.

                  Compared to those GOP positions, I think pointing out what the tax code was before 1986 with what it is 2012 is nostalgia, not good politics or even a good start on policy-making. After all, this is an election year.

                  Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

                  by TRPChicago on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:23:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  But WHICH loopholes will you close? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And how loudly will XYZZY interest group squeal if you try?

      Ain't gonna happen.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:03:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Simpson Bowles (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, nextstep

        does exactly that on the tax side -- proposed cutting deductions/exemptions, lowering rates, for a net additional $80 billion a year.  Details here.  That's why some Republicans reject it -- it's not revenue neutral, but raises additional revenue.   (Ryan's proposal is supposedly revenue neutral, but you can't validate that until you see the exemptions he proposes to eliminate -- which is why I said that's a completely fair criticism.

        You could raise even more revenue under a Simpson Bowles approach if you eliminated deductions/exemptions, and lowered marginal rates, but slightly less than S-B proposed, maybe a point or two.  

        A S-B approach to tax reform is the ONLY WAY you are going to get meaningful tax reform.  There is no way you are going to raise top marginal rates on a two-income family with AGI of $250,000 (many of whom already pay an effective tax rate of 26-28% under the AMT) while you still have those exemptions/deductions allowing some with much higher incomes to pay effective tax rates much lower.  No. Way.  

        •  like I said, "ain't gonna happen." /nt (0+ / 0-)

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:17:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  who cares what Simpson Bowles does? nt (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell, wrights, cybersaur, agincour

          "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:19:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because on the tax side, S-B had the correct (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            approach.  There's general consensus on that.  Republicans and Democrats want to do the same thing -- eliminate deductions/exemptions and lower top marginal rates, especially for "the rich" who aren't zillionaires (two-income households with AGI $250,000 to $1 million).  The only difference is, Republicans want it to be revenue neutral, Democrats want it to raise revenue.    At any rate, S-B is the only approach that has any shot of getting through Congress.    

            When, after the election, Democrats turn to tax reform (they have to before "Taxmageddon") they are going to look very very silly when they adopt the approach they've been dishonestly denouncing as massive tax cuts for the rich.  

        •  and if you restored the Clinton rates, (4+ / 0-)

          you'd get $300 billion a year, not the $80 billion a year you're talking about.

          The top tax rates do matter. Restoring cap gains rates to match earned income rates does matter.

          Now, you may be thrilled by making the big Bush tax cuts permanent, but dicking around with exemptions is not enough to pay for them, which is why Simpson-Bowles had huge spending cuts to pay for your tax cuts.

          •  Only if you raise taxes on everybody (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts on families over $250,000 raises only $700 billion over 10 years -  that's $70 billion a year.  S-B raises $80 billion a year.  You only get $300 billion a year if you eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts for families UNDER $250,000 as well.  Is that what you are proposing -- and what are the chances that happens?

            And why should a two-income family of $300,000 who now (due to the AMT) pays an effective federal income tax rate of 26 -  28% get their taxes INCREASED when people who make a lot more pay a far, far, far lower effective rate.  

            S-B proposed taxing cap gains as ordinary income, by the way.  Here's the detail.

          •  ferg - it's actually closer to $400 B/yr (0+ / 0-)

            Of which about $100 B comes from the top 2%. It would also raise the effective rates on the top 1% more than the Buffet Rule would.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:52:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  85% of Bush tax cuts go to household incomes (0+ / 0-)

            below the magic $250,000.

            Many Democrats operate under the false understanding the the bulk of the tax cut goes to the wealthy.

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

            by nextstep on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:46:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  No. Let's go back to a time when... (0+ / 0-)

      ...of growing prosperity when the top EFFECTIVE rate was 55%, the mid-1950s, instead of your approach.

      A far cry from today's EFFECTIVE rate, and from the 91% marginal rate of the time.

      But getting a higher EFFECTIVE rate at anywhere near level is considered anathema.

      So we're probably stuck with lowering the top marginal rate. Therefore, we should first demand a vote on getting rid of deductions and loopholes. THEN, and only then, after that passes, we can have a vote on what the top marginal rate should be, a rate that should be a lot closer to the effective rate.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who was that effective rate on, and what's your (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, nextstep


        The CBO only goes back to 1979 for effective tax rates.  

        I'd strongly suspect that any very high effective rate in the 1950's like that was only on the top .001%.  That 91% marginal rate only applied to incomes that, in today's dollars, are like $3.2 million a year and up.  There's never never never been a time when a two income family of AGI $300,000 (in today's dollars) paid anything near that.  And, a two-income family of AGI $250,000 - $1 million is likely to pay a FAR higher effective tax rate than anything in the CBO history because of the AMT, which gets them to effective tax rates of 26% - 28% on earned income.

