I did not vote for a "Grand Bargain"

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:13 PM - Edit history (3)

I doubt more than 10% of Obama voters voted for a grand bargain.

I voted to leave entitlements alone, and for the government to continue to borrow and spend because that is what is keeping the economy propped up right now.

If I had wanted to vote to indicate that the deficit was a priority I would have voted for the man running on eliminating the government.

Anyone who is, in this year of 2012, particularly worried about the deficit is an idiot. Since the deficit is largely a product of low economic growth, it is more symptom than core problem.

A "grand bargain" on achieving full employment would be more to the point. A robust economy is prerequisite to deficit reduction.

NOTE: This OP is not critical of Obama. It is critical of something he might do, not something he has done. And the sensible time to voice your opinion about what someone might do is before they do it.

[Mnemosyne]

1. Neither did I. nt

[patrice]

2. Kicking

There comes a time when a nation MUST decide whether, in fact, it is one nation or not.

This is it.

[forestpath]

3. This purist agrees!

[fleur-de-lisa]

4. Kick - eom

[Atman]

5. I agree. I voted to kick the assholes to the curb.

And I voted to get Grover and Newt off my fucking television!

[RepublicansRZombies]

61. [phone]

nt

[rhett o rick]

6. I agree. nm

[leveymg]

7. Two things I didn't vote for: 1) Grand Bargains; 2) expanded ME wars.

And, I will oppose both.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

184. 3 things that I didn't vote for: 1) Grand Bargains; 2) expanded ME wars; 3) more "free-trade"

agreements to shift even more jobs to foreign countries.

[plethoro]

8. It will be interesting to see how forgiving this board is should

the Grand Bargain come forth. Any Grand Bargain that cheats Americans out of what is due them will destroy what's left of this country. And it won't just the red states that want out.

[Scuba]

9. Nope. And I don't think Medicare for All is a unicorn.

[dotymed]

32. Nor do most Americans.

If we would pass FDR's second bill of rights, that would be a "grand bargain" for all Americans.

[quinnox]

10. damn purist who doesn't understand how government works

We have to compromise with the repubs, which means cutting these programs.

Did I cover all the lame and pathetic talking points?

Seriously, I bet most Democrats who voted do not want any cuts in these crucial safety net programs. Hopefully the Dem leaders understand this or they will commit an EPIC FAIL.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

45. "Did I cover all the lame and pathetic talking points?" Respectfully, I think that you overlooked

a common one that if we don't unenthusiastically agree with those who want Grand Compromises, they will threaten to alert on our posts and claim that we violated the TOS.

[haikugal]

49. +1

[BouzoukiKing]

11. Firstly, my vote had nothing to do with 'entitlements'.

I did, however, put considerable thought and effort into making my position on BENEFITS (you know - those things we earn and pay for during our working lives?) very clear.

Our entitlement programs can use some work, and some expansion - but this election was more about re-defining the word 'benefit' than it was about actual entitlement programs. Apparently with some success.

And SECONDLY, I did NOT vote "...for the government to continue to borrow and spend". I voted for the government to TAX and spend - that is to raise taxes commensurate with what we spend, on those who've been getting a mostly-free tax pass, and stop kicking the financial can at our children and grandchildren. Yes, borrowing to spend has been necessary; but as a viable financial plan, how sustainable is it?

But no, I'm not particularly worried about the deficit either. Time for that later...

[ProfessorGAC]

23. +1

I've been on about the hijacking of the term "entitlement" for some time now, and much of it right here on DU.

I like your choice of the word "benefit". Because they are, of course, entitlements, but only because WE'RE ENTITLED TO THEM! That was the promise that was made when we involuntarily paid into them.

We all knew a long time ago that very few people would ever get back as much as they paid in, but we are at least ENTITLED to what was promised.

So, we change the turn to benefits. Nicely done.
GAC

[Atman]

24. What, exactly, is wrong with the term "Entitlement?"

The GOP managed do demonize "Liberal," and they've done it with "Entitlement." By definition, if you've PAID FOR SOMETHING, you are ENTITLED to it. You can call it a benefit, but that seems to fit even more into their definition. A benefit is like something you get free, as an add-on.

[BouzoukiKing]

25. asdf

"Entitlement", by virtue of citizenship, with no other requirement. i.e., "I'm entitled to that because I was born here."

"Benefit", by virtue of having paid for it. i.e., "This is a benefit that I have earned in this country - whether I'm a citizen or not."

