General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRobert Reich : The deal emerging from the Senate is a lousy one. Let me count the ways:
The deal emerging from the Senate is a lousy one. Let me count the ways:
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/542987339047200
1. Republicans haven’t conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months – as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default – Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.
2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. There’s absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.
3. It doesn’t get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent — only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the President called for, and a small fraction of the White House’s goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.
4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.
Yes, the deal finally gets Republicans to accept a tax increase on the wealthy, but this is an inside-the-Beltway symbolic victory. If anyone believes this will make the GOP more amenable to future tax increases, they don’t know how rabidly extremist the GOP has become.
The deal also extends unemployment insurance for more than 2 million long-term unemployed. That’s important.
But I can’t help believe the President could have done better than this. After all, public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Republicans would have been blamed had no deal been achieved.
More importantly, the fiscal cliff is on the President’s side as well. If we go over it, he and the Democrats in the next Congress that starts later this week can quickly offer legislation that grants a middle-class tax cut and restores most military spending. Even rabid Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bowens43
(16,064 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Agreed.
More last minute scrambling on very important matters by a government made dysfunctional by the GOP.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)They passed it in the middle of the night, at the last minute.
The public didn't have time to study it. The Senators didn't have time to study it.
The liberal economists like Mr. Reich didn't have an opportunity to get their blogs published.
We didn't have a chance to fight about it on DU.
Ramming it through at the last minute is the only way it could have passed in this form. I think if there had been a public discussion of one week, this deal would have been scuttled, and we would have got either a better deal or gone over the "cliff".
senseandsensibility
(17,009 posts)And although I feel as if this deal could have been worse, I appreciate reading Mr. Reich's take on it. And I agree with some of his take.
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)be put up for the trims and cuts and the beginning of the end.
And they win. Even after we held all the cards this time.
Somehow they win.
How does that keep happening??
It is not a coincidence.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)bourgeois parties. IOW, they're both playing for the same team and it's not my (and probably your) team.
$450K/year is roughly $40K/month. And 1 in 5 children live in poverty, FFS.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)long enough to start collecting their entitlements, and besides, they aren't my kids anyway.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)... we don't get good deals because our (Dem) leadership is only slightly less beholden to the 1% than Republicans are. That is the only possible explanation.
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)last night. When news broke that a deal had been reached, I felt a knife in the back. Those who so vehemently defended the administration can now stand back and watch as SS/Med is chiseled away with pick axes in the early spring. It's a disgrace. And you are right. It was intentional. All the wiser voices of Democrats were urging our members to go over the cliff and just allow the tax cuts to completely expire last night.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)They have a landslide-proof majority in the House thanks to gerrymandering.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The numbers obscenely favor the rich. They always do.
Yet we are told that we had a "win."
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It still hasn't passed the HoR yet.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)that enough republican Representatives are stupid enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)You can rest assured that the cheer squad will pronounce it a 'brilliant move by Obama, forcing their hand'.
And they'll simultaneously suggest that you are a secret Republican for 'giving the R's the credit'.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)going back all the way to election night.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)the 'breaking news' banner I was skeptical since it was 6:00P out here on the left coast. What they can't wait 3 hours? Then I saw an outline of the 'deal'.
First the $400,000 exemption then the cap of 20% on capital gains completely disgusted me. I didn't hang around for any of the talking hairdos to explain it to me. I understood completely - we have been screwed following the script of extreme drama played out over for the last month. We all knew it was going to go to the wire; we knew it would allow the 2% hoarders be able to keep shoveling money off shore; and we knew there would be no sacrifice for anyone making above 250,000.
Please remind me again, who won the election?
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)He said so himself.
area51
(11,908 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I read a report a few days ago where some political staffer was asked about the simple logistics around passing such a bill at the last minute. Simply printing and distributing the bill for review, for instance, would take longer than this stated timeline allows. Anyway, this staffer assured the reporter that the deal had been settled for a few days at least, and all the logistical concerns were covered.
The comments were clearly meant to be reassuring to readers, but to me, it just seemed like a baldfaced admission of this 'phony crisis to cram unpopular legislation through' tactic.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)How do they know maybe people would have agreed with Robert Reich's analysis and called their Members of Congress to say their opinions.
I think maybe there ought to be a rule that any spending bill should have a minimum one week for public comments.
We could make exceptions for natural disasters and stuff like that.
vi5
(13,305 posts)He's not a sensible centrist concerned with bipartisan compromise and grand bargains and Obama's legacy as a bipartisan compromiser of grand bargains.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)It's not a perfect plan, but the Republicans got nada what they wanted. And that is a huge victory for the middle class, the poor, and especially the unemployed. Reich forgets to add that positive in his constant attack of this president.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)But I can’t help believe the President could have done better than this.
After all the negative spin, Reich concludes that UI is important, and he believes the President could have done better. That's not "lousy."
Now, to his four points.
1) Republicans did concede a huge issue, spending cuts in the current deal. They also conceded a 1:1 ratio of spending to tax increases in the next round. The President can make that work to his advantage.
2) He mentions the threshold, but doesn't indicate that there are some increase for incomes starting at $250,000. Like unemployment insurance, the extentions of the credits for the poor for five years are also important.
3) Right, it's not the same as the full expiration, but this deal allows the majority of the tax cuts on the rich to expire, preserves the safety net, delivers more relief to low-income and unemployed Americans and doesn't cut spending.
4) The estate tax was a sticking point with even Democratic Senators (the Senate bill that passed was $5 million at 35 percent). Still, there was a change, it increases the rate from 35 percent to 40 percent.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022109603
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I'm sure that Robert will feel humbled by your insight.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
Cha
(297,160 posts)he gets those slobbering over his analysis without a critical eye.
Edit: added "think".
