If Dems won the election, why is ANYONE talking about a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts/tax increases???

[reformist2]

Or even a 2:1 ratio for that matter. As far as I can tell, NO Democrat ran on cutting any social program in such a way. Now it's conventional wisdom that this is the deal that must be made???

NO.

Any deal made to win Republican votes in the House and Senate must be biased in favor of tax increases. You know, because Democrats won the election. Anything less is a total sellout, imo.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. I believe the last offer we made was 2.5:1, they just want to get that deal done

or something similar to it.

[woo me with science]

90. Yes, and austerity wlil slow the economy and harm millions.

This is not just about Medicare and Social Security. It is about slashing the budget by trillions, which is what hundreds of economists and our own eyes, watching Europe, tell us clearly that we should NOT be doing.

Deep, broad cuts in the budget will harm millions of Americans who have already been looted into desperation, and there is no earthly reason to start out with such unbalanced tax/revenue numbers when you have just won a landslide.

Austerity and budget-slashing are Republican tactics. They are the opposite of a responsible direction for our country.

[maui902]

2. As one famous Democrat said, "Arithmetic."

President Obama ran on the notion that the Bush tax cuts should expire, but only on those making more than $250,000. Along with the other changes to the tax code he has proposed (raising the rates on capital gains for example), and the stand that he would NOT let the Bush tax cuts expire on those making less than $250,000 (the vast majority of Americans), the amount of additional tax revenue estimated to be raised over the next 10 years is somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion. To address the long term deficit/debt issue that Democrats and Republicans alike agree is a drag on the economy, according to many economists, we need to adopt a meaningful plan that proposes to cut the deficit by @ $4 trillion over the next 10 years. This $4 trillion to $ 1 trillion ratio is what led to the 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to additional taxes. If President Obama had run on the idea that tax rates should be increased on those making > $250,000 per year above those in effect during the Clinton years, President Obama likely would not have won the election. If he now proposes increasing taxes above what he proposed during the campaign, either by proposing much higher rates on the wealthy or raising taxes on the middle class, he will allow the Republicans in the House to block such legislation and give them a legitimate reason for doing so, as well as give voters a reason to vote against Democrats in 2014 and 2016. I don't like the 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to taxes, but any material change to that ratio is unlikely to pass.

[reformist2]

4. There's more than one way to do the math. We should be talking about MUCH higher rates on the rich.

[maui902]

13. Not suggesting it's the only way to cut $4 trillion of the deficit

And I am not suggesting that $4 Trillion is the magic number that solves the deficit/debt issue. But that is what the President ran on (with some, but not much, wiggle room) and, if there is any mandate, it was for the proposal the President ran on. If either the President or the Democrats propose something materially different, be prepared for the fiscal cliff, which will mean higher taxes for everybody, including those who make < $250,000 a year, and drastic cuts to spending on social programs, not to mention an increase in job losses and further cutbacks, especially if we experience a double dip recession caused by going off the fiscal cliff with no plan in sight to arrest the fall.

[underoath]

48. Higher rates on the rich will make the government how much money?

enough to even make a dent?

[Care Acutely]

64. So you are against raising taxes on the rich?

Do you have any liberal positions on any issues? Because every post I've ever seen from you is either thinly veiled Socratic bullshit or straight out of hate radio and FUXED NOOZE.

[HangOnKids]

71. ^^^THIS^^^

You noticed too?

[Care Acutely]

81. Hell yes I noticed too!

Straight up under the bridge and LAUGHING.

[uponit7771]

79. 50 million yearly ...either way, they pony up like the rest of us

[Fuddnik]

7. "Long term deficit/debt that Democrats?Republicans alike agree is a drag on the economy.

And they would both be full of shit.

What would be a bigger drag on the economy is taking a trillion dollars in spending out of the economy.

Lay off Congress and the Senate. They're useless spending at it's worst.

[rhett o rick]

19. A correction that needs to be made. "let Bush tax cuts expire on those

making less than $250,000" isnt accurate. Proposed is to let the tax cuts expire on the first $250,000 in income for EVERYONE. So the 1% still get a tax cut on their first $250,000.

[maui902]

20. Good point and I missed that in my post

But I've been making that point quite a bit to my conservative friends recently. Those who make more than $250,000 get a tax cut on the first $250,000 and a tax increase only on the amount > $250,000.