Throw a dictionary at these terms, if you like - I don't care. I use them as they are commonly accepted - and massaged inordinately; especially by those on the right.

Language has as many consequences as elections do. If you don't believe that, revisit "pro choice" vs. "pro abortion".

[Atman]

51. That appears totally backward to me.

Entitlement, by virtue of having paid for something. I bought a fridge, I am entitled to the warranty provisions. I bought Social Security and Medicare and Unemployment insurance, so I am entitled to receive what I paid for.

Benefit, by virtue of value added or membership. I paid extra -- extra -- that others didn't pay, and as a BENEFIT of my membership I get to sit in the Star Club lounge at the airport while I await my flight.

But I do appreciate the snotty tone of your post.

[BouzoukiKing]

59. I meant no snottiness.

But as I said - as the terms are commonly used. Especially by the RW noise machine.

If you care to mount a campaign to purify these two terms across the aisle and in all political discourse, I will support you. And I won't care which way you slice the two of them, either - just so they always mean the same thing, to everybody.

[Dawgs]

73. First, it's time we quit worrying about the RW noise machine.

Second, I love the word entitlement. I use it every time some rightwing jackass uses it to make some argument. I say, 'why do you want to get rid of something you've paid into your whole life.' It shuts them up immediately, and makes them stupid. I could NEVER use the word benefit to argue my point.

Come on. We lose every time we let them frame something.

[kenfrequed]

91. That includes letting them define the terms used

There is no reason to use the term 'entitlements.' The very word sounds iffy. Why should we affix ourselves to a term that doesn't do a thing to help us.

[HiPointDem]

147. The only reason it sounds 'iffy' is because you've listened to too many republicans.

[kenfrequed]

183. No

It has an iffy definition because it has come to mean something else in colloquial english. When you say that someone felt "entitled" to something it usually does not carry a good connotation.

There are words we can save and words we can't. It is one thing to get mugged by Frank Luntz in an alleyway when he bludgeons us with a phrase that he cooked up. It is another thing when we do it to ourselves. I think the term 'benefits' works in most cases.

[HiPointDem]

187. no, when you say someone is entitled to something it means they're entitled to it.

it doesn;t mean they're not entitled to it but think they are.

but thanks for the help in orwellian linguistics.

[kenfrequed]

188. Yeah

'Cause I made up the use of the term 'entitled.'

Seriously, what is your pony in this argument? Do you have a reason that you want democrats to continue to use langauge that has been utterly wrecked? If you want to 'take back' the word entitled I recommend you write a book on it first. Hell, I will buy the damned book.

But for the moment why not let Democrats actually use a bit of wordsmithing on this to better describe what we are in favor of in a way that everyone can understand and that won't as easily get contorted by Fox News.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

181. I'm not worried about the RW noise machine. I'm worried about the 3rd-wayers.

[kenfrequed]

182. A fair concern

And I would agree that it is something to watch for, but honestly the blue dogs have been dealt another fairly serious blow as despite the democrats picking up seats in the house and senate they still managed to reduce their numbers through defeats and retirements.

Someone should write a book on this.

[cthulu2016]

28. Then you voted for bad economics

You are not alone in that, but the borrowing is what is keeping the economy afloat in a way that tax and spend does not do to the same degree.

[PETRUS]

36. People need to hear that.

And have it explained.

Not to hijack your thread, but may I use this space to direct a question your way? I usually like your OPs, and my impression (right or wrong) is that you have what I'd call a new-Keynesian take. I'm wondering if you have any opinions on MMT.

[cthulu2016]

38. I am not an economist, but from what I know about MMT, it sounds flaky

It's at heart a pre-Keynesian idea called Chartalism (IIRC) that under-states supply and demand in interest rates and under-states the effects of international currency exchange valuation.

That my impression, but I am not competent to argue the point.

[PETRUS]

46. Thanks.

After noticing that the MMT crowd's idea of "what we should do now" (and what NOT to do) overlaps substantially with people like Krugman, Stiglitz, and Baker, I decided to read up on their theory. Just getting started...

[cthulu2016]

47. My impression is that

MMT and Keyenes would behave the same in a demand-depression like this, but that MMT would not advise reducing the deficit in good times.

That impression is from Krugman arguing the point with an MMT economist a while back.

[PETRUS]

52. Ah

Haven't run into that yet, but from what I've read so far I'm guessing you're right.

