Skip to main content

Cut taxes. Raise defense spending. Balance the budget. That, in a nutshell, is the promise of Mitt Romney's 162-page, 59-point economic plan. But if that refrain sounds hauntingly familiar, it should. After all, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the leading lights of the Republican Party have been repackaging that same formula for over three decades.

But repeating the same falsehood—even for 30-plus years—doesn't make it any truer. As it turns out, that patron saint of small government Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt during his tenure, while Bush nearly doubled it again by January 2009. While their supply-side snake oil did not match the economic growth and job creation of periods of higher (even much higher) taxation, it did produce staggering increases in income inequality.

Now, Mitt Romney and his Republican allies are counting on Americans having short memories and bad math skills. For today's Party of Lincoln, the message for 2012 is clear: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and that's our target market.

From the beginning, even some of Ronald Reagan's water carriers were skeptical of his campaign pledge to balance the federal budget and cut personal taxes by 30 percent in three years. As William Kristol later admitted, "I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities."

Kristol was proven right on both counts. But as most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-setting debt. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Forced to raise taxes 11 times to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder that, three decades after he concluded "the supply-siders have gone too far," former Arthur Laffer acolyte and Reagan budget chief David Stockman lamented:

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ambled in the White House in January 2001, they weren't shy about making that same point, albeit with a different spin.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

As Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." (Not, that is, unless a Democrat is in the White House.)

Inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Bill Clinton. In 2001, Bush signed a $1.4 trillion tax cut, followed by another $550 billion round in 2003, the first war-time tax cut in modern American history. (It is more than a little ironic that Paul Ryan at the time called the tax cuts "too small" because he believed the estimated surplus Bush would later eviscerate would be even larger than predicted.) In keeping with Republican orthodoxy that "tax cuts pay for themselves," President Bush confidently proclaimed:

"You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase."
As it turned out, not so much.

Federal revenue did not return to its pre-Bush tax cut level until 2006. As a share of American GDP, tax revenues peaked in 2000; that is, before the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Analyses by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded, the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the deficits during his tenure, and if made permanent, over the next decade would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, TARP and the stimulus—combined. By the time he shuffled out of the Oval Office in January 2009, President Bush bequeathed a $3.5 trillion budget and a $1.2 trillion annual deficit to his successor, Barack Obama. Which is roughly where things stand today.

To be sure, George W. Bush didn't balance the budget or prevent the national debt from ballooning to $11 trillion. As Ezra Klein noted, "What's also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama's major expenses were temporary—the stimulus is over now—while Bush's were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn't just lower revenue for 10 years. It's clear now that they lowered it indefinitely." And those Bush tax cuts currently set to expire at the end of 2012 didn't just reduce the total federal tax burden to its lowest level in 60 years, but also helped produce the greatest income gap in 80. Meanwhile, even without the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, core defense spending rose every year during the Bush administration and under President Obama as well.

Despite the broken promises of Reagan and Bush, Mitt Romney is doubling down on their impossible pledges to ramp up defense spending, slash taxes and "cut, cap and balance" the budget.

Now as then, the numbers simply don't add up. Gov. Romney is promising to boost the Pentagon's coffers by $2.1 trillion the next decade, while cutting taxes by trillions more during the same time frame. (The Center for American Progress estimated in January that 60 percent of Romney's tax cut benefits would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans; it's no wonder David Cay Johnston called the scheme "George W. Bush's plan on steroids.") To try to pay for it, Mitt doesn't just want to slash domestic discretionary spending, hand over a smaller Medicaid program as block grants to the states and turn Medicare into a voucher program. Without specifying which ones, Romney claims he will close some of the hundreds of tax deductions and loopholes which each year cost the Treasury over $1 trillion in lost revenue. And to top it all off, would-be President Romney insists his plan to lower rates while "broadening the base" is "revenue neutral" while "we make sure that the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they're paying or more."

Like the sun rising in the west and setting in the east, Romney's plan cannot work. Put another way, President Romney will surely break his promises because, taken together, they simply cannot be kept.

Here's why.

Let's start with Romney's surreal defense budget. As the Boston Globe noted, Romney not only fails to realize savings from the end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, but promises Pentagon increases that simply don't square with his pledge to "Cut, Cap and Balance" the federal budget:

Under next year's budget, defense spending is projected to be about 3.2 percent [of GDP] - yet Romney has stuck by his 4 percent vow. Put another way, that means Romney proposes spending 61 percent more than Obama at the end of a decade-long cycle, according to the libertarian Cato Institute.

Enacting such an increase at the same time that Romney wants to slash taxes and balance the budget could cost trillions of dollars and require huge cuts in domestic programs. As Romney's website puts it matter-of-factly, "This will not be a cost-free process."

While gutting the social safety net in order to fund yet another tax cut payday for the gilded-class, Romney wants to expand U.S. defense spending to its highest level in decades. All told, he would lavishly expand Pentagon spending by $2.1 trillion over the next decade:

At the same time, Romney's massive tax cut windfall for the wealthy makes George W. Bush look like Karl Marx.