[rhett o rick]

21. NP. It is a very common mistake and, like you said, important to keep it right

for the conservatives.

[Roland99]

27. Let's make 99.999% of those cuts in Defense.

[AlexSatan]

62. Just remember,

Those a jobs that will be being cut as well.

It's not like the money that goes to the DoD magically disappears. It puts food on lots of tables.

[Roland99]

73. Right...but it also goes toward overpaid contractors and horrendously expensive weapons systems.

[AlexSatan]

74. Some does

But many of the DoD contractors are not horribly overpaid and a good chunk of the DoD budget goes for pay, housing, etc of the soldiers.

My point is simply that cuts to the DoD does not just impact fat-cats. It also impacts a lot of middle class folks. Cuts to the DoD means lots of layoffs for middle class folks. It's not a simple "cut that" with no repercussions.

[jmowreader]

77. You know why weapons systems are horrendously overpriced.

R&D, and limited production.

Say it cost $80 million to invent the iPad, and $80 million to invent a new antiitank missile. Then let's say it cost $80 million to build an iPad factory and the same to build a missile factory.

Apple has sold 80 million iPads since they were introduced. The startup costs add $2 to each unit.

The Army might buy 1000 launchers because they won't make less, and 10,000 missiles, with an option to build another thousand a year so the company will have reason to not tear out the missile production line and replace it with a saucepan manufacturing line. (This is one of the reasons the military gets weapons they don't ask for.) The startup costs add over $14,000 to the price of each unit.

There are things you have to do when you make shit that it's illegal to sell to civilians, and one of them is charge outrageous prices for it.

[OldDem2012]

3. There is a ton of pork in programs other than SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment....

....insurance, food stamps, veterans benefits, etc. I am personally against cuts to any of those programs.

Defense and Intelligence suck up enormous amounts of tracked and untracked tax dollars that can be trimmed to eliminate pet projects and programs we no longer need in today's global environment.

Additionally, there is a ton of additional fat in state programs that result in "bridges to nowhere".

Tax dollars need to be reallocated to education and the infrastructure. As far as the latter is concerned, we need a program similar to the programs implemented by FDR that put millions of Americans to work on projects that paid well and had to be done for the good of the nation.

And yes, Americans earning more than $250,000 annually need to have their tax cuts rolled back. That was the promise made by the President, and I have no doubt it will happen. There are also other means to increase tax revenues such as, for example, a 1 cent sales tax earmarked to bring down the deficit.

Just my thoughts this am.

[banned from Kos]

5. Because the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy only reduce the deficit by $50 billion/yr.

At 3:1 that is $200 billion a year on a $1 trillion deficit.

[reformist2]

6. Then raise taxes on the rich so that it reduces the deficit by $500 billion.

They have $50 TRILLION in wealth, you know. Makes our deficit look like chump change.

[rhett o rick]

18. Then raise the tax rate on the 1% to 90%. Temporarily, of course. We won the election the 1%

didnt.

[PoliticAverse]

44. Last I checked the Republicans still control the House. n/t

[rhett o rick]

46. Since you make me guess your point, I assume you mean we should

concede to their desires. IMO we should not compromise on SS and Medicare esp to reduce the deficit.

[PoliticAverse]

47. Do you really think there is any likelihood of the Republicans setting the highest income tax

rate to 90% ?

[rhett o rick]

52. Do you really think we should cut SS and Medicare benefits? nm

[PoliticAverse]

56. We're talking about your delusion that the Republican controlled House would set a 90% top tax rate

this has nothing to do with SS and Medicare.

[rhett o rick]

72. Excuse me, I thought this thread was about cutting spending to fix the deficit.

Some Democrats seem to be willing to cut SS and Medicare. I am not. If Republicans are serious about cutting the deficit then raise taxes on the wealthy. No compromise.

Now I ask again. Are you in favor of cutting SS and Medicare?

[SHRED]

8. Deficits and Debt are NOT our #1 problem

The lack of good jobs/careers is.

---

[PETRUS]

31. Sorry, can't hear you.

Got something stuck in my ear. Pete Peterson, I think...

[newspeak]

55. yes, even krugman said

get the country moving, decent jobs and the money will circulate and the deficit will be fixed. you got to spend money to make money. giving the money, bush tax screw, did nothing accept cause more of a disparity in this country. the job creators apparently created jobs overseas rather than here, invested that tax break elsewhere (because they're such great americans) or sat on it. it hurt main street even more.

give tax breaks that help this country, that hire workers in this country. and do not give incentives to big business if they move elsewhere and still want on the gravy train.

trickle up works a hell of a lot better, than the majority being tinkled on.