Dean Baker writes that deficits on the order of 1-2% of GDP are sustainable indefinitely. I always thought of him as a Keynesian, but maybe he's not.

[cthulu2016]

58. That sounds right to me, and compatible with Keynes

A balanced federal budget is probably a bad idea. A steady small deficit is probably correct.

(The only time we've ever seen a budget that even pretended to be balanced it coincided with an outrageous stock market bubble. Not proof of anything, but not an argument for balancing the budget.)

The Krugman argument got down to whether deficits ever matter. Small deficits are fine, but Keynes would grant that at some point supply and demand issues for borrowing and currencies have to come into play.

[BouzoukiKing]

55. As I said:

"Yes, borrowing to spend has been necessary; but as a viable financial plan, how sustainable is it?"

{emphasis mine}

The vast majority of borrowing right now is huge financial institutions buying debt instruments (on credit) from the government and then loaning that same money back to a different part of the government at a higher rate. The point was supposed to be that if private industry (assuming one cares to call anything on Wall Street an 'industry') got money at low rates, they'd loan it out around the country at higher (but still attractive) rates; to various private companies who needed an infusion of capital.

But, as usual, the maggots on Wall Street figured out a way to game the system. So they take with one hand, and... take with the other.

[Egalitarian Thug]

89. Argh! You and I agree far more than we disagree, but this meme drive me fucking crazy.

We are not, have not, and cannot, borrow money!

We sell bonds, we are currently paying as close to no interest on those bonds as is possible, and the number of willing buyers of those bonds stretches around the globe several times.

This is the only mechanism our nation has to create the money needed for the economy to function.

The overwhelming percentage of U.S. bond holders is us.

There are no loans, and there is no possibility of "calling in" a bond.

Because of the historically low interest rates promised by those bonds this is the best time in history to sell them to those willing buyers.

Bonds are the currency of governments. If we stopped selling bonds, first ours and then within 24 hours, the global economy would cease to exist.

This meme is a Reich-wing bullshit creation with the sole purpose of scaring ignorant fools into complying with their own demise.

[cthulu2016]

93. No, C'mon man... That is barely even a word game

The sale of bonds is, in fact, borrowing money at a predetermined interest rate.

A bond sale is indistinguishable from a mortgage, which I hope you will agree is borrowing money.

The fact that bonds are not "callable" debts before their term is irrelevant, since being callable is in no way a definition of borrowing.

A sum of money exists in a bank account. That money is transferred to another bank account for no consideration whatsoever other than an agreement that the recipient of the money will pay the person who started out with the money a sum of money equal to that transferred sum plus interest.

That is not a meme, it is a loan.

[Egalitarian Thug]

96. No, it isn't. Treasury bonds are the only mechanism that exists to create new money, period.

A mortgage is a loan. If the terms of that loan are not met the mortgage holder has the right to seize whatever asset was used to secure that loan, usually the item that the loans was made for. IOW ownership transfers back to the lending institution or person. That is vastly different from the issuance and sale of a government bond.

The only terms of a government bond is that it will be redeemed at the agreed upon rate on the agreed upon date. This the fundamental difference between a government and a bank. Now we can go into the whole Federal Reserve system, its mechanisms and it's various shortcomings, but the whole thread would die of disinterest.

Even bank loans are not loans as you apparently misunderstand them, but I'm not going to go into this now as it will probably just confuse the issue.

Sorry man, but you're just wrong on this one.

[cthulu2016]

99. I don't want to be disagreeable, but this is wrong

"Treasury bonds are the only mechanism that exists to create new money, period."

That is false. Most money is created from private bank loans, not bonds.

You draw a distinction between a collateralized loan and an uncollaterized loan as if that was key to the definition of borrowing. It isn't. Substitute unsecured debt if it helps. It makes no difference it terms of whether it is "borrowing."

I think you are probably getting at the fact that the government creates the money with which the bond is to be repaid. That is interesting, but it completely misses the point that borrowing is a process of borrowing, not a process of repayment.

An American bond mutual fund decides to purchase some bonds at auction. (For simplicity, focusing on direct bond sale from the government, rather than secondary market trading.) That mutual fund takes US dollars that investors have placed in the fund and gives it to the government in exchange for the repayment plus interest in the form of US dollars.

The money the mutual fund pays the government for the bond is not created. It already existed. It is real money being borrowed.

Now the government has agreed to repay that loan according to a set of terms. Interest rate and schedule of repayment.

If I sold the same bond I would not have the option of printing money to repay it. But I would also not have the option of levying a tax on the people to repay it.