Mitt not only wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but has proposed a 20 percent across the board tax cut that would lower 2012's expiring top rate of 35 to 28 percent. He would also end the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and trim the corporate tax to 25 percent. (Mitt also wants to eliminate the estate tax, a move which could theoretically deliver the Romney heirs an $80 million windfall.) As Think Progress explained earlier this year:

Romney's claim that his plan would promote job and economic growth while reducing the deficit is also likely false. The Bush tax cuts were promoted under the same guise, only to blow a $2.5-trillion hole in the federal budget that was accompanied by worst performance of any post-war expansion" for growth in investment, GDP, and job creation. Romney's tax cuts are even more expensive, clocking in at a cost of more than $10.7 trillion over the next decade and reducing revenue to a paltry 15 percent of GDP, according to Linden. Balancing the budget on those terms, as Romney claims he will do, would be next to impossible.
And surely impossible, that is, because of his dual commitments of revenue neutrality and no net tax cut for the rich.

As a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center revealed, the chart above actually understates just how regressive Romney's tax plan really is. Even after assuming the closure of tax loopholes and deductions which disproportionately favor the rich and "dynamic scoring" by which lower taxes magically produce accelerated tax revenue growth, TPC forecast that President Romney would effectively cut taxes only for the richest five percent of earners while increasing the tax bill for the other 95 percent of Americans:

It's no wonder Ezra Klein concluded:

"The size of the tax cut he's proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together. As such, it is mathematically impossible for him to keep his promise to make sure the top one percent keeps paying the same or more."
As it turns out, it's also mathematically impossible for Mitt Romney to "cut, cap and balance" the budget. Even with draconian cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other non-defense, non-Social Security programs, Romney can't get there from here. As the Washington Post explained in its discussion of an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget earlier this year, "until the campaign offers a more specific plan, Budget Watch analysts said Romney's entire framework would add about $2.6 trillion to the debt by 2021." (As Think Progress and the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery and Ezra Klein all explained, that's likely a conservative estimate.)

In words and in pictures (above), CAP put it this way:

The various fiscal promises Gov. Romney makes simply cannot work together. He cannot simultaneously cut taxes as he's proposed, increase defense spending, protect Social Security and Medicare for current and near-future retirees, and also balance the budget. It is mathematically impossible.
Of course, Americans have heard all of these broken promises before from Republican presidential candidates. And now, as Ronald Reagan often said, "here we go again." Or as George W. Bush so eloquently put it:
"Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."
For all of our sakes, let's hope not.

(For more background, see "10 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes.")

UPDATE:  Some of the commenters (h/t mumtaznepal) have rightly noted that despite GOP mythology to the contrary, the U.S. economy does much better under Democratic presidents.  For data and charts showing why you should vote Democratic if you want to live like a Republican, see ”Democrats crush Republicans as capitalists in the White House.”  Given their dismal performance as stewards of the economy, that means all tax-cutting Republicans have succeeded in doing is draining the U.S. Treasury in order to give money to the wealthiest Americans who need it least.

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

    •  correction (9+ / 0-)

      "You can fool scare some of the people all of the time, and that's out target market."

      Fear works really well, and the 'thugs seem to have mastered inventing new boogiemen to keep the fear levels up.

      Make it a rule of life never to regret and never to look back. Regret is an appalling waste of energy; you can't build on it; it's only for wallowing in. — Katherine Mansfield

      by Simolean on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:08:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can someone please explain to me... (7+ / 0-)

        how Reagan could raise taxes, 11 times, yet be so worshiped by the current GOP?  

        And how can the GOP invoke such a strict "never raise taxes" mantra in light of St. Ronnies Presidency?

        Balancing budgets is fine - but it obviously takes more than cuts.

        By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history.

        "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

        by Candide08 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:33:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Easy answer. Republican politicians are very good (9+ / 0-)

          at selectively revising and cherry picking facts and history to suit their own narrative.  Think about how they ignore all the science in the climate change discussion and focus on the 2% that support their point of view.  They go by the principle that "a lie repeated often enough and loud enough will eventually be accepted as truth."  

          That's especially true if the audience is pre-conditioned by fear and doubt.  It used to be the function of journalists to determine the truth, but journalism has become "media" and "interviews" have become asking a series of softball questions which allow the subject to pontificate.

          •  also known as selling snake oil (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, radarlady, Larsstephens

            The problem is there are so many willing buyers standing in line.

            •  That's because they've successfully exploited the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              fear and doubt. Also, the one drawback of the internet and the 24 hour cable news stations is that almost any viewpoint, no matter how ludicrous, can find an audience.  What used to be the mainstream media has largely  been manipulated by Fox News and the far right bloggers into believing the myth of "liberal media bias."
              As a result, they often bend over backwards to present all points of view equally.  Remember their ultimate objective is to appeal to the broadest audience possible.  Most people are too busy living their lives to question what the "objective" media says. We all look for news sources that already support our worldview to some degree.

        •  Reagan also supported Saddam Hussein, (4+ / 0-)

          Obama bin Laden and regimes in Latin America that killed nuns. Reagan is not really worshiped. A strange fantasy version of Reagan is worshiped. The Republicans are not constrained by reality.

          I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

          by Eric Blair on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 06:27:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Honestly. In the Republican alternate universe (4+ / 0-)

            the Contras were likened to the founding fathers of the American Revolution, instead of the rapists and assassins they were. Life is so much easier to deal with when you can just ignore uncomfortable realities.