[RepublicansRZombies]

76. +10000

nt

[caseymoz]

9. Simple: because Repubs still have the House.

The victory wasn't big enough because they gerrymandered themselves in. It's the House that's important in appropriations, the Senate in appointments.

Would they be sore losers enough to run the country into an economic ditch if they didn't get their way? You bet.

[99Forever]

10. Ahhh yes...

... Capitulation 101.


Wonderful idea. How'd that work out last time?

[GOTV]

11. So, who has recently talked about it? Have a link?

I'm not questioning the truth of your post, I just hadn't seen that kind of suggestion recently and I'd like more details.

[Dragonfli]

68. Fresh off the virtual right wing "third way" presses!

As the lame duck begins, President Obama will begin his push for a grand bargain to reduce our long-term debt and avert the fiscal cliff. But opponents of a balanced deal are already planting their flags—not just on the Republican side, but also on the left of the Democratic Party.

In this memo we lay out six key facts about a grand bargain. (read them all but according to Third Way fact six claims the president hants the 2.5 to one ratio. They also like to speak for him as evidenced by the quote above.

http://www.thirdway.org/publications/609

[Bluenorthwest]

12. If we cut the military spending, they might all start having affairs and endangering

the world over their petty lusts...oh, wait they are already doing that. I say cut the fuck out of the military budget. Obviously the leadership has too much time on their hands, no sense of honor, enough money to support international multi lover orgy lifestyles. Not a dime more to pay for Generals to fuck around and betray their wives and nations. Cut them to the quick. They are NOT focused on defending America, but on fucking one another.
If the Generals thought there was a threat, they'd not be on 24/7 party down orgy time. Do to them what they do to their paramours.

[LWolf]

14. Er...

that sellout is already done, and would have happened no matter who won the election.

You haven't noticed the last 20 years of repeated sellouts?

Why the surprise?

[iamthebandfanman]

15. not all democrats are liberal

infact at any given time in the house there are about 20-40 self indentified conservative democrats

thats why people who whine about 'stop wanting purity just be happy we won' are some of the most ignorant folks on DU.

we are the left.
the candidate we endorsed won.
now we push our agenda.
thats how elections work.

[on point]

16. Cut the DOD ONLY. That is the only cut needed

[PoliticAverse]

58. Good luck with that. The only thing that seems to be passing for a 'cut' is a reduction

in the increase in Defense spending.

[AlexSatan]

63. That will really help the unemployment rate for vets (nt)

[Hutzpa]

17. This is why I believe we shouldn't compromise

that went out the window in Obama's first term, now we are holding all the aces. We can go to the table with compromise, but we don't have to use compromise as we are now fully in command meaning they can no longer push us around or play tutti fruity with anymore.

[maui902]

45. Until the Democratic Party holds filibuster proof majorities in both houses of Congress

and the Presidency, we are not "holding all the aces." In the current situation, unless we can get (1) all the Democrats in the House and enough Republicans in the House to reach 218 votes and (2) all the Democrats in the Senate and at least 7 Republicans in the Senate to vote for an alternative to sequestration, we get (a) a tax increase for everyone (not just high income earners) and (b) significant cuts to discretionary spending programs. How do you propose to obtain these required vote totals given the current makeup of Congress?

[Hutzpa]

51. Not this talk about filibuster proof majority in Congress again

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:07 PM - Edit history (2)

once all the votes are counted democrats will increase their count and the republican lead in the House will diminish, which will then bring their majority into a lame duck session.

If the counts grows to over two hundred (at present I think it's 197) we will then have to find republicans who will be willing to work with us and I'm sure there are some who will. Don't think for a minute they have not noticed Obama's win, they know he has a mandate and there are those who are willing to not get caught up in partisan rhetoric and do the jobs of the people. I'm sure we can find republicans willing to work with us. to get us to 218. As for Senate we have the majority plus two independents that votes with us most of the time.

This election has got some of them thinking, I guarantee you that.

[NYC Liberal]

75. "I'm sure we can find republicans willing to work with us"

I'll take that bet.

I'm betting if we do, at most we may get 2 or 3 reasonable Republicans in the House. Certainly not 18-20. Representatives tend to be more reactionary given that they are elected by much smaller districts and a much more homogenous group of voters (one gerrymandered district vs an entire state).