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I'll take his analysis over yours any day.
Cha
(297,160 posts)taking apart his points and questioning them. They don't make sense to me, either.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Really? I'm so surprised.
Cha
(297,160 posts)and President Obama more than I do Robert Reich.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)it is that kind of blind faith that allows politicians to sell people down the river while they continue to collect large checks for themselves and applause.
I would have expected better from Sanders and Kucinich and Franken and Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse and Tammy Baldwin, but if a real analysis says that a deal is a load of crap, then for them to put their stamp of approval on it, does not really refute any analysis, just puts a black mark on their character and integrity and intelligence.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)was the chance for public comment before this theatrical "oh my god fiscal cliff" bill was pushed through at the last minute.
I know, we made the GOP look like fools. Great.
I know, we saved unemployment for some. That's great as well.
We could have passed those bills retroactively, holding the Republicans feet to the fire after the law expired, but we had to have theatrics and hearts of sleeves and some calling others here trolls.
Silly.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)More importantly, the fiscal cliff is on the President’s side as well. If we go over it, he and the Democrats in the next Congress that starts later this week can quickly offer legislation that grants a middle-class tax cut and restores most military spending. Even rabid Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Or don't they matter to you and Reich?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)announced to some 500,000 Californians on the 5th and final extension (the so-called 'Fed-Ed' extension) that California no longer qualified for said extension, even though CA's UE rate at the time was above 10%!!!! I don't recall any of your outrage then, when I and 500,000 of my fellow Californians were cast adrift.
So you only raise your voice about UE benefits and their suspension when it suits your political agenda, not out of some altruistic concern for the long-term unemployed.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)it's only when they see that they might be in trouble that the need for action becomes urgent. All of you that are have already gone over your own cliff, well... so sad, so sorry, sucks to be you. You have already been sacrificed, so you'd better get about the business of dying off quickly so they can get on with their lives without having to look at you.
There used to only be one party that acted like that.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)wtf kind of a response is that?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)people wax all 'caring' about the unemployed, even when they remain totally silent any time it's not part of some grand 'fuck you' delivered by both parties to the working class.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)cliff and raising the debt ceiling is that all of that talk distracts us from working on structural changes in our economy that could result in more jobs.
The answer to unemployment is not UI benefits but jobs.
And the issue of jobs has hardly been thought of since this crazy fiscal cliff business started.
It is another Republican distraction.
If we could get people back into jobs and earning decent wages (and not start any more wars), then we would not have a fiscal cliff or problems with the debt ceiling.
We need import taxes that would produce money we could use to pay people to make our country safer and wealthier.
It is no coincidence that our serious problems started when the results of "free" trade became apparent.
This deal treats symptoms (like the need to extend unemployment benefits), not the problems themselves.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)so that the people that really matter can go on pushing their agenda forward. The last thing anybody in DC or any other position of power wants is to change a system that works so well for them.
I know you know this, but this thread needs to stay up.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)on jobs and as a result impact on wages and ultimately on tax revenues.
It's a daisy chain of bad policies that lead to financial ruin.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Between those that are clinging to the razor's edge and the blue team cheerleaders, reason, facts, and logic are drowned out.
Why is Yeats running around in my head this early in the new year?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)There was a manufactured debt crisis, and our leaders decided that the best solution would be to create the fiscal cliff. Then they told us that the fiscal cliff (that they created) was itself a crisis, and we needed to solve it before the deadline. Well, we went over the cliff already - how many articles mention that? When they're through with this, they'll be back to another fake deficit crisis. Wasting time going in circles, while ignoring the real crisis - unemployment.
I'd like to see a push for higher inflation and a drop in the dollar, to cut down on debt (both personal and public) and encourage exports.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)This still has to pass the House.
When did midnight deals penned between one house of the Legislature and the Executive become law? Damn that pesky Constitution, anyway.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)The Dems would fix that too.... if the GOP didn't obstruct them... of course.
"Or don't they matter to you and Reich?"
Get off your high horse. The unemployed need JOBS.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Yeah, the unemployed need jobs and oh! That's really going to happen had we gone over the cliff and stayed there which would result in a new recession kicking in. Smart, Einstein.
Do you even think before you post? Or are you so gungho to toss everyone under the bus in just to see your little squabble against the government break them?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Of course I do. Like I don't think a series of steps is a "cliff". People are not going to instantly go under on Jan. 5th or something.
Why do you fall for the shock doctrines?
wisteria
(19,581 posts)While I understand the needs of the long term unemployed-I spent a year on unemployment myself, but for this one little concession, we are giving up bigger things that will matter even more down the line. The economy is getting better, and hopefully some of these unemployed will eventually find work or decided they need to pursue other fields of work by going back to school and leaning a new trade. This is what I had to do.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)For the first few weeks, as a way to get between jobs, it's a lifesaver.
After that it's the worst kind of check to get - a weekly memorial of the failure of a country to do what makes it strong and secure.
And since it is only a matter of lengthening payments by a few months, what happens to them is the same thing that is happening for many others.
Nothing.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)a weekly memorial of the failure of a country to do what makes it strong and secure.
Been there and done that myself.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)2011's unemployed were tossed over a cliff, but this batch of unemployed = politically expedient to prop up
Disgusting
Marr
(20,317 posts)The fact is that the Republicans had repeatedly backed down from using Unemployment Benefits as a hostage. It's just too unpopular. Their own constituencies would boot them out for it. It's an empty threat.
They backed down *every single time* on that issue, with the sole exception of the last time, of course-- when Obama gave them Bush Tax Cut extensions in "exchange", making last night's little drama possible.
See a pattern here? Temporary victories on things the GOP would back down from anyway, in exchange for permanent victories for the 1%.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)while they sit in their posh houses and enjoy employment. Those purists will never be happy with anything this president, in particular, does. That's why they didn't vote for him (among other things).