            Your black cards can make you money, so you hide them when you're able; in the land of milk and honey, you must put them on the table - Steely Dan

            by OrdinaryIowan on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 06:42:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Impressive! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wwjjd, Larsstephens

      Superb research. Thank you.

  •  Tell the Big Lie... (21+ / 0-)

    Over and over again.  Never admit that it's a lie.

    Hrm...  seems to me that particular strategy has been used before.

    Can't quite recall who did it.  Oh, it's probably just some little insignificant group that never caused any real harm...


    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:05:27 PM PDT

  •  Outstanding resource - thank you! (11+ / 0-)

    I'll be sure to pass this on to everyone I can think of.

    Further reading:

    "Democratic Presidents outperform Republican Presidents on 11 of 12 economic indicators"

    A new book by a business lawyer and a financial services firm head, hitting shelves just months before the presidential election, finds that Democratic presidents have been far more successful at guiding the U.S. economy than Republicans.

    Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box, written by Lew Goldfarb and Bob Deitrick, looked at 12 indicators of the economy—including the deficit, months in recession and stock market performance—to assess how American presidents of the last 80 years have performed. In 11 of 12 of those indicators, the authors found that Democratic presidents came out on top.

    The only indicator in which the GOP outperformed Democrats on the economy was in the average annual unemployment rate.

    I believe we help each other in times of need. I want all our children to get an excellent education. Every American deserves health care. I love my country. I am a patriot. I am a voter. I am a Democrat.

    by mumtaznepal on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:06:49 PM PDT

    •  I assume this means INCREASING it, not decreasing (5+ / 0-)
      The only indicator in which the GOP outperformed Democrats on the economy was in the average annual unemployment rate.
      /yes, snark

      For a better America, vote the GOP out of office whenever and wherever possible and as soon (and as often) as possible!

      by dagnome on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:41:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But Republicans don't care about the economy. (7+ / 0-)

      What they care about is the wealthy. Period. Look at Romney's tax plan. Go here: and type in $497,499. Then type in $497,500. You will see a tax break that increases form about $4,000 to about $36,000 with a ONE DOLLAR DIFFERENCE.

      So if you earn $497,500 and Romney gets elected, you can pocket $28,000 in additional tax breaks than with the President's plan (which gives you about an $8,000 tax break). If an individual were earning that kind of money, and could bump their income by $28,000, who would they want to win the election? Pretty obvious. So pretty much anyone who earns at least $497,500 has a major vested interest in seeing Romney elected. And I suspect a LOT of them are shelling out a couple of thousand bucks each as an "investment" in that possibility.

      That's how the Republicans roll. And incidentally, that's what's so totally screwed about the non-graduated income tax we're burdened with.

      BTW, if you take home a million? Romney gives you almost a quarter of a million dollar tax break versus about $8,000 for the President's plan....

  •  It doesn't make it any truer either. (2+ / 0-)

    Sorry -- I'm a grammar freak.


    But what you said is truer than what Romney has said, no matter how good or poor his grammar may be. By a long shot.

  •  if only the 'baggers could read charts (7+ / 0-)
    For Romney, the decision to pick Mr. Ryan has quickly helped to validate him in the eyes of skeptical Tea Party members in the House. Many in the movement had worried that a President Romney would hardly be an ally for their legislative goals.

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:07:51 PM PDT

  •  Well, for me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't know about "cutting taxes" or "raising defense spending", but I do know I'm on board with balancing the budget.  I mean, I know just how much the deficit spending helps just so many of our citizens...but, guys, we can't just continue down the deficit path.  Sooner or later, that gets us in a position that causes us to HAVE to make changes we don't want to see.  I mean, we don't have to look any further than some of the European countries for that.  It's just a fact.  Yeah, yeah...we're America and we have just so much more than those small European countries and we get really small interest rates so we're just okay with borrowing and borrowing and borrowing.

    Uh, huh.  Right.

    I know that there are economist-pundits that say we're doing just fine with our borrowing...but, I don't buy it.  We HAVE to stop the deficit spending.  Otherwise, we will head in a direction not many people think America would EVER have had to head in.

    That's not "trollish" and that's not "right-leaning".  That's just fact.

    The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

    by commonsensically on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:10:40 PM PDT

    •  Put people to work (5+ / 0-)

      so they can start paying taxes instead of relying on government expenditures for support.  Enact a comprehensive plan to bring down the cost of health care, which is the worst contributor to our long-term debt.   Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2%.  That will alleviate your panic.

      It's just a matter of political will, which will means none of this will ever be considered by Republicans.  They're after entitlements (and I fear the Democrats may be, too).

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:25:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Getting money from the top 2% (0+ / 0-)

        That'll bring in how much, actually?  And, for how long?

        I am good with these people paying more, but it's not going to solve any kind of fiscal problem we have.  

        If you think so, then you should research what that additional percentage will actually bring in.

        Again, I'm all on board with getting the richies to pay more and their "fair share", but it's not going to solve any kind of deficit problem we have or be any kind of big contributor to help us achieve what democrats want to see with regard to helping the poor and underprivileged and so forth.

        The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

        by commonsensically on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:29:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is that the only the only (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cocinero, Eric Nelson, wishingwell

          suggestion you read in my entire post?  I don't expect raising taxes on the 2%, particularly just back to the Clinton-era rates, will solve the deficit problem.

