U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 13, 2011 11:54 PM UTC

Obama: I Can Cut Deficits, Too!

  • 64 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

CNN reports–how’s this for an answer to Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity?”

President Barack Obama unveiled his long-awaited deficit reduction plan Wednesday, calling for a mix of spending reductions and tax hikes that the White House claims would cut federal deficits by $4 trillion over the next 12 years without gutting popular programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Obama’s plan includes a repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts on families making more than $250,000 annually — something sought by Democrats but strongly opposed by Republicans. The president also called for the creation of a “debt fail-safe” trigger that would impose automatic across-the-board spending cuts and tax changes in coming years if annual deficits are on track to exceed 2.8% of the nation’s gross domestic product…

At the same time, Obama blasted the House Republican 2012 budget proposal unveiled last week, saying it would “lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.”

“These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America that I believe in and that I think you believe in,” Obama said of the plan by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who sat in the audience Wednesday. “I believe it paints a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic. “

Proposing once again to rescind the 2003 “Bush tax cuts” for wealthy Americans, while basing part of his plan on health care reform’s cost savings and preserving Medicare, seems to be a game plan that Obama can hit Republicans back with credibly while shoring up relations with the Democratic base–even as he concedes the underlying argument about deficits.

In our view, Democrats cannot afford to have this debate without mentioning the historic Bush tax cuts, and the new tax cuts proposed in the Ryan budget plan, at every possible opportunity. It’s the insistence on further tax cuts by the GOP, irrespective of needs, in place of a realistic debate about priorities, that fundamentally de-legitimizes the “Path to Prosperity.”

The outcome of the 2012 elections may well depend on which spin wins…

Tweet
Share

Comments

64 thoughts on “Obama: I Can Cut Deficits, Too!”

  1. The Republicans seem almost insane in their effort to do everything possible to slash, slash, slash taxes for the wealthy, and the hell with the country as a whole.

    They seem to be willfully ignoring all economic evidence, and going directly contrary even to Ronald Reagan.

    Obama’s plan is truly conservative. The Republican plan is reckless, irresponsible and – as Obama said – would truly destroy the social compact of America.

      1. talking as though the Ryan plan was the accepted blueprint.  I know there’s this thing called “impartial journalism”, but there’s a difference between impartial and incurious.  Too many news stories today don’t do enough to sort out information and counter-points according to their legitimacy.

        1. I think that is what many of them are trying to do… defend the comments they made last week about Ryan being so courageous and bold.

          But how can Ryan be so right if the President comes out and in no uncertain terms calls Ryan crazy?

          There better be a lot of left-wingers having the President’s back because the Chamber of Commerce and all of their cohorts, the right-wing media in all its glory etc, etc. are already attacking him and I believe, as he does, that the America that we want to have is not in Ryan’s budget.

  2. The problem is, Americans do not trust Democrats on budgetary matters. Show me a poll where Democrats are considered more responsible on fiscal issues than the GOP.

    Until that changes, we all know he’s faking like Clinton.

    2. CNN: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2…

      Public Policy (not on budget specifically, but R vs. D approval after the budget deal): http://publicpolicypolling.blo…

      SurveyUSA (again, not specifically asking “who do you trust with the budget” but showing that the public is evenly split on whether they want more cuts in general and disapprove of the Republican plan to end Medicare by a 2:1 margin): http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…

      Reality sucks sometimes, huh?

    4. You mean the last president to send p a balanced budget? That Clinton? the Clinton that presided over the smallest non-military federal payroll since 1960?  

      Or is there another?

      1. that every Republican politician is a big fat liar than you have for any of your assertions.

        In fact, it’s a proven fact that 90% of whatever John Kyl says he made up on the spot.

  3. Obama’s problems are multiplying.  Witness:

    * He railed against a raise in the debt ceiling as a US Senator.  Now he’s claiming Armegeddon if it’s not done this time when it’s his ass is on the line.  -Politics over principle.