Had we just "gone over the cliff", whether the Republicans had "repeatedly backed down from using U.E. benefits as hostage", the fact remains that their benefits stopped on December 31st and they would have suffered until the Democrats could get a another deal through.
Now, seriously, do you actually think that would have happened? The Republican House had just voted DOWN funding to help with Sandy hurricane victims and rebuilding right after forced to vote for President Obama's bill, for chrissakes, because they KNOW they won't have to pay a price for it. Gerrymandering took care of that.
Although not extending U.E. benefits would not affect me or mine in any degree, I do care about them. I'm sorry you don't appear to.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Five points for style.
You describe a position of nearly total helplessness; just prostrating ourselves before the demands of the right at all times. This trading of deep concessions to the shallowest of threats is the mark of either total spinelessness, or the most cynical political opportunism.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)Someone explain this to me.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)That's all TPTB probably care about
mother earth
(6,002 posts)applaud those who feed us a crock! Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?
me b zola
(19,053 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Finally! A concrete proposal for how the GOP House was supposed to magically assent to the middle class tax cut (apparently Reich agrees that we needed to retain that!). It wasn't just going to magivally agree, but it was going to grant the middle class tax cuts in exchange for...full restoration of military spending from the sequester?
This is the deal we wanted? Middle class tax cuts in exchange for full restoration of military spending?
Can you imagine the fucking outcry here if we'd taken THAT route! Hell, half our progressive friends on DU have gone all deficit hawk on us, arguing that all tax cuts need to expire permanently, a position that even Reich seems uncomfortable with (I shouldn't say "even" Reich - he's obviously a Keynesian who would look askew at such deficit-sensitive proposals that reduce consumer demand in a tough economy).
But even supposing that we agree with that logic, doesn't Reich's argument here undermine the idea that the Dems have given up all their leverage? If, for Reich, we were going to get concessions from the Repubs by holding out military spending, how has that changed? I thought, according to all the critics, our only leverage was the tax hike? But Reich himself suggests that there is another leverage point that would allow us to extract revenue concessions! That's from the horse's own mouth, as it were. So, do we agree with Reich or not?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the piece of shite that was just passed is NOT a middle class tax cut
it is a tax cut for the rich that is being called a middle class tax cut
wisteria
(19,581 posts)I now hope the House behave as they usually do and vote it all down. Lets continue over the clift and do better than this stinky deal.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)That they stuck it to the professional progressives.
However, the people who are not going to see a tax increase, are not going to see their long term unemployment benefits evaporate, indexing the AMT for inflation, the preservation of middle class tax deductions, the five year extension of the middle class popular credits and deductions are pretty happy right now.
Also, the Estate Tax is an okay deal. The repugs wanted to wipe it off the books...
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)from cuts and extends tax cuts permanently.
Not the best idea if your goal is to reduce the deficit.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)gone over the so called cliff.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)by going over the cliff.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/conceder-in-chief-2/
That is simply the reality.
If the House fails to pass the deal, what happens?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022110751
reteachinwi
(579 posts)will be in every town that manages to keep their post office.
CanonRay
(14,101 posts)I agree, the deal sucks. As usual.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)could pass the crazy ass Teabaggers in the House. All they do is whine and complain, quick to blame the president FIRST without giving us any thoughts for how they would get their Grand Liberal Plan passed. I like Krugman and Reich a lot, but neither of them are particularly astute when it comes to how governing actually works. Krugman is an outstanding economist. Reich is a brilliant professor of economics and public policy. They need to be more realistic about how governance works.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Senate. Obama didn't have to do anything or agree to a damned thing and, by going over the cliff, the American republic would have gotten a better deal. Now people who make $40K/month won't see their taxes go up and I'm supposed to celebrate? Give me a fucking break.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)You can't and you don't. As for the fiscal cliff, that would've hurt a lot of people by cutting off benefits that help them. We may not benefit from these programs but a great deal of Americans do. Going over the cliff is irresponsible, and doing so simply to win a political argument makes us no better than the Republicans.
Again, neither Krugman nor Reich have provided any ideas for how a more progressive or liberal deal gets through the House. Until they can do that, I'm more inclined to ignore all the whining. Tell me HOW is gets done and I'm all ears.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)that taxes go up on anyone making $250K/year or more and that the fucking defense budget would be subject to mandatory cuts. About time, since the military has managed to lose not one but two wars in just 10 years. That's got to be some sort of record, besting even the French military in the 20th Century.
I fail to see how this deal is any better than the so-called 'cliff'. Maybe the right people simply haven't explained it to me yet.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Or does teaching at a university make one forget all they know about governance?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)and certainly Reich is more experienced and smarter than I, neither of us have served in a governing capacity. He was the Sec of Labor, not a member of Congress; it's a totally different ball game.
Again, neither Krugman nor Reich have provided any ideas for how a more progressive or liberal deal gets through the House. Until they can do that, I'm more inclined to ignore all the whining. Tell me HOW is gets done and I'm all ears.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...are the 535 elected representatives in Washington, the same people whose approval rating hovers around 9%. Got it, thanks
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)that the president is a lousy negotiator, then there's nothing wrong with addressing that charge by asking those who are making it to explain how they would go about negotiation. For nearly five years now I've read Krugman's articles, and while I agree that the stimulus should've been much larger, for instance, all I get from him in particular is complaints about how horrible a negotiator the president is. But he offers absolutely no solutions for how better deals get through Congress. I would like to hear his ideas on this. I think I will send an email to him, which is what I've been meaning to do for quite some time now.
MessiahRp
(5,405 posts)And thus it would be easier to pull a smaller number of Republicans over to the vote. The VAST majority of the GOP Members in the House are insane but there are probably 40-50 sane ones left that will fuck them over if the Democrats can pull most of their caucus together.
