I'm losing faith in our principles.

[LLStarks]

For all of our great ideas, Democracts can't keep adding programs and expect the deficit to disappear. I shouldn't have to wait for a scumbag GOP congress to do make the necessary cuts that we are unwilling to do.

There has to be a line where we say "Okay, we're still in recession, the government, at least for now, is doing too much."

[Dappleganger]

1. Congratulations!

You've hit nearly every single right-wing talking point from this past weekend.

[blondeatlast]

3. Great minds...

:thumbsup:

[rurallib]

2. maybe someone could raise taxes?

[LLStarks]

8. It's impossible to do that today and get away with it. Besides, we shouldn't have to raise them.

The Internet has changed things.

People barely noticed Reagan when he did it and Bush Sr. made the mistake of explicitly promising not to do so for any bracket.

[sufrommich]

11. Obama got elected promising to raise taxes on the rich. nt

[LLStarks]

13. Promises do not equate to reality. We'll have to keep the WH and regain the House in 2012 to do it.

[sufrommich]

18. My point is that raising taxes on the rich is acceptable to the

majority of voters and polls prove it.There was really no political reason not to raise taxes,it wouldn't have hurt our chances of winning elections,hell it probably would have improved our chances.

[wtmusic]

24. The top tax rate is exactly one-half of what it was forty years ago

and the internet has changed nothing politically.

We have to raise them because the country can't afford to pay its bills. Unless you have a way to pull money out of thin air.

[LLStarks]

38. We could always print more money, inflation be damned. (sarcasm) nt

[wtmusic]

43. The alternative to a reasonable tax structure is borrowing from our children

is that what you endorse?

[LLStarks]

51. Not at all. Even if we could slash the DoD by 70% and raise top-tier taxes by a fair amount...

...our kids would still be paying off a chunk of our debts.

[wtmusic]

52. The point is to not make it worse

In the last year of his presidency Bill Clinton had a budget surplus - the government had started paying off its debt. That hadn't happened since the 70s, and hasn't happened since.

As a fraction of GDP we're back to WWII levels - except there isn't any world war, and taxes on the highest income earners are the lowest in the history of income tax. Now the second biggest federal expenditure after defense is interest on the national debt. That's irresponsible, and criminal.

How would you fix the budget?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

[Exilednight]

60. You're partially right. We did have a budgegt surplus, but we never paid down the debt. n/t

[CreekDog]

61. how did Clinton do it?

:hi:

[damntexdem]

27. Yeah, we shouldn't HAVE to raise them because they never should have been lowered.

But they were, so we face the situation where the only reasonable thing to do IS to raise taxes on the rich.

If it's impossible, then it is impossible for America to advance -- we would have to continue our current death spiral. Well, all empires fall, though seldom as fast as ours it.

[seabeyond]

4. then people like me and you should say, not only raise the wealthy to old taxes, i will pay too

i didnt want the small anount promised. makes no sense in the situation we are in. cut the loopholes for the wealthy and corps. go back to the old taxes. and lets get 'er done

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I agree!!!!! I want to see the "Defense" budget cut by at least 50%, the Drug War ended,

Marijuana legalized and taxed, and non-violent drug offenders released from prison.

I'm sure that's what you meant- isn't it?

Time to get serious about those spending cuts! :woohoo:

[LLStarks]

10. That would be a start. We can't be too targeted though. Trim the fat across all departments. nt

[Dappleganger]

15. Can't be too targeted?

Your post makes little sense if certain areas have too much fat while others are completely underfunded.

You do realize that corporations and the extremely wealthy in this country are not carrying their fair share, too. Those loopholes need to be closed.

[LLStarks]

20. I was referring to the extraneous layers of bureacracy and redundant agencies across department.

You're right though.

[Dappleganger]

26. Yes, see Warren's graph below.

And you have not proven that there are extraneous layers and redundancy across the agencies. Changes can be made for higher levels of efficiency without making huge cuts. The one area of runaway lavish spending is quite obvious--the giant war machine.

