General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Grover Norquist’s Last Laugh" -- Dems Got Rolled.. Robert Kuttner
Published on Friday, March 15, 2013 by The American Prospect
Grover Norquists Last Laugh
Democrats, cant you see how you are getting rolled?
by Robert Kuttner
When President Obama got Republicans to raise taxes on the top one percent of income earners as part of the January deal that ended the threat of the fiscal cliff, some Democrats gloated that Republicans had been made to go back on the famous Grover Norquist pledge never to raise taxes. It appeared that Obama, fresh from his November victory and taking Grover Norquist, the man behind "the pledge." (Photo: AP)advantage of Republicans divisions, had won big.
Well, think again.
If you compare the leverage that Obama had in that set of bargaining with the leverage he has now in the post-sequester budget negotiations, it is like night and day. Had Obama hung tough and demanded a lot more in the way of tax increases on the wealthy, Republicans were just stuckbecause no action would have caused taxes to increase on everyone. Obama had begun the bargaining requesting a reversion to the pre-Bush tax levels on the top two percent, targeting revenue increases of at least $1.6 trillion over a decade. Instead, he settled for just $620 billionmeaning that another billion has to be taken out of the spending side. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was holding out for the higher number, correctly calculating that Republicans would have to give ground, when Obama cut the ground out from Reid by shifting the leadership to Joe Biden with instructions to make more concessions, without even the courtesy of informing Reid. The White House also disastrously miscalculated that the threat of defense cuts in the sequester would bring Republicans back to the table on taxes. Oops. Republicans realize that Afghanistan is winding down, and whats most interesting about the Paul Ryan budget is that its proposed defense spending over the next decade is scarcely different from the Democrats proposal.
I happened to be speaking at The Atlantics Economy Summit conference this week, where Norquist was also a speaker, and I had a chance to discuss the January and March budget negotiations with him afterward. According to Norquist, when House Republican negotiators were told that Obama would settle for as little as reverting to the pre-Bush tax rates only on the top one percent, they were astonished at their good fortune. Obamas cave-in was almost too good to be true. As Norquist sees it, the White House was so fixated on the symbolism of getting Republicans to say uncle on some form of tax increases on the rich that Obama lost track of both the substance and the larger tactical situation. In late December, when the automatic tax increase of the fiscal cliff was the threat, Democrats held all the cards. Now, with the automatic spending cuts of the sequester in play, the Republicans hold the cards. Why, Norquist wondered, didnt Obama hold out for only a one-year deal on tax cuts, so that the Democrats would have the leverage of automatic tax increases to hold over the Republicans in the sequester negotiations and next year.
Great idea! Id never heard anyone propose that gambit.
"Who came up with that?" I asked. "I did," said Norquist. He was worried that the Democrats would think of it. The White House should hire this man.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/15-9
indepat
(20,899 posts)him and these vipers, who've done everything possible to destroy him, to like him, but it ain't gonna happen in this life.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)It is so sad. He playing games and the working people are hurting.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)No, Robert, you meant to say trillion.
Another TRILLION has to be taken out of the spending side, approximately, (for the meaningless counterproductive target to be achieved).
I understand. When numbers get this appallingly large, it can be hard to keep track.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)either the experience or the background to deal with tough political infighters like the people calling the shots in the Rethug party these days. As Editor of the Harvard Law Review he had to be a person who found a way to be nice to everyone and hopefully not piss too many people off. As a Community Organizer his goal was to achieve compromise in order to achieve some desired result and I'm certain he was very good at it. He never practiced adversarial law so his legal background really didn't prepare him for dealing with people who piss on your leg and then try and convince you that it's raining. And his one term as a freshman Senator hardly gave him the experience, i.e. the 'chops' he needed to deal with people who have been doing this forever. In short, I don't believe for a second that his intentions are anything but honorable. But I also don't believe that he has the real world experience to play cut-throat politics with people who are masters of the art. And that's why he has been, and is I fear is going to continue to be rolled by the Rethugs.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)lack of experience in "Adversarial Law." Said it's a whole different ball game from what Obama's training was in "Constitutional Law" and that it takes a "certain personality" to be able to spar and find loop holes that work for your clients. Friend decided to go into "Estate Law" which he said was dull and boring for the more agressive of his fellow law students, but that he felt comfortable in not being the kind of "Hot Shot" as he called it in going into "Adversarial Practice."