          Shit.  I give up.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:39:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I love when this ridiculous point is made--taxing (6+ / 0-)

          the rich alone doesn't bring in enough....blah, blah, blah, so whatdayasay...let's just leave it off the table...

          Yes, my friend, it may not cure everything, but it brings in a lot and it stops the growing disparity in income.  AND YOU KNOW IT.

          Why you just want to ignore that because "it's not enough to correct the deficit" is a completely unsupportable and specious position.  

          If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

          by livjack on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:51:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  some of us don't give a damn about the deficit (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell, chuckvw

            because we understand how "Keynesian economics" works.

            •  Actually Keynes cared about deficits. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OrdinaryIowan, Calamity Jean

              You just don't try to balance budgets when the economy is in the toilet. You raise tax rates when the economy recovers and you raise taxes on high incomes because persons with high incomes spend less of their incomes.  Of course we should never cease to point out that while Republicans always run against deficits, they never, never reduce them.

              I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

              by Eric Blair on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 06:40:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It sure did a good deal to solve (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SueDe, Eric Blair, Calamity Jean

            fiscal problems in the '50s and '60s when the top rate was 80-90%. The effective rate was nowhere near that but even with loopholes it brought in a lot more than the current average effective rate. The rich have been getting both their rate slashed as well as creating many more handy loopholes for the last fourth years or so...concurrently growing with the unbalanced upward redistribution of wealth in the US. Coincidence?

        •  start from the Clinton budget (5+ / 0-)

          which was basically balanced, and add the heath care fixes in ACA which fix most of the health care inflation problem. Problem solved (or at least close enough for discussion.)

          Any tax cuts or spending increases from that balanced baseline need a corresponding tax hike or spending cut.

          That's the simplest way of looking at balancing the budget.

          Romney/Ryan start from Clinton, add the massive Bush tax cuts, add more tax cuts for the rich, and add military spending. It doesn't work.

          Obama adds 80% of the Bush tax cuts ($3T in cost vs Clinton), and had a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes to pay for it ($3T, basically Simplson/Bowles.)

          I don't like either, but at least Obama's numbers add up.

        •  well, the richest 1% own about $21 trillion, or (7+ / 0-)

          about 40% of the entire privately-held wealth within the US.

          The total US budget is around $4 trillion.  The total deficit is a bit less than $2 trillion.

          So yeah, offhand, I'd say the rich bastards can spare it.

          •  When you lay all the political shit aside (0+ / 0-)
            So yeah, offhand, I'd say the rich bastards can spare it.
            That's what it's all about, I think.

            We have to loolk past that and find a way to solve our fiscal problems...and getting the richies is part of it, for sure, but there's FAR more to it than that.

            The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

            by commonsensically on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:38:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Taxing the wealthy might help (4+ / 0-)

      with that budget-balancing, job creating thing.  

      Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please -- Mark Twain

      by OnePingOnly on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:49:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Deficit? (7+ / 0-)

      Oh it's been much much higher. As a percentage of GDP, coming out of WWII, the debt equivalent in today's dollar and GDP would be about $22 Trillion.

      Where was the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth? Oh yeah, there wasn't any because we had a sane taxation policy then and spent money on things that produced economic activity and lots of it so that we GREW ourselves out of that debt.

      Austerity as Europe at the behest of its banksters is doing is guaranteed to deepen and lengthen recession. Capitalism is not a faultless system, even at its best it is a cyclical thing and what a fellow named Keynes came up with that worked so well for us until the dawn of St Ronnie was when the economy inevitably went through recessions, the government "primed the pump" with capital the economy was incapable of doing.

      This economic sanity served us well and prevented any major recession from WWII until 1982. Since then, we have had a number of deep recessions, loath as right wing fundamentalists were to use the hated Keynes methodology to stimulate the economy.

      Why do they hate what was proven to work so well? They hate it because it wrecks their plans to widen income inequity. The RW fundies really do believe a society run by oligarchs with a small middle class and a huge underpaid class of working poor is the best way to order a society. I can explain why they believe in such patent nonsense but here is not the time or place. Suffice it to say if there is one true goal of all RW ideology it is this re-ordering of society. They don't talk about it because who would vote for them if they admitted that's what they're up to? But that's what's behind their tax cuts for the ultra rich deficit producing economic policy. So, don't scratch your head and wonder why they keep doing something that obviously does not work, the truth is it works GREAT at doing what they want done. The only trick is to sell it as happy talk bullshit about "job creators" and "job killing taxation", big lies repeated endlessly for thirty years will yield a sizable chunk of any society believing it.

      What the Pukes are up to is nothing short of treason, maybe not the constitutional definition of it (one could make a case for that though) but certainly against the people of the United States and this "deficit" hysteria only serves these traitors' aims to wipe out the middle class and the political power such a class wields. Only the very rich deserve political power and if you can corner a Puke who's in on the scam, he'll admit it to you, too.

      Remember, Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism said this and this is the foundation of their "intellectuals'" thinking;

      “It does me no harm if a man is allowed to engage in a profession as servile as that of tallow-maker - candle maker - or hair dresser, but it does society considerable violence if such a man is allowed to participate in the political discourse,”
      In other words, to vote.
    •  You balance the budget with tax fairness (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, Eric Nelson

      This article is on the money: We got in this mess because of tax inequity. The way out is by reinstating tax fairness, otherwise known as the graduated income tax.