The fact that the bond will probably be repaid partially in US dollars that didn't exist at the time of the bond issuance has no bearing on whether it is borrowing.

The identity of the borrower does not mean it is not borrowing.

You are getting hung up on a genuinely meaningless distinction. The government has a set of options in how to pay for the loan obligation. It can get money from taxes or duties, or sell property or create more money.

It creates that money by selling a NEW bond to a holder of existing money in exchange for some of that existing money with which to repay the first bond.

It is all real money being borrowed and all real money being repaid.

Is this some distinction you are drawing some MMT stuff?

[Egalitarian Thug]

103. Being disagreeable is just fine, it's what makes this board worth coming to.

You're not wrong as far as you go, but you neglect to follow the mechanism all the way back to the origin. With nothing of substance to back the creation of money, the mechanism of the Federal Reserve system is where every dollar originates. Member banks multiply it through lending and most of its growth is brought about through production made possible through the creation of that money which closes the cycle.

But rather than turn this into a macroeconomics class/debate, let's instead defer to people that have made this their lives. Top of the list we have two Nobel prize winning economists telling us that this is exactly the time to massively increase deficit spending and injecting that money into bottom of the pyramid where it creates productive activity as opposed to this administrations strategy of giving to banks so that they can prop up the facade of solvency while the money pours out of the country making rich people richer and expanding the unproductive sinkhole of accumulation.

The bottom line to all this is that it is impossible, excluding completely bizarre circumstances, for the United States to go bankrupt while the nation remains a nation. There is no crisis and we are a long way away from it becoming one.

[PETRUS]

95. Another option

The US can mint coins of arbitrary face value and deposit them with the Fed in exchange for credit. The "profit" (the difference between the cost of making the coin and the face value) accrues to the Treasury. I'm not making a statement about the wisdom (or folly) of choosing this option, just noting its availability.

I like your posts (not just here, all kinds of threads), as well as cthulu2016's.

[Egalitarian Thug]

97. That is correct, and you're also right that this is not the place for that discussion.

And thank you very much for the compliment.

[Common Sense Party]

177. If there are no loans, and no one is borrowing any money, then to whom are

we paying the billions in interest each year? You know, the interest payments that are growing faster than just about any part of the federal budget.

While interest rates are extremely low now, they won't always be.

"Selling bonds" = borrowing money

"buying bonds" = lending money

[Egalitarian Thug]

180. We are redeeming bonds previously sold, mostly through the issuance of new bonds and

mostly to American people and institutions. The differences are subtle but important. For instance, most of the bonds we are redeeming today were issued in 1982 at much higher rates (almost zero to China, BTW) and almost all of them are being redeemed through the issuance of new bonds at a rate of less than 1%. This is how a national budget works, how it has to work in order to have a functional economy. This is also why the federal budget is absolutely nothing like your household or company's budget. They use these simple terms and false analogies to both confuse people and to mask what is really going on.

BTW, do you happen to know when was the last time America actually paid off the national debt?

[Common Sense Party]

185. Bonds are loans. Period.

[Egalitarian Thug]

186. Derp de derp.

"We're broke because we borrowed money from ourselves and have to pay ourselves back more than we have so we have to borrow more from ourselves and therefore SS, education, unemployment, food stamps, etc. must all be cut to make it possible."

[NorthCarolina]

12. Sadly, I don't believe there was an option on the ballot

for "voting to leave entitlements alone".

[Bluenorthwest]

13. I'm amazed that anyone coming off this nasty election cycle desires to find common

ground with Birthers and radical racists. How do you compromise with delusion? Is it ethical to do so? Do we have to agree that the President was born partly in Kenya? That he's semi-anti colonialist in his views? Do we compromise on truth, on fact? If the other side wants damage, do we compromise by allowing them to do some damage? Is that not simple capitulation to those who lost the election, whose views were rejected by the electorate?
Don't people remember who and what we were just running against?

[FredStembottom]

60. Wow!

"Is it ethical to do so?"

I've never considered that aspect. Triangulating with delusional hysteria may very well be quite unethical.

Thank you, Blue. I will now include that aspect in the thousands more times that I argue this issue.

[Raksha]

146. Absolutely true! For years, I've been at war with that pseudo-reasonable truism,

"the truth lies somewhere in the middle." e

NOT necessarily! It MIGHT be true sometimes, but only if both sides are telling the truth, or what they sincerely believe to be the truth anyway. And (it seems almost too obvious to mention) if both sides are sane, as you pointed out.