    * Obama extended the Bush tax cuts.  Now he’s slamming them.  -Politics over principle.

    * He submitted a budget recently that cut the deficit by $1T over 10 years.  Just weeks later he goes on TV with a completely new budget that cuts $4T over 12 years.  At least he’s pretending to be serious now.  But it’s such a knee-jerk, light speed reaction that it’s blatantly transparent.  (Not to mention the optics of him reacting to everything the GOP does).  -Politics over principle.

    * Obama rails against GOP favoritism of the wealthy over the poor.  Meanwhile, Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO, is head of his Economics Advisory Panel.  GE, if you recall, earned profits of about $11B and didn’t pay a dime in taxes.  -Not even good politics.  Just plain hypocrisy.

    *  Meanwhile, Ryan’s plan actually cuts out a lot of loopholes, used primarily by corporations and wealthier Americans, to raise revenues.  He even introduced means-testing as part of entitlement reform.

    Ryan is taking the politically inexpedient steps of calling for entitlement reform.  He’s saying out loud what many know to be true but won’t say it out-loud for purely political reasons.  Though his plan is a very credible one, he’s getting more credit for actually being honest about the situation and the fact it’s going to suck to fix.

    If the GOP can maintain a semblance of discipline over the next 18 months, Obama might very well be fu@ked.  He built a brand during the ’08 cycle that was a lot more about principles than policy.  Since then, he has shit all over that brand.

    1. Ah, good one. Thanks for the laugh.

      Now man up, put on your big boy pants and call it what it is and what your ilk love more than anything (except maybe tax breaks for the uber wealthy)…privatization. That’s what it’s called. That’s what Ryan is proposing. That’s what it is.

      According to you, the Republican Party is the party of hard truths. So trying telling one every once in awhile.  

      1. That and “Entitlement Reform” aren’t mututally exclusive.  You may not like the that particular reform, but that’s what it is.  

        Not sure what your point is.  It’s not surprising that you simply recite the Schumer talking points and claim to be taking the high road.  

        To my point, Obama’s support has evolved from a genuine grassroots movement to a bunch of automatons reciting talking points and concerned primarily with staying in power rather than doing the right thing.

        I don’t deny that Republicans are often guilty of this too, but Ryan isn’t one of them.  He’s unique among leaders in either party.  But more to the point, he’s not a president up for election with a big branding problem.  

        1. You got called out for trying to make Ryan’s plan look pretty without being honest about what it is–PRIVATIZATION.

          Oh and believe me, they most certainly are mutually exclusive and you and your brethren are about to find that out the hard way in 2012. Which by the way, I want to thank you for in advance.

          I didn’t take the high road. How could I? I was far too busy laughing my ass off at you to bother.  

        2. There would be no need for Medicare or Social Security.

          The problem is, the private sector cherrypicks for greatest profit.  Unless I want to live under a fucking bridge, I have to root for the government to take up the slack.

          However, if you want to live under a fucking bridge when you get to be my age, please feel free.  Your choice.  That’s the free market at work, right?

          1. So of course you don’t have a desire to see anything fixed.  You’re easily scared and way more concerned with yourself as opposed to anyone under the age of 45.  

            As anyone who can read will tell you, the current (read: govt.) system is unsustainable.  Rep. Ryan has offerred a legitimate and serious plan that not only will maintain the status quo for those close to retirment, but will effectively bring down health care costs (what should be the aim of any serious health care reform).

            From the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/…

            Real health-care reform. The best way to think about Mr. Ryan’s plan is that it offers the true health-care reform that Mr. Obama promised but which vanished in the political drive to put 30 million more Americans on the government rolls. Economists from the center-left to center-right have been recommending premium support for decades, and it was first proposed by Stanford’s Alain Enthoven in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1978.

            Some version has since been endorsed by everyone from President Clinton’s 1999 Medicare commission, chaired by Democrat John Breaux, to Bob Dole and Tom Daschle in 2009. Another iteration was floated this week by a group of Nobel laureates including Ned Phelps, Vernon Smith and George Akerlof.