[a2liberal]

22. Because

We unfortunately have a lot if corporatist conservadems. The Republicans in the house are a convenient excuse though.

[Dawgs]

23. Because they didn't win. The Republicans won the House, which is enough to block anything. n/t

[think_critically]

24. We have to be realistic

Guys, we have to be realistic about some of this stuff. You can't just tax yourself out of this situation. You could tax
the wealthy at 100% and it still wouldn't solve the problem. I think we should give the pres. some leeway on this b/c
he is going to need it. I think we are probably going to have to raise the medicare age, means test it, and force providers to be
much more efficient. The reason I say this is b/c people are living longer and b/c of this we have to adjust to that reality. Defense spending also needs to take a big cut and we need to close loopholes so the government can collect what it is owed.

[go west young man]

49. Or we could tax the churches.

[KamaAina]

50. Thank you for your CONCERN.

[Doctor_J]

25. The president is a conservative

He doesn't listen to liberals.

[go west young man]

26. So true. Absolute fiction made up by Grover Nordquist

and the right wing corporate media that were trumpeting the term "fiscal cliff" before the election was over last tuesday night.
Why are we dems bothering to go down a road that those idiots are laying out for us? We should be driving our car down the road that says "reform the social safety net, drastically cut military spending to pay for it, and tax the rich to pay for it".

The age of corporatism over the common man needs to stop and people need to come first. Austerity hasn't worked in Europe. It hurt them. We need to expand programs to build up the citizenry. More pay for teachers, more bridge school and road projects, pursue IRS violations by political churches, reform and regulate wall street and banks, more help with loans.

It's time to quit reaching across the aisle to sociopaths and start investing in people. Personally I'd like to see whats left of the TARP money redistributed to the citizenry that paid for it come tax time. I'd also like BP to pay what they owe to the Redneck Riviera. The first thing Dems need to do is overcome the ridiculous filibuster rule and sideline Republicans for the long run. That dinosaur party needs to stay extinct.

Let's quit attempting to help revive a lost cause. We all know they are gonna cry, kick, and scream as they are dragged into the future anyway. They are right now attempting to ridiculously secede from the US because Obama is black. Why prolong the agony? It's time to get our blood up and lead! Why are we falling back on a status quo same old same old mindset? Now is the time to be grasping the future.

And lets ignore the made up cliff. We have nothing to lose by doing so and everything to gain. After all we make the money.

[go west young man]

28. And one other thing.

Obama needs to double efforts to rebuild around Coney and Staten Island. Use that as the building point for his whole major rollout of rebuilding the infrastructure of the country. That would be a great and energizing start. That ongoing disaster is effecting peoples feelings about the election. He needs to get in front of it and use it to build momentum whilst helping those still in dire straits. That would be the way to lead.

[John2]

29. Some

people on here make the mistake Republicans will have the upper hand in 2014. If they don't do something,they will lose more seats if the Dems show up in 2014. These so called Dems also need to pay attention to Demographics. It is still in play. You can no longer continue to placate to one portion of the country.

You can't dismiss the Labor Unions or the organizations that represent the common people either. Sure the President invited Business leaders to the white house, but in my opinion, this group has been writing the country's laws all along and that is who Congress has been catering to once they get common people's vote. That has been the case with President's also.

This group has always had the ability to create jobs but their primary concern seems to be more individual profits. When you see someone like Governor Rendell pushing for the interests of this group and not even mentioning the groups that represent working people, there is a problem with this. Common people essentially get shut out of the process once these people running for office gets their votes. Then you hear all this talk about cutting spending while lowering more taxes for businesses that shirk their obligations to create jobs for individual profits. Yeah, we do need to be business friendly but business need to understand they need to invest in people also. There would be less spending, if these people create jobs. There is no reason they can't in this environment instead of hording wealth to buy luxuries. This is similar to the NBA owners against the players ,just on a smaller scale. Maybe the Union of Businesses need to break up in order to get something done.

[Loudestlib]

30. Why don't we wait to see what is going to be done?

We always seem to fly off the handle and then find out that we got what we wanted.

[Fuddnik]

32. Because by then it's usually too late.

The Simpsons and the Bowles, and the New Dems already have the Presidents ear. It's our job to drown them out.