      There was one problem, and only one problem, with the old graduated tax; it didn't properly account for inflation. As a result, inflation would drive up wages, which drove the taxpayer to a higher tax bracket. The politicians, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS, were fine with that since it meant that they didn't have to vote to raise taxes since they went up automatically.

      We all got bamboozled by Reaganites into thinking that reducing the number of brackets was the answer, when it was a simple matter of adjusting the brackets to inflation. Now we're left with a truly inequitable system of taxation, which is inevitably building up our debt load.

      commonsensically, you are confusing the symptom for the disease. And curing the symptom will do nothing for the disease. This article clearly outlines the nature of the disease.

      So yes, I agree with you that we need to do something about the increasing debt. But the solution is obvious, and is spelled out in this well-written article: INCREASE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY BY REINSTATING THE GRADUATED INCOME TAX. If you do that, then over time, debt will dissipate like snow in summertime.

    •  Let's stop stupid wars, END the Bush tax cuts for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, Calamity Jean

      good, come up with a tax rate that is acceptable and apply it to EVERYONE,close military bases overseas, convert the Military Industrial Complex into the Department of DEFENSE,END subsidies to oil companies and tax breaks for corporations who ship American jobs overseas, have the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes....

      I can go on.

    •  Because so many are willing to buy into the (0+ / 0-)

      sky is falling because of deficits alarms drummed by the right, the middle class continues to be played for suckers by those at the top of the economic heap, often the same folks who gin up wars for the US to enter.  When the economy grows through increased employment, revenues go in, social safety net expenses slow going out, and the deficit is reduced.  It's a simple concept.  We are not Europe.  We worry about them because they are our customers, and if they stop buying, we're going to hurt.  It's not our borrowing.  Most people carry home mortgage debt or auto debt and don't rail on about personal calamitous deficits.

      Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

      by judyms9 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:35:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  why can't goppers be honest and run on their REAL (12+ / 0-)

    agenda, which is: "Anybody but the Black guy!!!!!!"

    It's amusing to see all the fundamentalist Christian warriors for God trundling off to vote for the heretic infidel Mormon because he scares them less than the black dude does.

  •  Facts! (9+ / 0-)

    They're so...liberal! And since being liberal is so un-American, facts can't be trusted!

  •  I know what this means (7+ / 0-)
    would-be President Romney insists his plan to lower rates while "broadening the base"
    The only people who make up the "base" that doesn't pay taxes now are those who are considered too poor to pay.  That consideration won't hold, in the name of "fairness," if the Republicans take over D.C. again.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:13:21 PM PDT

  •  Ya mean Dick Cheney was WRONG?? NAH! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, OhioNatureMom

    Dick Cheney said:

    Ronald Reagan PROVED that deficits don't matter.
    We need to find a video clip of Cheney saying that and use it in an Obama ad:
    Paul Ryan and his sidekick Willard Mitt Romeny have gotten all upset about the deficit.

    The Ryan-Romney plan would EXPAND the deficit by TRILLIONs of dollars.

    They must not have paid attention to Republican Vice President Dick Cheney who said:

    Ronald Reagan PROVED that deficits don't matter.

    And we know how THAT turned out.

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

    by BornDuringWWII on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:13:22 PM PDT

    •  Correction: Cheney was mistaken (of course) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9, OrdinaryIowan, Calamity Jean

      We need to find a video clip of Cheney saying that and use it in an Obama ad:

      Paul Ryan and his sidekick Willard Mitt Romeny CLAIM to have gotten all upset about the deficit.

      The Ryan-Romney plan would EXPAND the deficit by TRILLIONS of dollars.

      They must have been listening to Republican Vice President Dick Cheney who said:

      Ronald Reagan PROVED that deficits don't matter.

      And we know how THAT turned out.

      (editor IS your friend.)

      "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

      by BornDuringWWII on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:19:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hope they run with this. Cheney has already (0+ / 0-)

        gone to DC to insert himself into the election process, so showcase the bastido.

        Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

        by judyms9 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:43:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let's not encourage people (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChemBob, cocinero

      to believe that deficits DO matter, which would lead them to believe that they need to be addressed right now.  If that happens we'll never get out of this ditch - or it will take another two decades to climb out.  

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:29:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Only the Democrats Would... (11+ / 0-)

    ...stop reinforcing it! The biggest mistake Democrats made was letting Republicans tag them as big spenders while taking up Deficit Hysteria as the Big Thing to Fear! It's as though they've been reading from scripts handed to them by Karl Rove.

    There's nothing wrong with spending big IF you get what you're paying for - and everyone is paying their fair share. 30+ years of Reaganomics has meant the vast majority of Americans are getting screwed on both counts. And it's past time for Democrats to say so!

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

    by xaxnar on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:13:23 PM PDT

    •  Amen! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, xaxnar, Calamity Jean

      If the citizenry is determined to be panicked about the deficit, it would help if they could understand that cutting taxes is the same to the federal budget as actual spending.  Calling tax cuts "tax expenditures" doesn't throw enough punch.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:33:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We need Bull-shit Free Zones (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in this country!