I was initially worried about UE benefits because like with the Sandy Aid, I figured if we didn't do this all at once they would fuck us on it. But if we had gone over the cliff and pushed for a bill, starting in the Senate, that called for Middle Class Tax Cut Extensions, EIC Extensions, Continued Military Funding and UE Benefit Extensions. No way in hell would every Republican balk at that. They would be crushed in 2014 if they had, as I suspect they still might be if they continue to show heartlessness towards every American as they are with this deal, with the Sandy Aid and so on.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,310 posts)What else does Reich think Obama would achieve by waiting a few days? He needs to make the case for other good outcomes that the Republicans would agree to in a few days' time, but are not in this deal.
plethoro
(594 posts)February with a new, more Democratic congress. If Obama gives up too much then, the Corporatist handle will be understood here by even the most ardent Obama supporter. However, I want to enjoy the day and think One Day More...
Some on America Speaks think the House will vote the deal down. I don't have enough posts to do a poll, but I wish someone would.
starroute
(12,977 posts)The real problem is with the billionaires and the people who leave hundreds of millions or billions to their heirs. An estate of $5 million is the sort of thing a small businessman or successful professional or owner of a large family farm might leave. Exempting those from inheritance taxes does help the upper middle class, but it's not going to perpetuate dynasties of the "idle rich."
On the other hand, those idle rich probably have everything set up in trusts, so I'm not sure the inheritance tax touches them either way. But that's a different question.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)You people are a piece of work. You must be devastated that the poor won't see their paychecks down by 17%. And no cuts to Social Security, but you still have to complain.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)the self-centered and immature's either or mantra. I thought PBO got a great deal because his focus was on tradeoffs and what he could get NOW for the most vulnerable, e.g. people who are part of the long-term unemployed, small businesses, and the middle class. I also think it is the beginning of a change in mindset. GOPers have to recognize the public will NOT tolerate policies that threaten the health, safety, and wellbeing of 98% of the American people. GOPers are gonna have to move back to the center.
WashingtonConsensus
(29 posts)4dsc
(5,787 posts)This shit shouldn't happen but it does because of weak leadership.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)probably the one after that.
I would have had this fight out years ago with far less hostages and yes, I'd have let all of the Bush tax cuts sunset and yes I was 100% reliant on UI extensions at the time and would have let me lapse.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)to that fate, particularly in a bad economy and especially when these programs help stimulate an economy?
I'll answer my own question: there is a real possibility that the House won't go along with this deal. We go over the cliff which will hurt a lot of working and struggling Americans. We can't stay over this cliff for too long, so how do we ever get a deal out of the House? We don't because we're attempting to negotiate with psychopaths hellbent on destroying the black man in the White House.
supercats
(429 posts)Mr. Reich makes complete sense here, and always I might add. This proves once again that Obama does not stand up for the true
progressive/liberal ideals. I always feel let down by our President and that we the middle class loose when he is bargaining with the republicans. It shows me once again his actions speak louder than his words, meaning that he is a corporatist through and through.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I'm all ears if Reich or Krugman can tell us how to get better deals through the House or Senate (which has filibustered nearly every bill that would help the middle class). And remember a permanent middle class tax cut bill passed the Senate but is sitting in the House. Can Krugman or Reich explain why that bill is sitting in the House and how to get it passed?
Again, I'm all ears if anyone can offer a solution.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)I am middle class, employed but underpaid. So now, I can look forward to taking home less money.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)to the uber-wealthy.
Such a deal!
We are so fucked.
TM99
(8,352 posts)have convinced all Americans that they too can someday have the American dream.
That dream used to be a very nice & solid middle class existence - food on the table, a nice house to raise a family in, cars, moderately priced education, a job with security and retirement benefits, and a social safety net to get you through if calamity befalls.
No, today's American dream is so very different - $450,000 is the new middle class. We aspire to become greedy millionaires who drool over tax cuts. "Don't raise my taxes $150.00 a month - oh how will I survive". Talk about penny smart and pound foolish.
Focusing on the UI benefits is a band-aid approach. Obama could be focusing more on job creation which is a permanent solution.
I just don't understand how in the last 2 years our government approach to fiscal policy has come down to quarterly crises involving short-term deals and no long term planning and purpose. I can not run a business like that nor can I plan my household budget like that. What makes us think we can run our government like that?
And I am sick of hearing how Obama is not a dictator or Obama is the president for ALL of us. Obama is the President of all of us. However, he has that position because first the Democratic party chose him, and second, because enough of a majority of Americans decided that the Democratic political philosophy is what America needs. So damn it, be a Democrat first and then consider 'compromise'.
Either he has a long-term Democratic vision of what America needs to look like with our social programs, military spending, deficits, and fiscal policies or he doesn't. If he doesn't have that vision and purpose, then kabuki theater continues as we watch our futures disappear.
And please spare me any replies that suggest that I am selfish because I am focused on my long-term social security instead of a short-term tax cuts and UI benefits. Those who hold the opposite position are just as selfish. They are also short-sighted and are making poor long-term financial choices.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)that I'm tired of listing them. The sheeple will get what they want. The rich will get what they want. And hopefully the rest of us will escape before the doors are locked forever.
TM99
(8,352 posts)We are in agreement. I added other points on top of your valid and agreed upon ones. That was all.
This deal is not a good long term solution for what ails this country financially.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)of the agreements -- extended UI, for example. It actually has more in it than I expected, so I guess at this point my glass is half full.