But if one side is telling the truth and the other side is lying, the truth absolutely does NOT lie "somewhere in the middle." What is the middle ground between the truth and a lie? A half-truth?

You put it better than I did, though: "Do we have to agree that the President was born partly in Kenya? That he's semi-colonialist in his views?"

As for whether it's ethical to compromise with delusion, strangely enough that's an angle I've never considered before. My off-the-cuff response would have to be "probably not."

[appal_jack]

14. k&r

I voted for Democrats to support Democratic prgrams such as Social Security, Medicare, education, environmental protection, and public infrastructure development. The 'Grand Bargain' is nothing more than the Republicans' Plan B. I didn't vote for that.

-app

[txdemsftw]

42. This^^

That's the ENTIRE reason I am a damn Democrat for christ's sake! If I didn't care about these vital programs, I'd just be another Repuke zealot.

[D23MIURG23]

15. K&R. We already got a study in "bargains" during O's first term.

Time for a change of approach.

[stupidicus]

16. well, that's why I thought it important to discuss before the election here and elsewhere

as did many others, but was met with BS ranging from being willfully divisive and counter-productive, if not outright attempting to undermine BHO's reelection chances -- like we were "traitors" or something.

And the most galling aspect of it was, is that those spewing that kinda garbage thought they had the high ground, when if anything, they were the ones pushing people away with their "sit down and shut up" BS.

And of course, there was also the small matter of them being allowed to do all that without fear of any moderation reprisals, which those complaining about it weren't granted.

This is why I'm having a tough time staying interested in this place.

[FredStembottom]

63. I just went away.

Those that could bully away discussions of core values won a superb victory.

They succeeded in utterly sterilizing this place into something resembling a high school year book.
(GO DONKEYS!)

I have never been so demoralized as I was just before the election when the 24 hour gag team was allowed to have the victory they have worked for for years.

And they're back! No issues. No values. No worldview.

Only hooray will be allowed. Because...... Well, they're still working on the exact reason.

[stupidicus]

111. indeed

that's how I characterized it as well -- pretty much a high school level popularity contest ran by the popular kids -- an "Animal House" situation...lol

I don't mind the "Go Donkeys" stuff at all, it's like the role of the coach was forgotten. The Coach doesn't stay silent when he thinks the player is about to screw up, and he likely says something before he puts them on the field. It doesn't mean he has to keep them off the field, much like concerns over the safety net issues didn't logically translate into a lack of a vote or the promotion of not voting for BHO. ANd the demoralization you felt was exactly why I told them, they were the problem, not those with the legitimate concerns they tried to silence. And of course, it was also a fine example of that much ballyhooed liberal "tolerance" too.

I guess it was just too complex a concept for the bullies to wrap their little minds around. It sure would be nice to see what they have to say should our worst fears on the matter be realized.

[FredStembottom]

135. Well, they seem as rigidly intractable as any people I have ever encountered.

Passionate defenders of rudderlessness.

It's beyond my understanding.....

[tsuki]

17. Bill Black calls it the "Grand Betrayal". nt

[quinnox]

18. I'm stealing that

Awesome way to put it!

[dawg]

19. I still think the President is willing to raise the Medicare age to 67.

I hope I'm wrong about that, but I have seen nothing so far to prove me wrong.

If that happens, voters will blame the Democrats. If we won't stand up for Medicare, what will we stand up for?

I understand the need to compromise, but Social Security and Medicare benefits should be off limits.

[eridani]

122. Raising the Medicare eligibility ag= mass murder on a scale never even conceived by Al Qaida

People DIE waiting to get on Medicare right now, ferchrissakes!

[gateley]

136. I was just thinking, I'll be dead before then.

[dawg]

141. I totally agree with you.

But I suspect it is on the table. Many Dems will rationalize it due to the fact that tax-subsidized private insurance will be still be available for 65-66 year-olds through the ACA. But it will still be terrible policy.

And it will cost the country financially. No money will be saved. The government might spend a little less, but private citizens will be forced to spend much more than the government will save. The country, taken as a whole, loses.

And of course, the Republicans will be more than happy to lower the age back to 65 if only we adopt their latest, greatest "premium support" plan.

[eridani]

145. If ACA is used as a excuse for eliminating Medicare, it is toast. Period

The shitty bronze policies that 65-66 year olds will have to pay three times as much for are essentially death sentences. People won't be able to afford to use them except for major catastrophes, and the money that is essentially stolen from them to benefit insurance companies will not be available for them to use to pay for day to day care.