    "If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns."--Cheryl Wheeler

    by lyvwyr101 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:15:39 PM PDT

  •  These are professional flim-slam artists (5+ / 0-)

    Romney and Co would try to sell time shares to stage four cancer patients.  Today Republicans are selling suckers a scam that cuts their health and pension benefits in order to transfer mountains of money to the rich and arms merchants.  Their argument is that it'll make the suckers somehow richer when they are relieved of their Social Security and Medicare.  Sadly forty per cent of the people will believe it because innate racism has cut 50 pts off their IQs.

  •  Question is, do the people you can fool all the (4+ / 0-)

    time comprise 50.1% of the vote?

    •  Short Answer: No (5+ / 0-)

      Voters are swayed by all sorts of issues (and perhaps, more importantly, emotional appeals).  But a few percentage points is enough to turn an election.  2000 comes to mind.  Remember also that turnout in presidential years is about 60% and only about 40% in midterms.

      I should have made clearer in this piece that I'm not criticizing voters to whom these GOP claims, though bogus, are understandably appealing.  The problem is that the Republican Party is so cynical and the media so unwilling and unable to dig for the truth that frauds like "tax cuts increase revenue" can persist for decades.

      For what it's worth, here's a presentation I back in 2008 which tries to explain why people vote the way they do:

      "That's Entertainment: Politics as Theater."

  •  a thousand times repeated a lie becomes the truth (3+ / 0-)

    the republicans stole that from the nazis

    Id rather be a tax and spend democrat than a borrow and spend republican any day. I pay my bills. - me

    by AustinLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:21:45 PM PDT

  •  Those Rightwing Polices did help the economy... (7+ / 0-)

    The special subsection of the economy in which the very very ultra rich do business.

    The issue is a disconnect between the America of high society and the actual economy that everyday Americans have to deal with. Mitt Romney and his 1% buddies saw excellent growth during the Reagan and Bush years.

    And that is all they saw.

    They never went down to the corner store walked passed the homeless mother panhandling for diaper money to see the lines of people holding food stamps waiting on the one cashier who still has a job to help them.

    That is America right now.

    But Romney never sees the 99%. He never sees the struggle of Americans. Him and his friends do business with each other, their money circulates among a very small group of people as they trade luxuries with one another and look for new and creative ways to avoid letting any more of their money slip into the greater economy. For them that growth at the top is great they really think it trickles down to everyone.

    Meanwhile Americans are struggling to get by, and Ryan wants to cut the support they depend on even more. He wants to put these people who are on their last leg, on a stump.

    Elections are supposed to be about how to make life better for all Americans. Instead the GOP wants to make it about tax efficiency. How to do very little, with even less.

    Romney and Ryan are the perfect mascots for that disconnect.

    We lose if we choose to forget; the lives of men, and money spent.

    by DeanDemocrat on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:24:39 PM PDT

    •  No he wants a jackboot on our necks permanently (0+ / 0-)

      Just like the bad old days of 1910, no 1876, no 1856, oh never mind.

      He knows that the American people who vote for Rs are stupid that way.

      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 Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:32:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Recced for the title alone. So true. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Eric Nelson

    Back to reading.  

  •  Excellent article, Jon Perr! Thanks. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Eric Nelson
  •  The ugly truth (6+ / 0-)

    is that this strategy will work so long as the media backs it.  In 2008 when the GOP suddenly cared about deficits after having turned a surplus into a huge deficit, the media reported from the GOP playbook and considered it CW that republicans were deficit hawks.  Most people don't follow politics closely enough to understand what a con that is.  They sit in front of their TV Machines and if the voices say "republicans are tough on deficits" then they believe that to be true.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:32:39 PM PDT

  •  Isn't the narrative now just how (0+ / 0-)

    the black guy messed up Americans credit so give it back to the nice white guys, this is all it boils down too.

    Bush and Cheney are truly missing in this equation because after a lie is repeated as the truth, people never pay attention to the original lie which is now called a fact!  just keep intertwining the word the word fact with lie and, well you know the result.

    Taking Back the Take Back of America

    by The Sheeping of America on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:33:28 PM PDT

  •  ,,, but you can't fool Mom. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rube Goldberg

    ",,, the Political whorehouse that is Fox News." Keith Olbermann

    by irate on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:34:46 PM PDT

  •  There's a problem this time around though... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Eric Nelson, Calamity Jean

    --besides the fact that the GOPer tax cut/ defense/ privatization spending increases don't add up--that is.  

    "Entitlement" debate that republicans have "almost never won":  

    It is hard to overstate the risks Romney is taking in making a choice that virtually guarantees a far-reaching debate about the broader role of government and the entitlement state. Simply put, it is a debate Republicans have almost never won when they’ve put it directly before voters in the past.

    As Newt Gingrich learned when he squared off against Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and George W. Bush learned with his politically disastrous efforts at Social Security reform in his second term, voters may despise spending and deficits in the abstract but they like many of these programs in the particular.

    GOP political pros, however, are nervous — worried Romney handed Obama an autumn filled with opportunities for “Mediscare” attacks.