[LLStarks]

30. Again, we need the WH and Congress in 2012 or write-off the entire election to do that.

There has to be an unprecedented level of courage and balls to combat the military industrial complex or even bring us down to late-90s level spending.

[Dappleganger]

33. Obviously our current president is intent on carrying out the right-wing wishes of tax cuts.

Do you see the war machine in that budget list he released today?

No.

[LLStarks]

37. As said elsewhere, there's no pain for the rich and we're still building next-gen aircraft carriers.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. "unprecedented level of courage and balls"

Yes, that would be nice.

Until then, however, I don't think anyone is in any position to demand that other things be cut.

[CreekDog]

55. you just doubled down on your Republican talking points

wow. i'm stunned.

and precious little substance in any of your posts.

i mean how many brain cells does it take to say, "across the board, trim the fat, blah, blah, blah"?

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Can't be too targeted? We spend more than every other major country COMBINED on defense.

Are we expecting them all to attack us at once?





How about this. How about we take the half trillion out of Defense, stop spending $40B a year to lock up pot smoking cancer grannies, figure in the revenue from legalized pot, bring taxes on the uber-rich up to reasonable (say, Eisenhower) levels---

then we crunch the numbers and THEN start talking about cutting things like schools, food stamps, heating assistance, or "entitlements" that the rest of us have paid for? :shrug:

[LAGC]

21. Well said.

Instead of forcing the poor to go without heat, let the rich go without their second yachts for a change.

[Dappleganger]

22. Illustrated with a graph...

who can argue with this? There's absolutely no mistaking about what needs to be cut.

Now, let's close those loopholes for corporations and tax the rich properly.

[Ignis]

65. QED

:thumbsup:

[DireStrike]

63. I don't see any reason we can't be extremely targetted.

[notesdev]

6. I can't find "spend obscenely" in our principles

So clearly it's the implementation that is the real issue here. Unfortunately the net effect of more spending is not more money going to people who need it, but more money being siphoned off by all the parasites attached to our political system.

Been saying for a while that the one thing this party needs more than anything is to learn how to solve problems cost-effectively and come to terms with the fact that some things, while worthwhile to do, simply can't be afforded.

[rucky]

7. Not all "government programs" are created equal.

Some work to create opportunities for the people, some preserve a basic standard of living, and many are designed to funnel money upwards.

Indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts is not what the doctor ordered. I really liked Obama's "scalpel vs. hacksaw" analogy. He should play back that tape and take notes.

[Heidi]

9. Are you losing faith in your principles? Or in our leadership's willingness to apply them?

And what do you -- based on YOUR principles -- think should be cut?

At this very moment, given the cuts I've heard our Dem president is supporting, I'm concerned that the president I helped elect may not share my principles. You may not, either. But I'm not gonna lose faith in my principles over it.

[DainBramaged]

12. Why no eliminate Homelanmd security and cut 10% from the Defense budget?

And then increase the payroll tax on everyone who makes above $100,000?

[peace13]

14. Huh?

Robots and missiles and bombs oh my. Robots and missiles and bombs! I couldn't think of another place to make cuts could you?

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Economics show us that in a recession, when business and individuals can not spend...

enough to keep the economy going, only government spending can fill that niche until economic confidences returns and the people and businesses are willing to carry the burden. Governments, you see, can create money out of thin air. Austerity programs in a recession always lead to economic stagnation or a deepening of recessions.

The reality we face is that Republicans are in charge of Congress and they carry a religious belief in austerity and in reducing taxes (which is the belief in getting something for nothing). Programs are going to be cut. But they should not be programs that will hurt the people who can least afford it. Low taxes for the wealthy is a policy program that doesn't work now, because they are not returning that money to the economy to create jobs. That policy should end. The single largest chunk (about 54%) of the budget is defense. We can not deal with the problem and keep without touching the third rail of modern politics, drastically reducing defense spending.

[HereSince1628]

40. Keynsian economic theory was apparently killed

by the Laffer Curve.