            The core economic distortion in the current health market is that consumers rarely have the incentive to seek the best value for their money. By capping the Medicare subsidy, seniors would pay for the marginal costs of their care, promoting competitive insurance. That would in turn incrementally change how doctors and hospitals provide care, encouraging competition in price and quality.

            Meanwhile, you and your ilk sit in your kid’s basements and throw around “privatization” with a sinister inflection and scare your old friends with threats of living under “fucking” bridges.  To your credit though, that often works. Good for you.

            1. that says that being old means that I don’t want to get things fixed.

              That’s completely absurd.

              Anything you posted after that false equivalence is horseshit, because your premise is horseshit.

              Better luck picking on someone stupid.  I don’t qualify.

              1. I’ll let you continue to build the case.

                Or genius.  You are setting the bar so low with your own argument, that Obama starts to look reasonable.

                    1. and we care too about not getting fucked over by a private corporation when we get older.  Hell, we’ve got all of our productive working years for that.  

            3. And I can tell you, without a doubt in my mind, that Ryan’s plan is total, utter horseshit.

              I was hoping you could tell me how giving seniors inadequate vouchers to go buy insurance in the private sector isn’t privatization? This plan isn’t about debt reduction, it’s about gutting medicare and medicaid.

              My generation deserves the same security net that the last generation had, you fuck. Thank god I have an eloquent Vulcan to protect it.

              1. I happen to be well under 45.

                That’s incredibly easy to believe…

                Supposing you are old enough to think about retirement planning, do you honestly say to yourself ‘I can count on soc. sec. for $x every month…’?

                What about the current system makes you feel so awesome about your chances to get soc. sec., medicare if you need it, etc?

                A central component to reform is to bring costs down.  Other than going Soviet and artificially capping everything, the only way to do it is to introduce some element of competition.

                It’s not a coincidence that the posters here use “horseshit” as a primary talking point (and possibly to win a drinking game).  Between a speech and ANOTHER commission, that’s all you have.

                 

                1. Since I started working the year Bush was elected (at age 16), I’ve never counted on any Social Security! It doesn’t even take an adult to see where that was going. Unfortunately I haven’t been proven wrong and I’ll still be subsidizing your ass (regardless of current budget plans – partially because Bush hid deficits by taking from the SS Trust Fund) by a guaranteed fourth of what I’m forced to pay in anyway.

                  About competition: Um, you don’t have to take Medicare/Medicaid. You can buy much better private insurance. Props on the first time I’ve heard this particular argument. Risk pools of healthy, rich people are what keeps insurance so high. Adding the sick and poor will bring it right down. Vouchers for all!

                  Seriously?

                  1. I’ve never counted on any Social Security! It doesn’t even take an adult to see where that was going.

                    Though I’m not sure what that says about Phoenix’s maturity level http://www.coloradopols.com/sh… I’m pleased to see a modicum of debate among you.  At least it shows some independent thought.

                    Meanwhile, you seem to frown on the term ‘vouchers.’  Is that money given to subsidize medical care in a pre-defined program?

                    It amazes me how many of you actually try to defend this http://www.denverpost.com/sear… with a straight face.

                    1. Too bad you don’t do it.

                      The comment you posted doesn’t seem to go anywhere, but I’m assuming you’re talking about PR’s statement that Social Security is a success. Well, it’s still correct. The reason it will fail is because Congress borrows from the trust fund. I mentioned that in my comment. Read! It helps.

                      To The Denver Post article: It amazes me how you’re a) trying to say I defended something I didn’t mention and b) somehow think adding more private insurance companies solves the billing problem.

                      Now. Care to address anything I actually wrote?

                    2. Social Security is a success. Well, it’s still correct. The reason it will fail…

                      Are you being serious or just faux speech- writing for John Kerry?

                      You know, the unsinkable Titanic was a rousing success too, right until it hit the iceberg.