I respect and agree with Reich, though, ideally it could have been MUCH better, but I'm not sure we would have gotten anything at all. One step at a time -- at least we're heading in the right direction.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)
spooky3
(34,441 posts)Huge waste has built up over the years. So many of our problems could be solved if Cong. would stop treating military spending as if it were sacrosanct.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)The Republicans wanted to eliminate the entire "death" tax on the gazillionaires. $5 million sounds like a fair place to draw the line. Everything else he says is a "what if" and well, I'm sticking with Barack because .... he's got this.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Hammering any kind of a deal out that does not involve cuts to medicare or social security AND extends unemployment benefits and some tax increases on only the rich and getting agreement on that from Republicans is so massive of a victory that every Democrat/Liberal/Progressive should be toasting it and cheering.
I complained on my show on Sunday how much I disagreed with cuts to Social Security via chain CPI being part of a deal, and they were not part of a deal. No cuts to "entitlements" were part of a deal.
This is a major victory any way you slice it.
Edited to add:
And as ProSense posted up thread, Krugman agrees we could not have gotten anything better.
As background, it’s important to understand what Obama clearly could have gotten just by going over the cliff. Basically, he could have gotten the whole of the Bush high-end tax cuts reversed, which would mean close to $800 billion in revenue over the next decade. What he couldn’t get, or at least couldn’t count on getting, were various spending items. This included the extension of unemployment benefits and various “refundables” on things like the Earned Income Tax Credit, that is, pieces of tax legislation that end up having the government cut checks to families instead of the other way around.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/conceder-in-chief-2/
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I'll cheer for true advances, not for just avoiding cuts to the safety net for two months.
That's the bare minimum the government needs to do.
Nobody cheers me just for showing up at work. That's the minimum.
I'll toast and cheer when a politician talks about ending poverty and unemployment once and for all. Or when they say everybody should have equal access to medical care, regardless of ability to pay.
You really think avoiding entitlement cuts for two months is a "major victory"? We gave a major gift to people making $400,000 in exchange for helping unemployed people pay the rent so they don't have to be homeless.
Then in two months we might be back to the Social Security and Medicare fight again.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The CLASS ACT is gone. Repealed by President Obama as part of this deal. Shit on the disabled, they don't fucking matter. We have to save the Military Industrial complex though, we can't afford to let them starve.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Mon October 17, 2011
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Citing cost concerns, the Obama administration said Friday it has halted a long-term care insurance program that was part of the massive health care law passed in 2010.
Called the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports), the program was canceled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after a 19-month effort to find a way to make it financially viable.
In a letter to Congress, Sebelius wrote, "Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time."
.
.
.
But a senior administration official told CNN that there were big questions whether CLASS could be self-sustaining even when the health care reform law was being considered by Congress. And as a result, lawmakers specified that the HHS secretary had to determine that the program would be sustainable for 75 years before certifying it.
------------------------------------
The administration later said they would try to revive it, but the sustainability of this part of ACA was a major issue right out of the gate.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)But what we've just said is that healthy people are worthy of health care. But those who need extra help, fuck them. We stopped it to study it. We supposedly couldn't find any way to fix it. So now we have nothing for the disabled except a promise that a commission will meet, and agree there isn't anything we can do. Fuck you disabled. This is near and dear to my heart, because my Mother, before she died, was disabled. My wife is in a wheelchair right now. It is expensive as hell to get things done. Housing, you'll need wider doors, you'll need different sockets, because the disabled can't reach the existing ones, or fit through the door with a wheelchair. Bathroom fixtures are expensive for disabled. A car? You have to have one that allows for at least a wheelchair to be toted along.
But we don't give a shit, because sequestration was bad, it would mean defense department cuts, and those would be disastrous. The disabled, fuck them, we have to make sure Martin Marietta gets billions of dollars for making missiles we want to shoot people with. Billions for defense, no problem. Happy to give it up. A few million for the disabled? Oh well, we can't afford that. It is just unworkable. But twenty years and billions of dollars for the Osprey aircraft? That is just a good investment, Helicopters are just so last century aren't they?
We are shitting on those who need the most help, to take care of the Military Defense Industry. That was the great thing about Sequestration, we were going to finally shaft the MI complex, but we caved, and gave up on those most in need. If this is the way we negotiate, before we're done, our answer for Sandy Hook will be to give everyone an assault rife and declare schools to be free fire zones.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)be completely redone from scratch.
A new measure can still be done from scratch and added. We gave up something that was never going to happen in anything resembling the form that it was.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Glad to see we're on the same sheet of music. The only difference is that I come out and say the truth, while the rest of you hide behind the politically vague words.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)...you realize we lost nothing. We are exactly where we were before, we need to recreate a brand new program from scratch.
That, by the way, is the topic, the deal that was just struck. Again, if your real purpose here is to advocate for the disabled, we lost nothing in that department.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)We had the CLASS ACT. We put it on hold, we declared it unworkable, because it is too expensive. We continue to spend more than a trillion dollars on stealth everything for the military, but we can't afford to help those among us who need the most help. We got a promise of a commission, who will tell us exactly what they told us about the CLASS ACT, that we can't afford it. Probably the day before they Christen a new Stealth Destroyer. Yet, according to you, we lost nothing. We officially said fuck the disabled, and we lost nothing. Let me know when you think we actually lose something.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Its like a law on the books of some state that prohibits throwing tomatoes on Sunday. Its a dead provision that was unworkable on day one. It needed to be completely redone.
That is still possible. But we are no worse off on it than before the negotiations.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Was it signed into law by the President? Yes. Was it ignored? Yes. Was it part of the ACA, and while it was deemed unworkable, it was the law. We just repealed it. We took an actual law, and threw it away, in order to talk about a law in the future?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)You need to get busy. You have a lot of editing to do in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Living_Assistance_Services_and_Supports_Act
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/health/30care.html?_r=0
Damn the NY Times, putting out information that was utterly untrue probably at the behest of those fucking Rethugs.