I wish I knew what to blame for killing the idea of moral responsibility to assist our fellow citizens during the bad times. I have a sinking feeling it was something called the Moral Majority.

[Ozymanithrax]

53. Perhaps, but Japanese and other states used it to rescue the Tiger Economies...

from the fall in the 90's and showed that in a bad economy State government spending is critical. Unfortunately, Republicans, Conservatives, and a majority of Americans don't understand that point and think the national budget is the same as their kitchen table budget.

[HereSince1628]

54. Yes, I agree n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Shh, there is this thing called taxes

we DO NOT pay the highest in the OECD economy in-spite of all myths. ANd we run a very expensive empire.

If we raise taxes we will be able to afford the crap... if we cut out of Empire business, there will be nasty effects, but a good one will be, we will be able to afford our programs.

So sweetie, why the RW talking points? Taxes are not evil by the way.

[LLStarks]

25. I'm well aware that high-bracket taxes are at an all time low. But you're framing things oddly.

We should raise taxes to rectify that, not for the sake of making programs solvent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. When schools need to tell families

to have Junior bring in toilet paper you know we have hit rock botton of how far you can go in the religion of low taxes.

The RW wants NO taxes. They are anarchists. And yes we need to raise taxes (or just cancel the bush cuts) to be able to afford silly shit like yes, toilet paper at schools.

The religious right is not only a christian right, but an anarchist right. They do not believe in government, Taxes are your and my entry into civilized government. They are a fee. We adopt their no taxes religion... and Somalia will be the result.

[damntexdem]

23. Bullshit! What we can't keep adding are tax cuts for the rich.

The GOP claims it wants to cut $100 billion in spending for a year -- just after it ramrodded an continuation of tax cuts for fat cats that added $400 billion to the deficit over two years.

What we have seen for the past 30 years have not been big-spending federal programs that push the government in to deficit -- rather we have seen a systematic transfer of trillions of dollars from the less-well-off to the rich.

Put the top tax rate back up to a reasonable level (doesn't even have to be the 91% it was formerly), then talk to me about the need to cut programs for the poor and middle class.

[wtmusic]

29. Necessary government cuts until we can er, drown it in the bathtub? nt

[hfojvt]

31. you seem to be confused

For the government, during a recession, if they did less, that would just make the recession worse.

Doing less would mean 1) laying people off, 2) buying less equipment, paper and other supplies which would cut income for the businesses who sell those things, and 3) cutting funding for organizations from Planned Parenthood to the Alliance Against Family violence, to food banks. Those semi-private organizations provide key services which would be cut just when they are needed most and also with loss of funding those organizations would have to cut jobs.

Then there's the ripple effect. First, federal, state and local governments cut hundreds of thousands of jobs. Then, those newly unemployed people can no longer buy things like shoes, furniture, groceries, internet, or meals at restaurants. So those businesses suffer and some go out of business and some lay off workers - continuing the downward spiral.

I repeat, a recession is the absolute worst time for a government to decide to do less. That's kinda like saying "well half of the city is on fire, we need to reduce the budget for the fire department".

[LLStarks]

35. I mostly agree with you and like your analogy, but I'm disheartened by how slow the recovery is.

It's very depressing to see the stimulus pass, have the funds mostly unused, and let Wall Street's recovery outpace drops in unemployment.

[Dappleganger]

42. Wall Street's miraculous recovery...

funded by a giant taxpayer bailout with OUR money.

Where is the working man's bailout? It never came.

[LLStarks]

45. What do you have in mind for a Main Street bail-out? nt

[hfojvt]

50. Where do you read that most of the funds were unused?

That may have been at the halfway point as money was scheduled to be spent in 2010. But here are job reports by quarter

2008
1st (93,000)
2nd (573,000)
3rd (1,002,000)
4th (1,895,000)
total (with Bush as President) (3,563,000)

2009
1st (2,258,000) note - Obama was sworn in as President and the stimulus passed in the middle of this quarter
2nd (1,433,000)
total (in Obama's first five months in office (3,691,000)

3rd (780,000)
4th (310,000)
total of the last half year (1,090,000)

That the economy was no longer losing 1,000,000+ jobs every quarter is a very positive thing. The economy was in free fall and the stimulus was like a parachute. When you open a parachute, you keep falling, but at a much slower rate so that the landing does not kill you.

