General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI like Howard Dean however...
...why was he on the air saying to let the sequester go forward in the month prior?
---
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)He's likely right.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Because the alternative will be worse for the 99%? He's likely right."
...maybe he's not and looking at it as a deficit hawk? You seemed to agree that they were "dumb."
US Senator Elizabeth Warren: Sequester cuts are just plain dumb
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2426940
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022425872
"I'm not sure which is worse I'll have to trust in Warren on this one."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2427799
"Would You Like To Buy A Pen?" She Asked Me
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1251288230
patrice
(47,992 posts)#2. He has a background in grassroots action.
#3. His professional roots are in health care.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)I wasn't aware that he wanted to go forward with the sequester. Seems like it was designed to be horrible for everyone no matter what happened though. Wasn't the alternative offered by democrats chained CPI? And from republicans even worse pain? Did anyone offer an alternative that would raise revenue without causing economic sacrifice by the 99 percent?
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Gotta admit I was hoping something would be done to close tax loopholes for corporations. It's bad enough that jobs in my industry and others are being lost because of subsidies and healthcare costs but that our government rewards corporations for offshoring on top of it? Devastating for US workers. Great for billionaires and corporations though! Good to see someone in congress cares
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)QUOTE:
WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean is used to being an eccentric within his own party, so the fact that he's urging Democrats to address the impending sequester by doing basically the opposite of what the Obama administration, congressional leadership and every progressive-minded economist wants shouldn't come as a terrible shock.
"We should let it happen," Dean said of $1 trillion in domestic, defense and Medicare spending cuts set to be triggered on March 1. "Im in favor of the sequester. It is tough on things that I care about a lot, but the fact of the matter is, you are not going to get another chance to cut the defense budget in the way that it needs to be cut."
"Its an odd view from the left," he conceded.
Cha
(296,881 posts)Question:
Theres a school of thought that says now is just not the right time to do any cuts of any variety. [Congressional Budget Office Director] Doug Elmendorf testified that if sequestration went through, youd lose 750,000 jobs in the first year. So what about the argument that you should put off sequestration for a year and not have any cuts at all?
Dean:
patrice
(47,992 posts)dsc
(52,152 posts)and believes this is the only way defense will ever be cut substantially.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)the military budget is exorbitant.
dsc
(52,152 posts)but it explains why he is willing to except a hit to the economy to get the cuts.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Instead he decided it was better to try and have the party's approval.
I guess it's easier that way.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)I can't see that. At all. He's pretty much a lone voice in well-known Democrats saying the sequester is a good thing, and I don't see much grass-roots support for him saying it either. How have you arrived at your conclusion?
pansypoo53219
(20,955 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)that he thought it is the only chance we will have for a generation to cut the military budget. I think he is spot on.