[reformist2]

33. Sit quietly and wait? NO. We need to yell and scream constantly to keep our leaders in line.

Until the day when our congress isn't bribed by big money, our voices - our loud voices - are the only thing that keeps our government in line.

[John2]

34. That

is a good idea, but the common people have the upper hand now. All this talk about cutting spending and not raising taxes on the wealthy, want fly this time. And I'm glad the groups representing the common people was invited in the room so businesses want write all the laws. I do not buy the notion these people don't have the ability to create jobs in this environment. They just want to create wealth, but they don't want to create jobs. Something is going to give. The people in charge of businesses have been a major failure.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. Cut the Pentagon.

[ReRe]

36. Oh, Reformist2!

Ye of so little faith! You had it right in the middle up there when you said "No." We're going over the proverbial cliff, yes, but we're going to be ok!!! Life is NOT going to end if those tax brakes for the rich expire at the end of the year. On New Year's Eve, twilight will come, night will fall, and when we wake up on New Year's Day, Viola' ! Poof ! :: The tax brake scheme that the wingers passed about 10 years ago WILL HAVE EXPIRED as they were designed to do. A little late, yes, because a bunch of dems were discouraged (and rightfully so, when Rahm smited our own base..... and oh yes, my family and I did vote in 2010) and skipped the 2010 midterm elections, giving the House back to the wingers. Bla, bla, bla, bla....I won't go on. It's going to be OK. The Repugs are not the owners of this country. Barack Obama was reelected, we have more Dems in the Sen & maintain the majority there, and we have allot of strong new Dem Reps in the House. (I can't think of all their names, but for now, just repeat
'Allen Grayson, Allen Grayson, Allen Grayson" over and over in your mind.)

Please have faith. Please.

[Le Taz Hot]

37. Because the REAL bosses

haven't changed.

[woo me with science]

69. This is the correct answer.

[kelliekat44]

38. Because it's better than 10:1?

Just a wild guess.

[WeekendWarrior]

39. You really don't get how it works, do you?

It's simple. The GOP still has the House majority. The Prez and the Dems may have a lot of leverage, but it isn't as if the GOP is powerless. And if you think they're actually going to give in on anything just because the Dems won, you haven't been paying attention for the last four years.

[reformist2]

41. Dems should offer a 1:1 deal, or we go over the "cliff" (which I'm not scared of, btw.)

[maui902]

59. I respect that you might not be scared personally

but let me pose this question/hypothetical to you. Imagine for a moment that you are Kyrsten Sinema, the new Representative from the Arizona Congressional District 9 (a newly configured district that had a more even balance between Republicans and Democrats). You won this district by a relatively small margin (with less than 50% of the vote due to the number of votes for a Libertarian candidate). You face re-election in 2014. You can either back and vote for the best deal the Democrats and the President can negotiate with the Republicans or back a more progressive/liberal approach that ignores Republican input and suffer the consequences of sequestration. I gather you would choose the latter; I would not and I don't think Kyrsten, whom I believe you'll find an outstanding liberal member of the House, would either. I fear sequestration for three reasons: first, it raises taxes, significantly, on everyone, including those who are decidedly middle class or even lower in terms of income (which I believe will damage the economy and lead to an increase in joblessness): second, there will be significant cuts not just in defense spending but in discretionary spending on a whole host of social programs, right when they're needed the most; and third, if Democrats in Congress and the President push for a deal significantly different than what the President campaigned on (expiration of the Bush tax cuts on income of more than $250,000 but an extension of the Bush tax cuts on income less than $250,000 combined with spending cuts equal to some multiple of the additional tax revenue-ranging from 2.5:1 up to 4:1), the Republicans will be able to block any legislation and argue that they were willing to accept the deal outlined during the election campaign but that the Democrats changed the deal after the election, giving them justification for blocking the deal.

[HiPointDem]

67. yeah, all democrats can do is lose; they can never win against the almight GOP.

[jschurchin]

40. I don't know if we are really ready for the tax increases

that we need to dent this financial problem. Here is what we spent in 2011

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html

Our deficit was $1.2 Trillion. To get back to zero we need $800 Billion in cuts and $400 Billion in tax increases, at a 2:1 ratio or worse yet $900 Billion and $300 Billion at a 3:1. Even if we would eliminate Defense spending entirely, not realistic, we still need to find more.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. When I look at our spending and try to decide were would I cut, it is very difficult. No matter where we cut somebody is gonna get hurt. The problem is, we really have no choice. We have to raise additional revenue and make spending cuts. The numbers though, for me, are mind boggling.