[dawg]

151. I have already seen Christina Romer using the ACA for exactly that purpose.

And she's supposed to be a liberal.

It is conventional wisdom inside the beltway that raising the Medicare age and switching to a chained CPI for Social Security are both as good as already done. They are, after all, part the agenda of the "sane" centrists. And for selling our souls in this fashion, we are reportedly going to receive some upper-income tax increases that will only be partially offset by cuts in the corporate tax rates.

Ain't democracy grand?

[bhikkhu]

20. I voted for good governance

which is generally what the other guys ran against and we ran for. That doesn't necessarily mean "winner takes all", or that some ideology gets followed to the letter, because the losing side picked the other ideology.

Growth at the moment is driven by a very healthy energy sector, and government borrowing and spending is at a low level now - and growing slower than the economy. I don't think its so much about the simple volume of dollars, but about how they are used. Most of the deficit worries come from simple projections forward in time, where some parameter of growth or other remains constant over time. Its usually bogus one way or another...the biggest problem we have as a country over the last twenty years is health care costs (which have gobbled up an extra 10% of GDP since 1994), but that sector is set to change.

[ChazII]

133. +1 n/t

[SunSeeker]

21. Oh Gawd. Are Dems going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?

SS is not adding a penny to the debt. Medicare would be fine if we just raised taxes on the upper incomes a little bit. We can't give the Repukes what they couldn't get the American people to vote for!!!

[JoeyT]

26. Sorry, but we're all about compromise now.

The people we've railed against for months because they thought rape was good, and GLBT people were abominations, and the poor/disabled should be shot and thrown into mass graves, and that we should preemptively nuke all the countries that are predominantly Muslim are now reasonably reasonable people that we can be reasonable with.

ETA: And if you're not willing to compromise with them then apparently you're just as bad as they are.

[Myrina]

27. K&R

What you said.

[Iliyah]

29. Uh huh, even before the elections remember the 716 million

supposedly taken from Medicare until it was explained that it was part D of the Bushies prescription BS? I'm pretty sure Pres O and crew are trying to stop a lot of the "unnecessary" cost and spending concerning Medicaid, Medi-Cal and Medicare. Yes, I read the 2011 memo that Woodward got in hands on, and for some reason I think he is on a mission to destroy Pres O, but other than that, I think Pres O and crew will protect Medicare, et al, as well as SSI.

[cthulu2016]

31. I am not saying Obama is a bad guy. I am saying the time to say this is BEFORE

The time to say, "By the way... we did not vote for you to get 'entitlement reform'" is before and grand bargain is negotiated, not after.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. You say "I think Pres O and crew will protect Medicare, et al, as well as SSI."

Before the 2008 election, I thought that he would hold war criminals accountable.

I also thought that he would hold banksters accountable.

In addition, I thought that he would do what he said that he would do and not extend the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich.

I never thought that he would weaken Social Security by reducing the contributions without asking or demanding that the cap on the contributions for the wealthy be raised.

I never thought that he would sign three let's-ship-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements and instruct his Administration to negotiate another one which is now pending: the NAFTA of the Pacific.

Now, I no longer have such illusions.

If, as you say, "Pres O and crew will protect Medicare, et al, as well as SSI," I'll be amazed and grateful.

[still_one]

30. Then write your President, Representative, and Senators. I had no illusions. I voted for the

Supreme Court, and most likely expect to be disappointed about most everything else

we shall see

[yourout]

104. +1....fully expect to be somewhat disappointed but the alternative was to hideous to ponder.

Minimize the damage and make sure the SCOTUS gets at least solid Dems.

[still_one]

105. Absolutely.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. I did not vote for a "Grand Bargain" nor did I vote for another "Free-Trade" agreement

to be signed to ship even more American jobs to foreign countries.

Romney and the other members of the super-rich have already made money by destroying the economic base of this country.

Haven't they made enough?

[Egalitarian Thug]

170. +1 There's no such thing as enough, only more. n/t

[Union Scribe]

175. +1

[stevenleser]

34. I didn't either. Still doesnt mean we are going to get the votes in the House for what we want.

If I was President, I would try to negotiate a fair compromise without any cuts to SS, Medicare/Medicaid and if that didnt work, I'd put together a fair plan that cuts some spending, but nothing on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, raises taxes on the wealthy to 39.6% AND cuts loopholes significantly for the top bracket, and publish it in the NY Times and say, that's the bargain I am sending to congress. It's fair, here are the reasons, and if they dont vote for it and it the economy goes over the cliff, its because they were not willing to bargain.