    While the non-tea partiers in the country--and even some of the non-superwealthy tea party types begin to understand exactly how much Ryan/Romney's austerity will cost them personally-- the Romney/Ryan trickle up budget might just not sound so attractive to them.  Neither will the Romney/ Ryan ticket.
  •  lets try this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dagnome, cocinero, Eric Nelson, basket

    raise taxes on the wealthy at least back to the clinton level probably higher, cut defense at least 20%, eliminate corporate welfare, raise the minimum wage to 10.50 an hour, pass single payer healthcare, lower taxes on earners at the lower level & middle class, this will put more money in the majorities pockets which is what drives the economy not the 1%, we've tried trickle down and it has brought america down its time to do the intelligent thing and not the ideological thing.

  •  Karl Rove's computer models (0+ / 0-)

    I think I decided around 2004 that Karl Rove had computer models that could predict within 2% what percentage of the people could be fooled what percentage of the time.

    Better to hide your tax returns and be thought a crook than to release them and remove all doubt. [Adapted from Abraham Lincoln]

    by Caelian on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:36:53 PM PDT

  •  You can indeed fool some of the people (6+ / 0-)

    all of the time.  Those people are called republican conservatives.

    "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by bobski on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:47:52 PM PDT

  •  Why in the everlasting fuck... (4+ / 0-)

    ...would we ever raise defense spending?  We need to cut it in half.  Of course, Mitt still seems to think that the Soviets are coming.

  •  Yes, this is what we need (0+ / 0-)

    Another legacy Republican who chooses a running mate that the base loves but the opposite really dislikes.

    Because a sense of entitle ment is a conservative value. It is, after all, their country.

    Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

    by textus on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:50:52 PM PDT

  •  Look, it's not over till it's over, but on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Eric Nelson, cocinero

    Political Wire they're reporting that nobody but Romney wanted Paul Ryan.

    It ain't over till it's over, and I'm going to watch the numbers till November obsessively, but right now with that info I feel okay about us.

    I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

    by Wildthumb on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:51:33 PM PDT

  •  Extraordinarily Thorough Diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marjmar, cocinero, Freakinout daily

    I would say you'd eviscerated the myth of Republicans and fiscal conservativism but that word's currently on hiatus here at Daily Kos.

    One problem though:  everything you report is true, beyond true - and it doesn't matter one whit to those who will go to their graves believing exactly the opposite, which is a large enough subset of the American populace to have kept the narrative of "Reagan=savior of America" alive for the last 30 years.  The cognitive disssonance has been largely unresponsive to these and other facts.

    It is great to say we're counting on our side of the political aisle to make the difference, and I'm hopeful - but then I look at the fact that the right wing has slowly advanced its propaganda so successfully over the last 30 years that even on the left too many of support a lot of their wealth transfer programs without meaning to.  We make excuses for union busting.  We refuse to examine the impact of illegal immigration on low income non-white communities.  We make excuses for charter school wealth transfer.  We don't defend ACORN when it was needed.  

    And that's not even beginning to talk about the politicians we've elected on the grounds that they simply must be better than Republicans when they prove themselves Republican Lite when the siren song of re-election starts playing.

    So what do we do with this type of information? How do we share it in a way that actually makes a meaningful difference in reversing what I see as a Republican cultural juggernaut? Even if they lose the battle of the Presidential election (and I believe they will) if they win the war, ultimately the Presidency won't matter.

  •  Facts don't matter if you have 1000 radio stations (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Gooserock, a2nite

    repeating the lies to 50 mil a week and the lies are never challenged until after the Lies become truth.  

    It looks again like another important election cycle where thee dems are going to going to do much worse than they would if they put in a national effort to challenge the GOPs best weapon in real time.

    Everything Romney and the other GOP pols will be running on depends on the crap talk radio has been critical in sellin the last 25 years. A serious challenge to the talk radio gods would help immeasureably and prevent the MSM from bending over for the GOP. Otherwise once again a big percentage of dem dollars and volunteers will be wasted, blasted over by a few coordinated blowhards with microphones reading talking points sent by th GOP and their think tanks.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:54:20 PM PDT

    •  Radio, Big Pulpit, Bipartisan Mainstream Media, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, certainot

      employers, peers. The framers never imagined such an environment and they did not design their system for it.

      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 Aug 12, 2012 at 03:52:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's called ... (0+ / 0-)

    Defunding the left. Mission accomplished!

  •  But you can't fool all of the people (0+ / 0-)

    all of the time.

    Not unless you are Rmoney that is. At least he seems to think he can fool all of us all of the time.

    Conservatives supported slavery, opposed women’s suffrage, supported Jim Crow, opposed the 40-hour work week, the abolishment of child labor, and supported McCarthyism. from 'It's The Conservatism, Stupid' by Paul Waldman July 12, 2006

    by arealniceguy on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:06:43 PM PDT

  •  This is the word that could un-fool people (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Icicle68, chuckvw, Calamity Jean
    As Ezra Klein noted, "What's also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama's major expenses were temporary—the stimulus is over now—while Bush's were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn't just lower revenue for 10 years. It's clear now that they lowered it indefinitely." And those Bush tax cuts currently set to expire at the end of 2012 didn't just reduce the total federal tax burden to its lowest level in 60 years, but also helped produce the greatest income gap in 80.
    Bush tax cuts that actually exist to this day have had this effect in a very real way to those blue collar working folk who've been fooled into believing it wasn't the policies of the republicans that caused their IRAs to shrink, their jobs to disappear, their paychecks to lag behind cost of living increases and their health care put at risk.