        (One reason repealing the Bush Tax Cuts on families over $250,000 doesn't raise more than $70 billion a year is because if you couple it with fixing the AMT, a lot of families who were already paying very high effective rates under the AMT won't pay a lot more if the Bush Tax Cuts are repealed.)  

        All of this is to say, sure, raise the effective tax rates on millionaires incomes over $1 million.  I'm fine with that.  Even if you get it to 30%, which historically would be very high (I have never seen a solid number for what the effective tax rates were prior to 1979), you raise what -- $4 billion a year?  That's a rounding error.   You just aren't talking about a lot of money there.  You need to reach far, far down to talk about real money.  And an approach like S-B (lowering top marginal rates and raising effective rates) is the only way that is going to get done.  

      •  MB - I haven't seen any official data (0+ / 0-)

        on the effective rates from the mid 50's but most of the effective rates for the top 1% prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 were about half the top marginal rate or about 10 percentage points lower than your number of 55%. However, if you have a good reference it would make very interesting reading and would be valuable data set.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:05:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A more complete picture of 1950s (0+ / 0-)

        includes we had 4 recessions in 10 years in the 1950s

        Federal + State + Local spending (including transfer payments) was 24% of GDP in 1950.  While in 2011 it was 37%.

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

        by nextstep on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:54:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Going down to the shutdown wire: Sept 1st? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Horace Boothroyd III

    Or are we going to see a series of CR's between then and the Election?

    My bet is on the latter, with various poison pills attached.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:02:13 AM PDT

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

      That is just perfect for the Republicans.

      They can shut down the government and then say it is Obama's fault.

      You know they will.

      Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:05:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It may be Sept 30 -- not sure on the Federal cycle (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Horace Boothroyd III

        One of those dates.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:10:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But when will Romney's taxes come out? (2+ / 0-)

        AFTER any debates, on whatever busiest day there is to hide it all.

        Or maybe July 4th.  Heh.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  and pound the dems mercilessly (0+ / 0-)

        there will be enough pants pissing on the (D) side of the aisle that this ostensibly suicidal plan could work perfectly for those scumbags.
        Hell, it's worked pretty much every single time they've done it so far, hasn't it? With any "luck" Europe's woes will pull us into the doldrums enough for them to scare the shit out of the markets again, maybe even push up unemployment for a month or two, like they did last August.
        What the hell, it's all good. Nobody held the republicans to blame for what they did, so why wouldn't they do it again? With POTUS on the line, to boot?

        Assuming enough people will see through it, this time, is foolish, imo.

        Class war has consequences, and we are living them.

        by kamarvt on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 12:09:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Happy birthday, Ann Romney! (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinto Pony
  •  Let's see them sell the end of farm subsidies (5+ / 0-)

    to the mid-west. Good one. Actually though, I am in favor of replacing subsidies with the old loan program and enhanced crop insurance. Subsidies are generally not a good idea. But then, why is it good to continue oil and gas subsidies if agricultural subsidies are bad?

    I would think that the President ought to be visiting Iowa soon.

    Fructose is a liver poison. Stop eating it today.

    by Anne Elk on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:06:03 AM PDT

  •  It will take some "magic" to make that budget work (0+ / 0-)

    Not to mention that even George W Bush in 1999 opposed the House Republican budget (which contained far less harsh cuts than this current one) because, as he said:

    I don't think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor
  •  If the GOP brings government to a halt on ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, PSzymeczek

    ... taxes for the wealthy, it will confirm the election for the Democrats down at least two additional levels in the ticket if not more. May the GOP continue to be the gang who cannot shoot straight! Literally.

    What we need to do is be sure the issue is teed up that clearly and responsibility assigned exactly where it belongs. The 2012 election year is not the time for any yearning to return to bipartisanship to let the Republicans off the hook just because they will need relief now more than ever. After the bargaining on the debt ceiling, the super-committee's failure and the GOP reneging on the deal (even though it was "98% of what we [Boehner's GOP] wanted"), Democrats must have learned that we cannot deal with these charlatans.

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:09:43 AM PDT

  •  OK (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, wishingwell, cybersaur, Matt Z

    Mr. Ryan is a vampire. No doubt about it.