[RepublicansRZombies]

42. They want cuts- cut Homeland Security, TSA, prisons for profit, charter schools for profit

END THE DRUG WAR!

They have so many bullshit slush funds going on, We should not put up with any austerity at all.

These are criminals and liars we are dealing with, they need to be treated accordingly.

They are also incredibly immature and stupid, so we should be able to stand up to them.

[PoliticAverse]

43. Because the guy that got reelected President has repeatedly supported a 'Grand Bargain'

where spending cuts exceed tax increases ?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

53. reverse those odds, and I will support it.

[maui902]

61. So you're in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone?

Including on incomes of less than $250,000? Because that's what will happen if you stand on that principle, which was almost no candidate running for national office in 2012 suggested would be the case.

[Raksha]

86. You seem to be new here. Yes, many of us on DU are in favor of just exactly that::

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire--ALL of them, including on incomes of less than $250,000. Nothing would have to be done because they expire automatically on January 1st. Then after the new Congress convenes a separate middle-class tax cut could be enacted, and could even be made retroactive to January 1st. Last night a number of people whose taxes would be raised (temporarily, we hope) said they would support handling it that way, as long as the 1% would end up being taxed at a higher rate.

[maui902]

88. I am concerned about just letting the all the cuts expire

It's just my opinion, but I think we have more leverage now than we would have after January with some agreement that averts the fiscal cliff. I am more worried than others about what happens if no deal is reached by January 1; immediate cuts in social programs, immediate job layoffs, no extension of unemployment benefits, immediate tax increases (and withholding) on all taxpayers, and, in my humble opinion, a decent chance that we send a shaky economy back into recession. The negative effects of these events can't be undone by later agreeing to a deal to cut tax rates for the middle class. I don't propose that we avert this possibility by kowtowing or giving in to Republican demands, but by insisting on a deal that the President was proposing during the campaign, which was a balance of spending cuts and tax increases. So far, I'm completely supportive of what the President has done post election: he's insisted he is not going to budge on his promise not to extend the tax cuts on incomes > $250,000, and he's now demanding $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue to strike a deal (which he can do given that his hand has been strengthened by winning the election). And he also may insist on no cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, but then he is going to have to find spending cuts in other areas (including defense cuts) that exceed the the additional tax revenue, NOT because that's what I would propose if Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, but because we don't, which means no deal unless we can obtain the votes of all Democrats and independents in Congress plus at least 25 Republicans in the House and 7 Republicans in the Senate (unless the filibuster is ended). Realistically, I don't think you can get those votes (even from some moderate Democrats who won seats in relatively Republican districts or states) unless the deal is balanced along the lines of what the President was proposing during the campaign. If the Republicans appear to be the holdup to getting a deal done, we will ultimately win; if Democrats and the President appear to be the holdup to getting a deal done, we will ultimately lose, and it would a be a terrible opportunity wasted. Now is the time to get a deal done on terms that are mostly favorable to Democrats, but if we insist on no cuts to SS, Medicare, or to any programs other than defense, and increase tax rates above those that would be in place if the Bush tax cuts expire (even to 90% as some have posted), not only will there be no deal, but we will be seen as the party that held up the deal, and that will not be good (in my humble opinion).

[hrmjustin]

54. The President made clear he had to make cuts. I just hope he knows that cutting the poor...

... will not help this nation, and will create a backlash from liberals.

[wake.up.america]

57. It's no wonder the GOP tries everything in the book to raiload the results. Many of the top-ranking.

democrats attempt to be civil with the other side and say, "Why don't they cooperate?" Well, it's obvious they are not going to budge, so do what we can to make it perfectly clear to the American public what is at stake and why nothing is being done to rectify the situation.

We won the election didn't we? Tell Grover to take a flying leap. It's about time we did what's right for America, not what's right for Romney and his boys. Romney might as well have won, if we give away the store.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Because the real bosses who pony up the bribes...er, campaign contributions...demand it.

"When politics enter . . . government, nothing resulting there from in the way of crimes and infamies is then incredible. It actually enables one to accept and believe the impossible."

"Right here in this heart and home and fountain-head of law, this great factory where are forged those rules that create good order and compel virtue and honesty in the other communities of the land, rascality achieves its highest perfection."