[underoath]

35. I voted to keep the Dems in the Majority and they better act like it and NOT talk with rePUKES!!!

[brooklynite]

37. Perhaps you didn't, but...

...how do you resolve the Fiscal Cliff without one? Yes there are people here who think we should just let it happen, without apparently thinking through the points that, in addition to the Bush tax cuts and the military cuts, there would also be substantial non-military discretionary spending that would be cut, as well as the impact on the economy and people's 401K's if the Government failed to deal with the problem.

[cthulu2016]

44. But entitlements shouldn't be part of it

Let the Bush tax cuts expire automatically and then pass a middle/working class tax cut to replace them. The Obama tax cuts.

And if we don't want to cut the military and other things then raise taxes.

A deficit deal does not need to be used as a pretext to reduce medicare or SS benefits... which raising eligibility age, as a for instance, surely is.

If those things are to be done they should be extensively debated on their own merits, not extraneously folded into some deal.

[haikugal]

62. It is being used as a pretext to do just that.

[kenfrequed]

92. "Fiscal Cliff"

I wouldn't use that term. It sounds like a term pulled from the fever dreams of Frank Luntz. Yes, it does cut into benefits a bit but it also kills the Bush tax cuts and cuts into defense considerably.

I hate that it seems to be doing this but I think it is contingent on the GOP to meet us halfway and they have shown absolutely no intention on doing so. Therefore I am Not in favor of some "grand bargain" that gives them more and us less than what vaulting off the "fiscal cliff" would.

[Egalitarian Thug]

172. There is no cliff, this is just another another cap resolution dressed u pto scare people that don't

pay attention or understand to what is going on.

[fasttense]

40. Obama's Grand Bargain could end up being Obama's Grand Destruction

if he reduces the Social Security benefits we working people have paid for twice. We Baby Boomers paid for our parent's Social Security and we paid for own Social Security (that's what is in the SS Trust Fund). The generation behind us ONLY have to pay for their own Social Security. So, we did our fair share and deserve our FULL benefits.

Remember when Obama was talking about playing with the inflation index on Social Security in order to reduce it (Chain-Inflation index I think)? He needs to be considering a better inflation adjustment that actually reflects what seniors really buy and spend on. Not a Grand Bargain that takes away what working people have paid for.

[eridani]

130. Gen X will be able to do pay as you go. Gen Y is another demographic lump like baby boomers

That will require building the trust fund up in advance again--which will be way easier if we scrap (or even just raise) the FICA cap.

[FiveGoodMen]

41. Amen.

Fight the enemy (the GOP).

[tosh]

43. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

48. Kick!

[avebury]

50. Ditto! nt

[hrmjustin]

53. rec.

[George II]

54. I must have missed it...on MY ballot were Romney, Obama, and 2 or 3 minor candidates....

...I didn't see "Grand Bargain" anywhere, did you?

Listen, in politics as well as most other aspects of life, one can't get 100% of what one wants. Period.

I would much rather see 80% of my objectives enacted and 20% of "their" objectives enacted instead of what we've had for the last four years or so - 0% of ANYBODY'S objectives enacted. If either side is going to be totally intransigent, then nothing will be accomplished and we'll be arguing the same stuff in November 2016.

[emulatorloo]

56. There is not going to be a "Grand Bargain"

[Dragonfli]

74. According to third way position papers it is largely a done deal

http://www.thirdway.org/publications/609
According to this right wing think tank President Obama wants to cut $2.50 in benefits for every dollar of increases in revenue. Read it and explain why they claim to speak for the president on this!

"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 their so called six facts)


They also claim that we cut entitlements or SOMEHOW the general budget will not have money for programs like infrastructure.

They lie further about entitlements somehow being part of the budget here
http://www.thirdway.org/publications/564

"Public investments and entitlements are on a collision course.

Since the 1960s, LBJ’s Great Society and JFK’s New Frontier have competed for federal dollars. And as the cost of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security has skyrocketed, we’ve spent less and less of our budget educating kids, building roads, and curing disease.

In this report, we argue that the only way for Democrats to save progressive priorities like NASA, highway funding, and clean energy research is to reform entitlements. The lame duck offers Congress a “Now or Never” chance to set the terms of a budget deal that saves money on entitlements, raises revenue, and protects investments. And the heart of the Democratic brand is depending on it."