                      As for what you wrote, is it:  

                      …partially because Bush hid deficits by taking from the SS Trust Fund

                      Or:  

                      because Congress borrows from the trust fund

                      Because you wrote both.  It’s amazing how Dems had no role in any of this.  Or maybe they did and you just didn’t mention.  

                    3. No one’s denying that. But the most egregious culprits have been Republicans, both the R Congress and their fearless leader, the latest President Bush.

                      You know what brought the deficit back to life after the Clinton years tamed it? The Bush tax cuts, fighting a war of choice without paying for it, fighting another war without paying for it, a gigantic give-away to the prescription drug industry, again without paying for it, and tanking the economy.

                      It’s absolutely not a contradiction to say Social Security is a success and that it could be headed for failure — because of the very policies you’re rushing to defend. You really can’t grasp how a successful program can be driven into failure? Somehow that’s not surprising.

                    4. @20th, please read and re-read this again

                      You know what brought the deficit back to life after the Clinton years tamed it? The Bush tax cuts, fighting a war of choice without paying for it, fighting another war without paying for it, a gigantic give-away to the prescription drug industry, again without paying for it, and tanking the economy.

                      I think I hear you Maine . . . you’re saying —  “You know, [that George W. Bush economic policy you love so much] was a rousing success too, right until [his ideology] hit [reality].”

                       

            4. Hat tip to Brad deLong:

              Kevin Drum on Just the Simple Truth:

              Have I mentioned my favorite part of Obama’s speech yesterday? Here it is:

              America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

              But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

              To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

              But that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit, annually, was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more.

              Translation: Fuck you, Republicans.

              And I’d say it’s a well deserved flip of the bird. Republicans, as you can imagine, are less enthusiastic, and this bit of the speech undoubtedly accounts for most of the bile being tossed around on Fox and elsewhere today. But hey – sometimes the truth hurts. And all Obama did was speak the simple truth. In the past decade, Republicans slashed taxes, started two wars, approved a big unfunded entitlement, and presided over an economic collapse that cratered tax revenues and required massive government spending to counteract. That’s pretty much 100% of our existing deficit problem right there. All we’re doing now is trying to clean up the mess the GOP has left us.

    2. Under pressure from the GOP and selected Democrats, Obama is having to expose himself on various fronts. His failure to lead in a centrist mode has driven most leaders to question his vision and commitment to a strong and sustainable America.

      He seems to be taking options away from himself with each move he attempts, to wit the debt ceiling and Bush tax cut stances. It’s like he is bi-polar.

      The total faux head fake he’s attempted in jacking up spending, then cutting by an equal amount has only resulted in increased leverage as he mortgages our Republic.

        1. First he is half black, half caucasian.

          Second, and most importantly why would you demean yourself by using race as the foundation for your mini rant?

          It must be your default position … when without a legitimate position or principle, (ignorantly) toss out the race card.

          Hey, I love the results of your tired radical leftwing doctrines. The endless supply of an underclass dominated by high school dropouts and undocumented aliens affords all of us tasty food food and low prices from Chipotle and the like.

          1. Can’t back up his conspiracy shit so has to go all “I don’t know what you’re talking about” to avoid exposing his conspiracy addication for the political crack that it is”.  It will rot your teeth boy.  “Obama is a big conspiracy that I have to be VERY afraid of.  Boo-hoo”

            What a doofus.

    3. Let’s just call a shovel a shovel: the Republican Party wants to eliminate Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. When 20th Maine says entitlement reform, he means eliminate the security net for the middle class.

      The Republican Party has been taken over by the Libertarians, Ayn-Randians, Christian Extremists and the Super-wealthy Crony-Capitalists.

      The Democratic Party has moved to the right, but still defends the New Deal programs that have led to the prosperity of the past 70 years, not considering the Bush Screw up.

      As we have seen in the historical record, when they are in power, the Republican Party is creates huge deficits, while the Democratic Party reduces the deficit. Google it….