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

"I think I can say, and say with pride, that we have some legislatures that bring in higher prices than any in the world."

"Senator: Person who makes laws in Washington when not doing time."

Mark Twain

[woo me with science]

70. +1000000

We are bought and sold.

Had enough yet, America?

[HiPointDem]

65. kr

[avaistheone1]

66. We're asking the same thing in our household.

We believe this is a bad deal for the Dems.

k&r

[krawhitham]

78. The professional left are the ones talking

Apparently they did learned something from the rethugs, lead through fear. No one in the administration is talking about any ratio, just people that get paid to post and their followers

[Dragonfli]

80. That is incorrect, unless you think the third way is a bunch of professional leftists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1808122

They claim that it is a fact that President Obama wants a $2.50 cut in benefits for one dollar in increased revenue, they are using his name and speaking for him.

[joshcryer]

82. Claim 6 is a flat out lie and they never substantiate it at all.

So, interesting that you buy into Third Way propaganda "channeling" the President's intent.

[Dragonfli]

83. Actually I think they are Republican infiltrators masquerading as Democrats

That did not stop the President from recruiting his team from the third way crew, just where did you think Daley came from?
He has also agreed with them on every other issue so far, and has not denied their lies or denounced them for using his name in their right wing propaganda.

Time will tell, just like with the trade agreements he will mirror third way policy nearly line for line on entitlements as well.

If I had my druthers, I would be wrong about this and you would be right, but the odds are too much in favor of my prediction to be foolish enough to bet on your wishful thinking alone.

[joshcryer]

84. My wishful thinking? They are lying. It's a straight up lie.

They are even using weasel language about how they believe that is what Obama believes. Taking a quote out of context. Interpreting it beyond any policy proposal Obama has ever had. It's a joke.

You're pushing their lies here and you think you're actually helping.

[Dragonfli]

85. Are they Democratic liars, or Republican liars, they should be fought either way

but you refuse to answer a very important question I asked twice and it is relevant to my response to you, is this also a right wing group pushing this right wing narrative or are they Democrats doing what you claim only the right is doing? I already answered the question, you did not.

They are openly lying about a Democratic President and yet are claiming to be Democrats that have his ear, he doesn't appear to wish to correct this bunch of liars so maybe he has never heard of them, yeah that must be it!!!

Or a far more simple explanation, he agrees with them just as he openly did regarding trade deals where he practically read their policy points word for word, their papers from their past are all there, he has agreed with them so far every time they pushed their briefs and talking points, he now hates these guys is that what you are saying?

he is no longer a Moderate third way Democrat as he claims to be? is that your assertion?

[joshcryer]

87. I said in the other thread that they're conservatives or right leaning or Republicans.

I don't know what makes a "Democrat" because I'm decidedly not one and have no desire to be (too far right of my beliefs).

Obama is likely listening to their proposals but he has never once in his entire political career advocated their proposals. You're the one insinuating that he "agrees with them just as he openly did trade deals." As if, for instance, the trade deal with Colombia contingent on requiring Colombia to protect trade unions was something the "Third Way" supported.

When you say things like "he practically read their policy points word for word (and) has agreed with them so far" it just doesn't actually connect with reality. Obama can be for trade deals which are not necessarily right wing. Just because the Third Wayers support those deals (in their very weaselly way, they would never admit that they're against unions getting protections) doesn't actually mean that they, as liars, do.

[woo me with science]

89. Exactly. This is about AUSTERITY, not just Medicare and SS.

3:1, 2.5:1 whatever. None of it is acceptable.

Austerity, deep cuts in the budget, will harm millions, and it will starve the economy even further.

This is about multi-trillion-dollar slashing of budgets when hundreds of economists, and our own eyes, watching Europe, have shown us that slashing budgets is the absolute WRONG thing to do in an economy like this. It will slow the economy and harm millions.

This is about the fact that the middle class has been looted and devastated. It is time to stop balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor.

This is about the fact that we had a landslide.

[woo me with science]

91. We need to be talking about the logic of slashing the budget at all right now.

At the very least, the ratios we are hearing are unconscionable. Austerity slows an economy. Deep cuts in the budget will cause tremendous pain and ensure that that pain is extended.

We should be talking about the fact that Democrats persist in validating Republican LIES about what is good for the economy. Austerity is destructive, and no Democratic President should be supporting it and validating Republican talking points about it.