It was law for a year, and then President Obama said he was putting it on hold. It was still law then, until they repealed it. Unless you think that Laws are up to whomever feels like deciding they are or are not laws. Let me know if that is the way we are going, if anyone who feels like it can decide that something is or is not a good law. I'm sure that some folks in Alabama would love to get rid of those pesky Civil Rights Laws.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)
Raggaemon
(68 posts)I'm still finding out what this deal boils down to on some levels, while at the same time I struggle with how one side could win a national election holding a mandate but appear to negotiate as timidly ? I believe there's proof enough that the majority of Americans see the GOP as the big problem, so it baffles me how it seems to be the case again that Mr. Obama would negotiate this way ?
If there's anything to take from this on a positive note it's that for all their "NO COMPROMISE" tough-talk, republicans ( tea-party fringe ), have some splaining to do. Yeah, they can go home claiming that they cut taxes, but they also agreed with the president to raise taxes on their beloved, fictional "job creators" in the process, wanna hear them sell that back in their districts ?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and wanted this shit from the beginning. All the shit we have been seeing and hearing is Kabuki theater. The wealthy class own our democracy, therefore we get no representation commensurate with any mandate. Its all bullshit. Americans arelosing their country to a wealthy sociopathic class of humans and still holding onto mythology that our political system works for them.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)sum things up fairly accurately.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
Always be a pessimist and you will never be unpleasantly surprised. Especially when it comes to this sort of Pawn Stars-like "negotiation" where they always give away half the price at the last minute (did you know the EU just passed a balanced budget amendment at the same time? Austerity, baby.)
and the mentality created by consistent mass media drumbeat, there is only one side of any issue for people to support.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time, and that's all that matters.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)you guys are the biggest suckers going!
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)I want to hear this.
[font face="Impact" size="4"]PLEASE PROCEED[/font]
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)feel da burn.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's spooky to know exactly what the outcome will be.
Every. Single. Time.
certainot
(9,090 posts)ALL their positions are based in lies and myths that could only be established with the coordinated widespread ubiquitous repetition only possible with talk radio. and the left has NO organized challenge to it- they get a total free speech free ride except for some effective and needed boycotting related to limbaugh's hate speech - but that is all.
it kicks left internet ass and almost all their wins are based on our ignorance of that fact.
and we celebrate when they don't take everything and whine about our reps ineffectiveness while our local limbaugh hannity megastations pump out the shit to create that alternate reality and take free potshots at them all day.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)metaphor is like having a heated argument over the theme of a novel when the participants will not entertain the likelihood that there is more than one theme, and they've also forgotten that regardless of how true to life and dramatic it may be, it's still just a work of fiction. 
lovuian
(19,362 posts)and I loved the fiscal cliff and all the advertising from all the conservative
channels pounding away over and over again at how Republicans
want entitlements cut
Keep placing that message and pound it into the Americans head
because they will never vote Republican again
We won folks we won
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)Obama has already said he won't give the GOP anything in return for raising the debt ceiling. If Obama isn't going to give them anything, its going to come down to a game of chicken when the money runs out. There's no way the GOP would just give in for nothing now.
gulliver
(13,180 posts)I hate the first line. Reich is between a rock and a hard place on this one though. It is not his best work.
"The deal also extends unemployment insurance for more than 2 million long-term unemployed. That’s important."
Oh well.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)Response to Coyotl (Original post)
Post removed
stopbush
(24,396 posts)It eliminates the need for them to be reauthorized every couple of years.
Congress still has the power to raise taxes anytime they want to in the future. If they do nothing, the bush tax cuts are in effect. If they decide to raise taxes, there is no "can't do that, ever" involved with the bush tax cuts.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The argument will be that now that the rich have made their sacrifice, the rest of us should.
The sacrifices are not comparable. The excesses of the rich versus the necessities of the poor. No equivalency.
The Pete Peterson, Time Geithner, and maybe even Obama anti-Social-Security crowd just bought the time to launched a huge propaganda campaign to cut programs that help the poor, children and the elderly.
Because the deal leaves open doors to future cuts for people who should not be cut, it may turn out to be really bad.
MsPithy
(809 posts)the more they are going to take from YOU!
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)And so do many, many DUers. It's remarkable that DUers have said a million times over you can't negotiate with Republicans and then turn around and expect the Republicans to fold when we're over the fiscal cliff. They might be able to fold on higher taxes, then again, who's to say they will at all? We've already seen many Republicans in the House are content on holding their breath and getting absolutely nothing if just means they didn't have to compromise on anything. Even a deal that cuts taxes for 99% of the country is not good enough for Eric Cantor. You think that'll just change in a day or two? C'mon, who's delusional now?
I don't get it. You've spent the last four years telling us over and over you can't negotiate and compromise with Republicans - they won't allow it! And yet, all the sudden, I'm to believe that the Republicans are going to cave and give the Democrats everything they want in the coming days because we jumped off the fiscal cliff? Give me a break.
Let me tell you what will happen if this deal fails...
There is going to be a further, even uglier debate on raising taxes. The White House will start its limit at $250,000 and Boehner, or maybe Cantor as Speaker of the House, will laugh at it and say there is no way his caucus can support it. While there will be fewer Republicans in the House than currently, it's still going to be enough to throw a deal into doubt. So, the back and forth begins. Obama can hold his ground ... but what good does that do if it gets us nowhere? But maybe that's what you want - maybe you're okay with taxes going up on every economic bracket. Fine. So, let's say that option happens, let's say the worst case scenario happens and we can't avert anything tied with the fiscal cliff.