I think the rest of what you say is interesting also.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)of practice, a lot in the trenches of adversarial law and I completely agree with your friend. Adversarial (Litigation) Law I think prepares you much better for the rough and tumble of hard, rapid negotiations. Obama's training is in Constitutional Law - an academic discipline to be sure, but one which requires more elaborate thought processes and measured debate than one encounters in the courtroom.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Maybe it's the side he wants to be on. Assuming he wants to be on the side of the masses could be wishful thinking. Remember he has appointed dozens of conservatives.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)feel that he's either clueless, threatened, compromised...OR...that his beliefs are so in tune with Reagan (Celebrity President from Hollywood GE with lovely Wife who'd been a Movie Star) that he modeled his Presidency as to what in his "young years" most appealed to him...and it was REAGAN and not FDR.
That might be some "crux" of the problem. He identifies with ACTORS like Reagan and Michelle also feels that this is her incredible ROLE PLAY to be the Beautiful Accomplished Face for Women/Mothers Everywhere...in her Role Play.
Maybe there is just some Self-Deception with hero images of their aspirations and the TEE VEE they WATCHED and AMERICA as the LAND OF THE CELEBRITY.....that they just can't break out of...and I surely could understand that.
BUT...WHAT ABOUT US? Just throwing this out there trying to understand the Obama Administration from THEIR Life Experience as to what we are dealing through...living through.
Still trying to work through what's going on here in the Second Administration...after getting my butt out to VOTE ONCE AGAIN..(even thought I was very disappointed with Obama's Speeches and Promise and What happened in his First Administration).and finding that "something seems wrong about what's going on given what and who I voted for in his SECOND ADMINISTRATION.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)more on achieving some broad concensus on ideas he feels comfortable with, and is willing to bend over backwards in compromising his principles in order to get what he believes to be a concensus.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)At least that's what many Democrats thought.
He has not succeded in that...and he has in many ways FURTHERED BUSH...which is why many DU'ers who've been here a very long time fighting are so disappointed.
He's now into his SECOND TERM...If we don't STAND UP NOW against Expansion of Bush Policies then WHERE IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...and even the LEFT in the Dem Party going to be when a Repug (cyclical that a after a Two-Term the Opposite Party gets elected)...going to BE when the REPUGS STILL RULE for 8 Years of Bush and 8 YEARS OF "BUSH LIGHT or Bush CONTINUATION BUT HARDER?"
I'm distraught over this...as you can read and many other Dems are but they've left this Site and Mobilizing Elsewhere. I know some here want to say "GOOD RIDDANCE...BE GONE!" But, does that mean that you supported Repugs and Bush all ALONG?
jsr
(7,712 posts)The opposite happened and is continuing to happen.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)but he hasn't. And he won't. I would never support the Rethugs, but many of his policies are truly Bush-Lite. Not my cup of tea.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You are either for the 1% or for the 99%. The centrists here will tell you that they are willing to compromise with the overlords and settle for getting kicked in the teeth only 10 times instead of 20.
I feel that those that represent us Democrats are willing to let the overlords take 75% of our wealth as a bargain in lieu of them taking 100%.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)they'll only take 75% - for now.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Congressional "representatives" give a shit.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Like I always say, if you want to know what someone is like, look at who they hang out with.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)even for his second Administration.
I could understand. a young New Democratic President..."going with the flow" that his Elders picked for his First Admin...when he was new to get his grounding...
BUT..
Then..after all this Tragedy with America allowing BIG BANKSTER CROOKS to GET OFF..to SAVE AMERICA...he THEN..get's Re-elected by those of us skeptical...but...we were TOLD by our DEMOCRATIC PARTY..."Vote for Him Again!" ......He will be a Liberal for his Second Term....and THEN!.....Look at his picks for Second Term. You can Google yourself...I'm not into Grave Dancing....but...
"We Shall Be Known by Our Deeds." WHAT THE HELL was this "FRACING, GITMO (Hunger Strikes by Should be Released Prisoners), DRONE WARS (Collateral Damage Killing Innocents with Button Push) MONSANTO (owning the patent to ALL OUR SEEDS), Expanded Privacy (not answering to FOIA/ACLU/Common Cause/Brennan Center for Justice...etc.) SECRECY...when he PROMISED TRANSPARENCY...and ON and ON and ON...