    If that reality could be mainstreamed successfully, the entire republican platform especially the Paul Ryan plank  (the lie that tax cuts at the top creates job growth) washes away.

  •  R&R budget plan, AKA more of the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    the Long Con.

    "Behold the Turtle, it only makes Progress when it sticks it's neck Out."

    by vzfk3s on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:29:53 PM PDT

  •  let them just drop all of their money down here (0+ / 0-)

    any we will trickle the money back up, and just wait for laughter

    Taking Back the Take Back of America

    by The Sheeping of America on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:30:12 PM PDT

  •  Voodoo economics (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, ferg

    is what George H.W. Bush called Reaganomics in 1980 when he was running against Ronnie for the nomination. It didn't work then. It didn't work in 2001-08. And Ryan/Romney economics will have the same result.

  •  Can Fool Enough of the People Enough of the Time. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A subject for which more exploration becomes timely on Nov. 7th.

    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 Aug 12, 2012 at 03:51:08 PM PDT

  •  If the Dems stupidly allow this election (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    to turn on the "fiscal mess" - à la the debt ceiling fiasco - we lose no matter who wins.

    As digby says:

    ...this would be a lot less scary if the debate wasn't going to be between the moderate centrist plan for a "balanced approach" that slashes vital government programs in exchange for some ephemeral tip money from millionaires in the middle of an historic slump and a radical right wing plan that simply slashes vital government programs in the middle of an historic slump. In my view, that's a losing debate no matter who wins...
    Perhaps the Village Dems would prefer the discussion to turn on fiscal matters rather than, you know, unemployment, bankrupting wars at home and abroad, and silly stuff like that. Wall Street and the bankers - let off the hook and ready for new adventures - would certainly prefer it so. Rumors are already afloat that Erskine Bowles will be taking over for Geithner next year. The party of the working man strikes again!

    "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." - Ray Bradbury

    by chuckvw on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 03:59:22 PM PDT

  •  Glenn Hubbard is the common denominator (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Blair

    That's why it sounds the same.

    In 2003, he predicted the tax cuts would create 5 million new jobs in 18 months. In reality, LESS jobs were created than he said would occur if there were NO tax cuts at all.

  •  The only reason we've been able to survive (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, a2nite, Eric Blair, Calamity Jean

    since Reagan took the country in a very bad direction is because we had so much saved surplus accumulated in the decades before he became president that we were able to live off it for years. But that eventually ran out, and since Bush II took over, it's been mostly fumes, the macroeconomic equivalent of cashing in soda cans, selling off old books and CD's and finding cash under the sofa.

    Thus the real estate bubble, totally manufactured to extract money from one of the few places where it could still be found. Of course, that's over. Thus the urge to kill off seniors by cutting off their Medicare and Social Security, because they have nowhere else to turn for easy money. And these people are all about easy money, having absolutely no intention of actually working for a living.

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

    by kovie on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:24:40 PM PDT

  •  Also, ironically, one of the main reasons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    so much of the public is so ignorant, clueless and gullible, and thus easy prey for the soothing and seductive GOP lies and myths that they've been peddling since the 60's, is because we've been such a successful country, relatively speaking, and the success has made us, well, stupid, taking it for granted and believing that it was literally given to us by god (and of course our own hard work), when in reality it was smart government policy that made it all possible (and of course the hard work). It's like sports. Even the most talented and hard-working athlete will get nowhere without good training, facilities, equipment, etc., and that invariably comes from government. Athletes know that. Why doesn't the public?

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

    by kovie on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:37:34 PM PDT

  •  What rich people actually believe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Most low income and middle income people in America don't understand the rich at all.

    Incredulous as it may seem, richer Americans truly believe that the poor, and working class people in America do not pay enough income tax.
    I'll say it another way; if you are a working class person who recieves a tax refund at end-of-year, then many weathy people here in the USA believe that you are a burden, and not paying enough income taxes (and that they, the overburdened wealthy, are paying far too much). They truly believe this. I'm not making it up.

    Now, politicians who get their money from these wealthy folks are too smart to say this out loud. But that's why all of the Republican tax and budget plans rely on voodoo economics and slippery evasions: because telling the truth about the redistributionary goals of the tax plan is politically impossible.

    •  It is incredible (0+ / 0-)

      You (whomever is quoted) are rightly incredulous at the preposterousness of the belief!

      Sorry. Recovering (and far from perfect himself) copy editor here...

      "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." - Ray Bradbury

      by chuckvw on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 05:20:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, What Did You Expect? (0+ / 0-)

    We live in a country that's just filled with really stupid people. Why are they stupid? Cause they fall for this crap time and again. At the end of the day, we get what we deserve. If we keep voting for these douchebags, they're going to keep on handing it to us. This article so clearly points out just how evil the Right is - As I pointed out in my article The American Middle Class Promiseland And Why We Turned Our Backs On It - The 30 year mission of the Oligarchs, the Plutocrats and the Right Wing is almost complete - But we allow this to happen so who are we to complain?

  •  And Fox viewers ALL OF THE TIME n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, a fanatical criminal" -- Logical Song -- Rick Davies & Roger Hodgson

    by Over50Lib on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 05:35:41 PM PDT

  •  I Like Ike (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    The last republican president to balance the budget was Dwight Eisenhower.

    excerpt: Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

    When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

    by msmacgyver on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 06:43:33 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site