So, maybe, happily, delusionally, the economy doesn't take a massive hit. There is no recession, unemployment doesn't go up, jobs are not lost - oh glory to God! Happy Days! Maybe that does happen ... and all of you will be vindicated. But I even believe Reich understands that there is a very real potential of the U.S. economy slipping into a recession (I mean, the guy has been yelling about the U.S. going into a recession since 2010 and 2011 - so, since he loves to play the recession card ... he should see the perfect storm brewin' here). Let's say it does. Let's say we fall back into a recession and unemployment, as predicted, shoots up to above 9%.
Where does that put us? Firstly, no unemployment benefits are extended because we lost that chance back when Obama and Biden's deal failed in the House. I guess you could be foolish enough to believe that the Republican House would somehow concede that ground and pass the benefits - even though they have no incentive to do it, especially if it's tied to a slew of new tax increases - but, it's okay, I guess! The Republicans will somehow see the light come Jan. 3rd! And all will be fine! And they'll take everything the Democrats put in front of 'em!
But they won't. We've seen this game all too many times. The Republicans are not going to have an awakening. They're going to be as much the obstructionist party then as they are today and it's not going to change. They'll balk at unemployment benefits, since it's new spending, and balk at Obama's $250,000 and below tax cuts. They can balk because to them, it's not necessarily about the next election and being held accountable. Hell, the Republicans have spent the last two years doing everything not caring if they're held accountable because they know, in the end, when it's all said and done - they're not going to be the ones who get the blame. It's not going to solely be the Republican Party. This is what some of you people, and Robert Reich don't get!
IF the economy plunges into a recession, it's never the House or the Senate who gets the brunt of the blame - it's always and forever the president. It's always been the president and will remain the president. People are foolish to believe the American people will put the full brunt of the blame of a recession on the Republican House. It's not going to happen. Worse, many of those same members will win in landslide elections - just as they did in this past November. Even after all their obstructionism, even after holding the U.S. economy hostage for two years, even in an election year with a powerful top of the ticket, the Republicans still lost only 8 seats. Eight.
But that's okay. They're going to wake up in a couple days and be ready to put America First! Don't hold your breath.
So, what's going to happen is that Republicans won't take the deal. I think it's obvious the House will reject it ... much to the cheers of those on DU who don't seem to care about those who might lose their jobs or their unemployment benefits and then it truly becomes a game of chicken. Because the Republicans aren't going to give in on Obama's pledge for $250,000 and they'll happily let your taxes go up just to claim a political point. That's what they do. So, then Obama is faced with the prospects of negotiating once again ... but with the real prospects of an economic downturn staring him straight in the face. The Republicans will know Obama will want to make a deal because its his butt that will take the heat if the U.S. plunges back into a recession - it's his legacy if the next year is faced with economic turmoil.
What's their incentive to cave? What's their incentive to give Obama everything he wants? Do you really think they're worried about 2014? Have you not been paying attention to what's happened since 2010? God, sometimes I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality.
Beyond that, though, you've got people in this very thread who say it's fine to eliminate unemployment benefits and replace them with true job creation legislation. Uh, like what? Do you really think anything with more spending is going to pass the House?
That means an extension of unemployment benefits are gone. Taxes are going to go up - all across the board. Revenue will be created in the U.S government, but in terms of economic revenue from people actually spending, that's gone. We'll go into a recession, the Republicans will blame Obama. The media will blame 'Congress' (don't you love those vague terms), Obama's approval will take a hit and any deal that could be made is going to be limited to the taxes and will still be absolutely tied to negotiating and compromise - especially if it's Eric Cantor who becomes the new Speaker of the House.
But that's okay for Robert Reich. Notice it's always the liberal elites who have no problem throwing so many good, hardworking Americans under the bus for the sake of purity? This elite won't have to face the consequences of a recession or losing unemployment benefits or a hike in medicare because it does not impact his economic bracket. Reich is the definition of a limousine liberal. He's set no matter what - he has zero skin in this game. He can talk about purity and Obama caving and how bad of a deal this is for certain Americans ... but in the end, it's not going to be him who's screwed when taxes go up. It's not going to be him who's screwed when his unemployment benefits dry up and it's still impossible to find a job because the U.S. is in a recession. It's not going to be him who's screwed when he loses his job because of said recession.
Ah, but yes! He believes, like so many lost souls here, that the Republicans will just give in and everything will be peachy because they will accept Obama's $250,000 offer and no one will put a fight and maybe they'll even accept new unemployment benefits and more economic stimulus and they'll happily vote for all of this because, gosh, why not? I mean, it's not like the Republicans have shown us in the past that they're not above putting their interests above that of the American people's.
Right?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)are not at all drunk.. teach.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)The Senate is going to lead the nation on the legislation front because the Dems have control. The Rs in the House can obstruct at their peril. But, once all the tax increases have already kicked in, we will see who wants to obstruct by voting down lowering taxes. That will mean the Rs get thrown out of the House in 2014.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and then we go over the cliff even stronger, with the GOP even more to blame. And then President Obama can re-draw the line even further back, just as he has repeatedly done over the last year.
Face it, too, the battle over Social Security will likely never die. Just be prepared to defend it for the rest of your life because as long as there is a large pot of wealth, there will be a large number of idle rich plotting to steal it.
As for "permanent" tax cuts for the wealthy...since when is *anything* permanent?
I'm feeling pretty cheery tonight. No, the pendulum has not swung fully left yet. But it's hit a wall and started swinging left. It will increasingly pick up momentum as it gets moving.
It took 30 years to get this far off the right side of earth. It will take a few years to get back where we belong... 
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Democratic representatives continue to set the bar so low and the thugs raise their bar nearly to the roof and somehow we are supposed to be placated?
So..
- I guess Obama has now agreed that this small but bipartisan tax increase on those making over 450K is a fair share.
- Obama is going to sound like a broken record if he says the rich need to pay more in the debt ceiling debate.