What's Up with Him?
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)he's not a liberal.
Have you checked out the new DU Elizabeth Warren Group? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1265
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Obama just won re-election and you're pushing the "Obama just doesn't have either the experience to deal with tough political infighters" claim because someone decided to revive the corpse of Grover Norquist.
Republican belligerence isn't a sign of strength. John Boehner is likely going to be remembered as one of the worst Speakers ever.
Congressional Republicans only accomplishment is obstruction, and they're not even good at that in the long term.
Top GOP Senator: We Lost On Obamacare, But Were Going to Keep Trying To Repeal It Anyway
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022514786
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)in the long term.
Really? Looks to me like they've been pretty successful for the past 5 years. Not to mention the upcoming fiscal 'crises', one after the other which they've created. Every time the country is held hostage by these idiots Obama looks and acts weaker than the time before. He can't get judges confirmed, and to get his cabinet nominees approved by the Rethugs he had to throw Susan Rice to the wolves and kiss ass with McCain and Missy Lindsay, who, after beating him up on the pretext of Benghazi finally deigned to let the Senate vote.
I don't know what you mean by "long term" - more than the next 4 years?
Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #25)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Congressional Republicans only accomplishment is obstruction, and they're not even good at that in the long term.
Really? Looks to me like they've been pretty successful for the past 5 years."
Remember when they blocked the VAWA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512795
No?
How about health care? From the link in my previous comment:
From the OP:
(with no spending cuts and extended unemployment benefits and aid to low income workers)
"Every time the country is held hostage by these idiots Obama looks and acts weaker than the time before. He can't get judges confirmed, and to get his cabinet nominees approved by the Rethugs he had to throw Susan Rice to the wolves and kiss ass with McCain and Missy Lindsay, who, after beating him up on the pretext of Benghazi finally deigned to let the Senate vote."
Again, you're confusing belligerence with strength.
Susan Rice is likely the next National Security Adviser. Republicans can suck on that.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)How long DID the Rethugs effectively block VAWA, only now finally giving up because they (finally) see that they have a serious problem with women voters and figured it would help them some to do away with the meme of "War against Women". The surely didn't do it because of Obama's persuasiveness.
Likewise, Obamacare. Is there any thinking Democrat out there that truly doesn't feel that this health care reform failed to address most of the core problems with healthcare in the U.S.? Many of us see it as no more than status quo plus, where private insurers are wetting their plants anticipating the enhanced profits that are going to roll in. I give him a C+ for getting something, but let's not pretend that an expansion of Medicare would not have created a far better system for the American public. Obamacare is a flawed system and a timid half-measure compared to the true healthcare reform many of us expected.
And let's not even talk about getting the famous 1% on the wealthy. Remember when it was for 'anyone earning over $250,000 a year'. Yeah, so do I. Not to mention the stealth drawback of the decrease in Social Securty retention in paychecks so that many Americans wound up with substantially less in their monthly pay. And, in return, what did we get - nothing but the promise of more obstructionism. And lets not even look ahead to the upcoming Debt Ceiling 'negotiations'. I never thought I would agree with anything Norquist had to say but I have to say I think he's right on the money on this.
As hard as you look, there's no Pony to be found here.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)And let's not even talk about getting the famous 1% on the wealthy. Remember when it was for 'anyone earning over $250,000 a year'. Yeah, so do I. Not to mention the stealth drawback of the decrease in Social Securty retention in paychecks so that many Americans wound up with substantially less in their monthly pay. And, in return, what did we get - nothing but the promise of more obstructionism. And lets not even look ahead to the upcoming Debt Ceiling 'negotiations'. I never thought I would agree with anything Norquist had to say but I have to say I think he's right on the money on this.
...how do you expect anyone to take you seriously after that comment? I mean, how exactly does your opinion of the health care law prove that asshole right?
Not everyone is searching for validation from the likes of Norquist. Just because Republicans bow to this clown doesn't mean he's accomplishing a damn thing...just obstruction.
Eugene Robinson: Obama, winning the argument
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381931
And my memory and reality are damn near on par.
The economy is recovering and Republicans are determined to destroy it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022505883
President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.
Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to create bottom-up economic growth and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits fully refundable, so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html
That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.
Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304
Obama's Deal From a poor Person's Perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022111266
The deal was a coup because it extended benefits and aid to low-income and unemployed Americans with no spending cuts, and it neutered Republicans.
Not With A Bang But With A Whimper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022215606
Still, remember that while Republicans are whining, the President has already cut $2.5 trillion over the next decade.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a graph:
The vertical axis measures the projected ratio of federal debt to GDP. The blue line at the top represents the projected path of that ratio as of early 2011 that is, before recent agreements on spending cuts and tax increases. This projection showed a rising path for debt as far as the eye could see.
And just about all budget discussion in Washington and the news media is laid out as if that were still the case. But a lot has happened since then. The orange line shows the effects of those spending cuts and tax hikes: As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.
CBPP goes on to advocate another $1.4 trillion in revenue and/or spending cuts, which would bring the debt ratio at the end of the decade back down to around its current level. But the larger message here is surely that for the next decade, the debt outlook actually doesnt look all that bad.
<...>
So you heard it here first: while you werent looking, and the deficit scolds were doing their scolding, the deficit problem (such as it was) was being mostly solved. Can we now start talking about unemployment?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-mostly-solved-deficit-problem/
For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/22/17056939-a-well-kept-fiscal-secret
Then there are the health care savings.
By Jeff Spross
Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.
The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the programs spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Offices projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicares spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:
According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/
This helps:
Medicare Fraud: HHS announces record-breaking $4.2 Billion recovered in FY 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022354924
The President's policies also prove that savings do not have to come at the expense of appropriate spending and benefits. The health care law not only expanded benefits for seniors, it's reversing the damage done by Bush, and it strengthened Medicare.
Medicare Improvements
The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.
1) Closing the donut hole
a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D donut hole). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.
b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.
c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
2) Improving seniors access to preventive medical services
a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.
b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.
c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.
d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
- more -
http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf
Medicares financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).
The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024 eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform lawat which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf
The law gets better as it nears full implementation in 2014.
New Federal Rule Requires Insurers to Offer Mental Health Coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407451
Heres one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922
Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967
Kathleen Sebelius: Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for High Premium Increases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417762
The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"Obama just won re-election and you're pushing the "Obama just doesn't have either the experience to deal with tough political infighters" claim because someone decided to revive the corpse of Grover Norquist." Ok you re-stated what he said. What's your point??
"Republican belligerence isn't a sign of strength. John Boehner is likely going to be remembered as one of the worst Speakers ever. Did anyone say that Republican belligerence IS a sign of strength.?? Or is that a strawman? And by the way Republican's control of the Senate as a minority IS A SIGN OF STRENGTH. They have almost completely shut down judicial appointments. Sen Reid said he had the filibuster problem under control. He lied to us.
"Congressional Republicans only accomplishment is obstruction, " It seems to be working. Seems the Democrats are stymied.
You give us lots and lots of data, but you never seem to explain your point.
The millions that are either homeless, in poverty, jobless, on Social Security, etc. want results.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Obama simply doesn't have the experience, or personality, to play hardball politics, and sadly it shows. Worse, it is the American people who are paying the price.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)LOVING THEM...really enough? Is this what it's all about to be President these days? Loving the Family Values but forgetting that Americans are suffering from Corruption?
Should we wash that all away because we don't want to "hurt that Family...because it would be on "Our Heads?" that we hurt those two lovely little kids because we QUESTIONED their FATHER?
What about the Iraq/Afghani/South African/Libyan/Pakistani and the Rest of WHO WE BOMB?
ARE THEIR CHILDREN Less WORTHY than our PRESIDENT's CHILDREN because of HIS POLICIES?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)<...>
Democrats, cant you see how you are getting rolled? The only sensible budget on the table in Washington is the Back to Work Budget proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which includes more deficit spending and more public investment now, faster growth and job-creation, more progressive taxes on the rich, and eventual deficit reduction at a higher level of GDP. This is the only budget that is both smart economics, socially just, and good politics for Democrats. If Obama were the president we thought we were voting for, hed be leading the charge for it. At least the eventual compromise would be far more progressive than what well likely get.
...convoluted logic. Dems got rolled because Obama got Republicans to raise taxes on the rich (with no spending cuts and extended unemployment benefits and aid to low income workers)?
He talks as if something has changed. Republicans are so out of it and afraid of their own shadows that they can't even acknowledge the reality of the negotiations.