      So, which side are you on?

      1. You and gaggle are for longer recess and lunch hours.  Though it completely betrays your handle, it’s a tried and true campaign strategy that often works.  You good.  Us bad.  

        Don’t have to remember any confusing numbers either!

        1. Or, “why righties can’t read”.

          Please be clear: Are you against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? That is a very simple question.

          Are you for leaving the deficit as it is while lowering taxes on the wealthy while raising them on the Middle class? That is the Republican budget.

          Is the Republican Party a tool of the super-wealthy and christian extremists, or does it represent the middle class?

          1. It’s like you were both touched inappropriately by a priest and had your trust fund taken away.

            I’f I’m against faulty gas-peddle designs in Toyota’s and in favor of fixing them, does that mean I’m against Toyota’s?

            If your argument is that to change any line of code in the US entitlement program fundamentally changes that program so that it can no longer be called by its traditional name…. then I am against them.

            But if you get away from scaring old people by arguing that the program might be called something else if we say it often enough, and focus on just fixing them, then I’m still for them.

            As for the tax cuts, are you talking about those that both Bush and Obama signed?  From where taxes stand right now, how does the Ryan plan raise taxes on the middle class?  After closing all the loopholes, what is the % change in reduction of taxes for the wealthy?  How many fewer taxes would GE pay as a result of closing those loopholes?

            So, while the GOP offers this: http://budget.house.gov/Upload… with Cliff Notes http://online.wsj.com/article/…

            Please post a link to the budget plan that Obama outlined in his speech.  You know, the one that is significantly different than the pathetic one he offered a couple months ago.  (And posting a link to Biden sleeping through a speech doesn’t count).

            1. The Ryan Budget proposes to cut medicare in order to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. The Ryan budget front-loads those tax breaks while promising a magic trickle-down pony fifty years down the road. The Ryan plan makes no specific listing of removing tax credits or deductions.

              To me, this is class warfare.

              My response would be to do the opposite: increase taxes on the super-wealthy, and use them to support and improve entitlements, i.e. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

              Your response is to endorse tax breaks on the super-wealthy and “reform”, i.e. cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  

                1. Obama made his speech yesterday, it will take a few days for people to go through the numbers.

                  Then we can go line-by-line and year-by-year comparing the two plans. Also, we can see which plan protects the middle class, and which one protects billionaires.

                  Deal?

                  1. The Congressional Budget Office is used for apples to apples comparisons.

                    The Heritage Foundation was the source for a lot propaganda about the Ryan proposal. Their analysis has turned out to be bogus.

  4. point out, when Rs complain that taxes are too high and we can’t possibly raise them, that taxes are in fact near historic lows, especially for the top bracket.  If you are in the top bracket and weren’t paying taxes in 1931 your taxes have never been lower. Why Dems allow Rs to perpetrate this myth that taxes are high compared to the good old days is a mystery.

    Also need to point out almost know economists think we can cut our way out of debt and deficits without also increasing revenue through tax increases.  

    Also they need to keep hitting the poll numbers whenever Rs claim to be speaking for the people. Majorities ranging from healthy to huge support raising taxes (80% want taxes raised on millionaires) gay marriage and/or civil union, not making radical cuts or changes to Social security, Medicare or Medicaid. It is the Rs that are too far right now, not the Dems too far left, according to all of these polls.  Would also like to hear Dems propose raising caps.

    Also need to keep pointing out that none of the R’s plans are aimed at increasing jobs beyond a promise that lowering taxes even more will do so even though extremely low, by historic standards, taxes aren’t creating jobs now.

    Liked that he pointed out that the top  earners have seen income go up by a quarter million while 90% have lost ground.

    Liked that he didn’t mince words slamming the Ryan plan.  Liked that he didn’t mince words about taking away from from everyone else to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

    This speech not as disappointing as I expected but hope Dems in congress keep the pressure on our President not to keep moving halfway to Rs who keep moving “halfway” farther right.