    No one ever created a vibrant economy by building houses for each other. Houses are built because there is a vibrant economy.

    by Doug in SF on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:10:21 AM PDT

  •  GOP and North Korea (7+ / 0-)

    favor military strength. A weak economy and suffering people are ok

  •  I live (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, wishingwell, PSzymeczek, Matt Z

    in rural Ohio, farm country. For the life of me I can't explain why these stupid fu**ing farmers continue to vote repub. Without farm subsidies and crop insurance most of them would go under. But still they vote........

    "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

    by fugwb on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:13:54 AM PDT

  •  When I see this image of Ryan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it makes me think of this video, which for all intents and purposes really amounts to much the same thing:

    Sing it, Paul! (He does kind of look and sound like a chipmunk, doesn't he?)

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:16:06 AM PDT

  •  Please cut farm subsidies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that would be just fine.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:17:20 AM PDT

  •  photo caption: "And once we've swept (0+ / 0-)

    away the commoners, Ayn Rand reappear and give me a french kiss" said Paul Ryan in response to a question about the purpose of such a draconian budget.

    In a related story, the Founders weep.

    Warning: That light at the end of the tunnel just might be an oncoming train.

    by history first on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:27:32 AM PDT

  •  Any doubts .... (0+ / 0-)

    ... About the power of the Military-Industrial Complex?

    "Equal rights for gays." Yeah, it's just that simple.

    by planmeister on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:29:00 AM PDT

  •  sidebar: corporate taxes (0+ / 0-)
    The lunch hour flash mob descended on GE’s Boston headquarters yesterday sporting blaze orange MASSUNITING hats to perform their own version of the 1976 Marcia Griffiths classic. You can see all the lyrics to the “General Electric Slide” here, but here’s a sample of the retooled tune:
    GE pays no taxes! It’s pathetic!
    Billions in refunds! It’s pathetic!
    You know that ain’t fair – ain’t fair anywhere!

    A new report by the non-partisan Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy and Citizens for Tax Justice reveals that General Electric is amongst the worst tax dodgers in America. Despite posting profits of more than $19.6 billion over the last three years, GE managed to draw in a federal tax refund of $3.7 billion. The resulting net-negative tax rate of -18.9% placed GE near the top of the non-profits’ “Dirty Thirty” list of corporate tax dodgers.

    V. P. Biden - introduced the "Romney Rule" good blow to Mitten's glass jaw - - just how much capital$$ could Romney et al make under the Romney/Ryan/Rove tax cut plan

    by anyname on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:31:13 AM PDT

  •  They sure are some busy little bees (0+ / 0-)

    Busy, evil, bees. Always figuring out a way to sting the little guy and keep the honey flowing to the 1% beekeeper crowd.

    The only "left" the Democrats have given us is the last couple of decades is a Southpaw President

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:39:24 AM PDT

  •  The masses will revolt over low corporate profits (0+ / 0-)

    "And we certainly shouldn’t punish them with taxes. If history is any indication, the masses will revolt when corporations begin to make an unacceptably low level of private profits."

  •  I think the democrats need to make a proposal (0+ / 0-)

    A group of democrats should present the Buffett Rule tax rates and changes to the IRS code and see which congresspeople and senators do, in fact vote for it.  It will affect a HUGE portion of the legislators both republican and democrat so it would be interesting just how it votes out.

    Many people see this as mostly rhetoric and innuendo because they realize that the highest income folks in our congress are democrats and question whether or not this would ever become a change in our tax code.

    I think it needs to be made a single issue with specific IRS changes and see how it votes out.

    Only horses should wear blinders.

    by independantman on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58:51 AM PDT

  •  Reagan/Buffett Rule Must Pass (0+ / 0-)

    Please call and/or Keep calling.

    I urge them to invoke Reagans name to this legislation because it was his originbal concept and the repubs deserve credit for raising taxes on the wealthy today as a bi-partisan effort to begin correcting that which has gone so terribly wrong.
    Here is a Senate Contact List! I have made it through 31 of them this day, so far-Only 69 to go :)

  •  Zombie-eyed, granny-starving assholes (0+ / 0-)

    "Refuse to believe in the Culture of Fear"-Thievery Corp.

    by A Runner on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 12:26:49 PM PDT

  •  "Paul Ryan's Tax The Poor Budget Plan ... " (0+ / 0-)

    Every single time a Republican budget is mentioned, from Paul Ryan to Mittens supporting it, the words "Tax the Poor" have to be added.   Period.  

    2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

    by mumtaznepal on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:59:16 PM PDT

  •  anti-government != fiscal conservative (0+ / 0-)

    I hate that people that want to cut government are called fiscal conservative.  They aren't.  They are anti-government, plain and simple.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site