House Appropriations Chair Takes Down Republican Budget: It Cuts Too Much
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/15/1724941/rogers-republican-budget/
Sequestration NIMBYism Grips GOP
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/sequestration-nimbyism-grips-gop.php
Paul Ryan is a big joke.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
<...>
Way back in 2010, when everybody in Washington seemed determined to anoint Representative Paul Ryan as the ultimate Serious, Honest Conservative, I pronounced him a flimflam man....Since then, his budgets have gotten even flimflammier. For example, at this point, Mr. Ryan is claiming that he can slash the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, yet somehow raise 19.1 percent of G.D.P. in revenues a number we havent come close to seeing since the dot-com bubble burst a dozen years ago.
The good news is that Mr. Ryans thoroughly unconvincing policy-wonk act seems, finally, to have worn out its welcome. In 2011, his budget was initially treated with worshipful respect, which faded only slightly as critics pointed out the documents many absurdities. This time around, quite a few pundits and reporters have greeted his release with the derision it deserves.
<...>
As many observers have pointed out, the Senate Democratic plan is conservative with a small c: It avoids any drastic policy changes. In particular, it steers away from draconian austerity, which is simply not needed given ultralow U.S. borrowing costs and relatively benign medium-term fiscal projections...the Senate plan calls for further deficit reduction, through a mix of modest tax increases and spending cuts...So we could definitely do worse than the Senate Democratic plan, and we probably will. It is, however, an extremely cautious proposal, one that doesnt follow through on its own analysis. After all, if sharp spending cuts are a bad thing in a depressed economy which they are then the plan really should be calling for substantial though temporary spending increases. It doesnt.
But theres a plan that does: the proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, titled Back to Work, which calls for substantial new spending now, temporarily widening the deficit, offset by major deficit reduction later in the next decade, largely though not entirely through higher taxes on the wealthy, corporations and pollution..some people describe the caucus proposal as a Ryan plan of the left, but thats unfair. There are no Ryan-style magic asterisks, trillion-dollar savings that are assumed to come from unspecified sources; this is an honest proposal. And Back to Work rests on solid macroeconomic analysis, not the fantasy expansionary austerity economics the claim that slashing spending in a depressed economy somehow promotes job growth rather than deepening the depression that Mr. Ryan continues to espouse despite the doctrines total failure in Europe.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/opinion/krugman-after-the-flimflam.html
Still, it figures that someone, who is allegedly on the left, would take the opportunity to try to prop the asshole Republicans up.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)there are quite few around here who are easy prey. I trust the President to do what he thinks is the right thing to benefit the country. He has so far and no amount of RW or "progressive" counter spin has changed that.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Response to KoKo (Original post)
thetruthhurtsforsome Message auto-removed
spanone
(135,636 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Grover Norquist and he did his report which is REPORTING...
Are you suggesting that people at conferences (where they were invited) are not to REPORT on Interviews they had with participants?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Why? So he could write a piece hyping this idiot?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Finally. Now anybody with an ounce of sense should know what Common Dreams is about.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)is contriving ME..to be a "TOOL" for?
Pray tell how I and Others are "Captured" by some kind of something you allude to?
Just Asking???
WHAT?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but better late than never I guess. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101
Still there seem to be lots of people who will not believe it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)"fiscal cliff deal gives $1.3 trillion in tax cuts to richest 5%"
MORE FROM YOUR ARTICLE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101
Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:18 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3)
tell me again how Republicans lost?
Hope folks will read it ALL...because..those who saw it erlier...tend to have gotten...well... sort of "ignored?"
Anyway...folks need to HIT your Linkl...over the Weekend..to understand that it's NOT "Something New" that We are Trying to talk about HERE....So Many of us Dem Voters have been TRYING to get Word out that "Something is Very Wrong with our Dem Party" for awhile..but got little response.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I still had HOPE...but...I see that THEY knew...because they'd been down a road that I'd not traveled...but, THEY KNEW..even though like so Many of Us...they knew the ONLY CHOICE was OBAMA because the RIGHT was so Crazy and "Out of Touch" that theyd bring the Country Down Forever!
So we lined up and voted....for the GOOD GUY!
IS HE ...the GOOD GUY? Or....is he the BEST of the TWO...
And...WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Compared to Bush/Cheney?