  5. The same tax cuts he signed an extension for not quite four months ago?  Those tax cuts?  This was a campaign speech that has been recycled from 2008.  He will say whatever he thinks will reinforce and reinvigorate his standing with the faithful, while often doing the opposite.  Will he even follow up this speech with a real budget proposal? (Seeing as how the one he sent out 60 days ago doesn’t fit in with his speech at all)  

    It’s getting hard to take him seriously.  4 months ago the Bush cuts were necessary and had to be extended.  Now they are wrong and need to be repealed.  What will he be saying by the summer?

    1. I remember Republicans refusing to keep tax cuts for the middle class unless they got them for the rich also. Maybe my memory is a bit fuzzy but I don’t remember him saying they were necessary. I’m pretty sure he extended them against his best judgement because Republicans would have let 98% of Americans suffer to get their way.

  6. The push back against this idea that because he extended them once, he somehow supports them was needed. President Obama did NOT support them in December and only extended them because Republicans weren’t going to help out the unemployed unless he did. He continues to push back on this erroneous idea.

    He needs to keep pushing back on this ridiculous idea that tax cuts for the rich somehow creates jobs. We’ve been trying this experiment since Reagan and it DOES NOT work. The trickle-down experiment is a complete failure. Time to try something new.

    My favorite line: “I refuse to renew them again.” – in re: Bush tax cuts.

  7. If the president could balance the budget, what the heck has he been doing the last two years? You know, back when his party controlled both congress and the White House and he had buckets of goodwill from the American people? Seriously, was this a joke?

      1. Pithy

        Nice site though. It’s super relevant and not slanted at all!

        For Those That Find Birtherism Passe: Blogs Report On Obama’s ‘Brain Surgery Scars’

        But you aren’t looking for “rhetoric” or “partisanship”, right? Or maybe you don’t respect Ryan, king of the “pithy” at all. That’s a shame, beej, a crying shame.

    3. Um … fixing a little old recession and saving capitalism. Turns out keeping your rich overlords from throwing themselves off skyscrapers costs a lot of money.

      1. And it wasn’t their personal lives we needed to save- though we did.

        It was the banking industry. Without it we’d have been in soup lines for a long long time. Though some of those who deserved bankruptcy and ruin would have gotten it.

        And it turns out liquidity crises are pricey bitches to fix. We’re past it now- we should “ask” the banking sector to pay us back. (Transaction tax, leverage tax, something someone smarter than I thinks up.)  

      2. Who knew he was such a corporatist? And who knew Dems secretly love the “rich” they love to rail about. I confess I underestimated you guys. I thought you really believed your class warfare rhetoric.

  8. It turns out that the deficit is rather easy to fix by doing nothing. Let the Bush Tax cuts expire, let the Affordable Care Act deliver universal health insurance, let the deep recession slowly unwind, let the wars in Iraq and Afganistan end, and voila:

    Minimal deficit.

  9. We now have Libertad, 20thMaine, and Arapagop (where’s BJ) fully supporting Paul Ryan and the Republican Party’s class warfare: (hat tip to Paul Krugman for the concise summary)

    The real points are:

    1. Savage cuts in programs that help the needy, amounting to about $3 trillion over the next decade.

    2. Huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, also amounting to about $3 trillion over the next decade.

    The fake points are:

    3. “Base broadening” that makes those tax cuts revenue neutral. Ryan has refused to name a single tax preference that he would, in fact, be willing to get rid of; all he and his party do is keep repeating “revenue-neutral” in the hope that people believe them.

    4. Unspecified cuts in spending outside Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that would shrink the government – including defense! – back to 1920s levels.

    5. Replacing Medicare with vouchers that would leave most seniors unable to afford insurance. Right.

    So if we focus only on the real stuff, this is a plan to leave the deficit pretty much where it is, but to sharply cut aid to the poor while sharply cutting taxes on the rich. That’s serious!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

78 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!