2010
1st +118,000
2nd +543,000
3rd (137,000)
4th +385,000
total 2010 + 909,000

Considering where we were and the rate at which the economy was falling, I consider the stimulus to have been a smashing success.
To go from losing over 3 million jobs a year for two years to almost a million job gain is a very fast turnaround. It is much quicker than things turned around under Reagan in 1982.

But for some reason, now the media is all doom and gloom "oh my gosh the economy is not recovering fast enough". And the left if flogging that horse too "oh woe and misery and doom".

And those who keep picking at the bank bailout are misguided as well. If the financial system had collapsed (something that was considered a serious threat) we would still be trying to pick up the pieces, if not sunk into chaos with riots and looting and martial law. Imagine millions not having electricity last winter or food, because all of the pipelines and trucks that deliver food and fuel depends on a financial system to keep them running, and if it fails we cannot rebuild it that quickly.

[CreekDog]

56. tripled down on yet another Republican talking point (stimulus not spent)

how long does it take to design, approve and build a highway/bridge or rail system?

from funding to concept to completion (spending all that money?)

or would you prefer they spend it all down real fast before the plans are ready?

and you want to rid the gov't of waste. no you don't.

start thinking, stop parroting.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Why do you see drones and war and discrimination as good

things? Why not cut those costs? 'Doing too much' means too much war, too much meddling, too much ego drenched politics by men trying to prove their Daddy was wrong to leave them.

[WinkyDink]

34. I think you took a wrong turn.

[MadHound]

36. Most social welfare programs have been cut to the bone,

You can't continue to cut into them anymore, otherwise the people those programs help will literally be left out in the cold, freezing and dying.

So that leaves us with a couple of options, either raise taxes on the rich, which has popular support, or start cutting into the military budget.

I would suggest a combination of both, but sadly I doubt either will happen. At least not in a meaningful way.

[Shagbark Hickory]

39. Luckily for you, our democrat turned republican potus is doing exactly that.

[MasonJar]

41. We could end a few wars and cut the military budget. But the big corps would hate that.

[LLStarks]

44. I'll have no sympathy for Lockheed or other defense companies when they have no wars to supply. nt

[ladjf]

47. I don't think that our principles are the real problem. It's our

inability to stop crooks from taking over.

[quinnox]

48. I'm losing faith in President Obama's principles

The traditional Democratic party principles are just fine, thanks.

Regarding the main post, sounds like you might be starting to be influenced by the non-stop GOP spin coming out of the media.

[LLStarks]

49. Not at all, I've always seen myself as an independent progressive (not vice versa!) nt

[CreekDog]

58. I don't see a single progressive position in any of your posts in this thread

it's all indiscriminate cuts, it's allusions, but no substantive examples of cutting gov't waste, and falsehoods about the stimulus.

it's clear you're repeating what you've heard. the question is who you heard it from.

[LLStarks]

62. I thought had heard it from the NYT, I'm probably mistaken. I should just stick with Kos. nt

[CreekDog]

64. Not surprised you don't know where it came from --you barely remember anything substantive about it

in the OP and posts here in this thread, you haven't said one thing that requires knowledge or research, or even quoting a number from an article. not one thing.

and what's worse? you get a whole bunch of stuff wrong.

i dunno, i just think when people post an OP encouraging a significant action that there should at least be some fact or idea that is substantiated that helps justify it.

[JVS]

57. "Democracts can't keep adding programs and expect the deficit to disappear."

BALLS!

The republicans can cut taxes and expect the deficit to disappear.

[AngryAmish]

59. Maybe because our principals are failing us.