- Since chained CPI was already floated for this debate I am sure it will be the low bar for Democrats in the coming debt ceiling debate.
Did you ever get the feeling you were really watching Kabuki theater? Obama and Boner behind the locked door smoking cigs and chuckling over how each would be using their "negotiation" as a political tool to hammer the other....
Why...
Is our side refusing to talk about real solutions to the debt that won't hurt the most vulnerable among us like...
- VAT
- Banking/Trading transaction tax
- Wealth Tax
- Yearly renewable firearms tax...
AAO
(3,300 posts)If you don't have to worry about losing your job, or needing one.
If you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance, or if you're to rich to need any.
If you don't have to worry about retirement, or any cares of ordinary people.
For everyone else it, not so much.
Response to Coyotl (Original post)
Post removed
Skittles
(153,150 posts)luckily they are outnumbered
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people stop being distracted by the games they play, such as this totally ridiculous 'Fiscal Cliff' that has completely absorbed people arguing with each other instead of ignoring it and putting all of that energy into ridding the country of the majority of sell outs in Congress and start working on that right NOW. Let them play, but we should not participate. The deals are always already made, especially in anticipation of Lame Duck Congresses. We should know better by now.
Don't argue with those who convince themselves 'this is a good deal' or those who tell you you did not hear what you know you heard, 'The Chained CPI will strengthen SS' eg. Ignore them and move on to start rebuilding this country from the bottom up.
Because what is really happening here is a phony game to implement Austerity on this country as they have done in Europe, and before that on Second and Third World countries all the while making sure the rich get even richer and the middle class and their Social Safety Nets are chipped away at, as fast as is possible.
The whole thing is merely a side show, they know what their goals are.
Now it's past time for the people to start taking over, electing real Progressive Dems, putting all the money and energy they put into these last elections, in OUR choices of candidates and then starting what will be a long process of restoring power to the people. First step in doing so will be to completely remove money from our electoral process and that won't be done by the current bought and paid for Congress.
LW1977
(1,234 posts)"Waaaaah!!! I didn't get what I want so I'm staying home and letting the GOP take over the Senate and retain the house in 2014!". Just listen to you babies, some of you make freepers seem reasonable.
Edit. I see I've been banned from this thread by some jury Nazis! Oh boo hoo hoo. The unreasonable group of "DUers" has a sad because I called them out for demanding that the President gives everyone a free pony and ice cream. Just continue to pout like the babies you are! There's a reason I stopped reading the Huffington Post, the alarmist headlines that people like you eat up so you can have an excuse to BITCH about something! I do NOT apologize for my now "hidden post"! 
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)I sent him a thank you letter! He made my contributions, time and money, to his campaign worth the effort. A deal to raise taxes on taxable income over $400k and leave the $5million estate exemption is ridiculous and a lousy compromise. Call me a radical leftist or whatever, I hate this deal, unless it includes taxing capital gains as ordinary income. Then, and only then, will I come around to any deal.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Third Way believes Americans are stupid. We are being told that this is a win. Look at the numbers and what will actually happen as a result of this deal.
The ending of the tax cuts on the top two percent will collect an insultingly small 600 billion dollars, out of over FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS the administration seeks to collect over the next decade as a result of this deal. Guess who will be soaked to pay the rest?
This entire "fiscal cliff" scenario was a Shock Doctrine scam orchestrated to feed us austerity through crisis, because we would never have accepted it had the people had a say in the process. We are hearing that the rich will pay more. What they fail to mention is that the poor will pay much, much, much more.
This entire deal moves us to the right, again. It hoses the 99 percent, again.
Had enough yet, America?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Why isn’t Obama demanding corporate welfare cuts? $2.6 trillion without touching Safety Net!
Dec. 18, 2012, 6:00 a.m. EST
Why isn’t Obama demanding corporate welfare cuts?
Commentary: $2.6 trillion could be saved without touching safety net
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – If President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner really want to reduce federal deficits, they’re doing a lousy job of it.
Rather than focusing their negotiations on specific and achievable savings that would stabilize our debt for a decade or more, the two leaders have instead been talking about areas of the budget in which there’s almost no common ground.
For Democrats, the only goal of the fiscal-cliff confrontation seems to be raising tax rates and getting more revenue from the wealthy. For Republicans, it’s shredding the safety net for seniors and the working poor.
They’re ignoring the most obvious solution: Eliminating unproductive and unnecessary federal spending and tax expenditures, especially corporate welfare that only benefits special interests. If even we didn’t have a deficit problem, we should eliminate or minimize this kind of wasteful spending.
We know why no one is talking about this solution: The corporate interests who feed at the public trough control the politicians and the media who have worked themselves into a frenzy over the debt and the fiscal cliff. You’ll never see a group of CEOs, like Honeywell’s David Cote or Jim McNerney of Boeing, come to Washington to lobby to have their subsidies eliminated, but you will see them ask for old and sick people to bear the costs of deficit reduction.
More with a list of Corporate Welfare that needs to be cut at.........
http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=A524B3DC-4888-11E2-ACE1-002128040CF6
muriel_volestrangler
(101,310 posts)Many of the items that they suggest cuts for are detailed here: http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/downloads/TCS_Budget_Cuts_SlidingPastSequestration_October1a.pdf
Can anyone comment on 'Taxpayers for Common Sense'? There are a few items there I'd hesitate to cut, but many that wouldn't be missed, apart from the corporations who benefit directly from the government spending; TCS is called 'non-partisan', but some libertarian think-tanks get called that too.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I don't know whether Obama doesn't understand this, or has no idead how to fight for us, or if he's in on the right wing scam. Whatever the reason, he gets beat every single time
tomp
(9,512 posts)Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)In today's Democratic Party?