If I had time to post more, I could fill several pages with more shite like this, in all these memos and position papers they name the President as holding their position, you should set them straight or at least admit the push is on.

[hifiguy]

57. Nor did I.

The POTUS must make it abundantly clear to the Repigs that HE won and THEY lost, big time, and act accordingly.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. My vote was to keep Romney from burning this country to the ground. President can do whatever he

feels is necessary, and he has earned at least the benefit of the doubt.

I trust him to do the right thing going forward, even if it smells like a compromise at first blush.

[rwsanders]

65. I don't think there would have been as many republicans voted into congress in 2010...

If the democrats would have moved forward with some real direction for the country.
So now they get another chance, some real progressive tax reform, reduce military spending, and end the wars.

http://www.truemajority.org/fun/ (the oreo video explains it so well even a republican could understand it enough to pretend it is wrong).

[lark]

66. I did not vote for a grand capitulation either.

But I'm not so nice as to pretend that I don't think that Obama will betray us on this, he already tried to do that once. Candidate Obama is a great person and I agree with him on almost everything. President Obama is a totally different person who showed no real backbone, no real convictions, his first term and was willing to negotiate with terrorists (Repugs) and totally cave to their demands, even using their talking points about tax cuts for rich. He knows damn well this does not create jobs, yet he used those exact words. Ugh. I am really hoping we get a different president this time, one who stands for Democratic ideals and doesn't cave, but I'm not holding my breath. If he goes too far, though, he will destroy the progressive movement and the Democratic party for decades to come. If he agrees to any privatization, if he doesn't agree to increase the amt. of income that SSI applies to, he will be hailed by the right and destoy the Democratic party. That's why the Repugs want him to do this so badly. They can't win due to demographics, but if Obama pisses off the working class badly enough, they are set for the future. Their rich friends will be even richer and the rest a lot more poor - exactly what they want to accomplish. Just hope Obama cares more about doing what's right than being praised to the heavens. I just don't trust him after the backstabbing in the first term. Hope he proves me wrong.

[WillyT]

67. Nor Did I !!!

& Rec !!!

[AzDar]

68. K & R

[woo me with science]

69. Hear hear.

[tblue]

70. I tried to vote against it.

By voting for Obama, it was the closest I could get. Hear hear! Great post! ENOUGH!

[southmost]

71. better not happen

[Divine Discontent]

72. hear hear! and your 'note' shouldn't be necessary, yet sadly is to stop any negative comments back

[michigandem58]

75. But you voted for a guy that you knew would seek such a bargain

Primarily because he has to, and he's pretty good at it. Our victory was not absolute. It's still divided government. Freaking out over a "bargain" is disingenuous.

[cthulu2016]

80. A deficit reduction deal, yes. A 'grand bargain' involving entitlements, no.

[michigandem58]

108. I don't think his rhetoric has changed dramatically

since the election. He hasn't indicated anything since the election that he didn't before. Correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't see how anyone can be surprised by his overtures.

[Carolina]

76. Neither did I

Why bargain with FAUX bubble people who hate Obama and the new, diverse America

[avaistheone1]

77. Nor did our household.

F- the Grand Bargain!

[treestar]

78. You only vote for people to hold offices

Unless in California or other states, there are no ballot initiatives. You vote for who it is you want to handle the office.

[cthulu2016]

82. And then, as the 1st Amendment provides, you tell them what you were voting for

And that is or is not influential.

The OP is as much a part of the overarching political process as voting is.

[treestar]

142. 60 million people voted for the President

None of us can expect him to be our individual puppet. It's reality. We voted for this individual to exercise the powers of that office - that goes for everyone we vote for, Senators, Congress, Governors, etc. The OP is no more important than I am.

[grammiepammie]

79. Grand Bargain

Can we at least wait until we hear some substance before we start freaking out!!!! Our President told us that there might be things that we might not like but at least wait and see.

[cthulu2016]

84. Here in America...

we have opinions before the government tells us what it plans to do, and we express them in hopes that those opinions may, in aggregate, shape what the government plans.

So no, thank you, we do not "wait for details" before summoning the temerity to say what our priorities are.

I don't need to know what the President has planned to know what my values are because I do not derive my values from the President.

[dchill]

81. K & R

[Jersey Devil]

83. Yeah, let's all start freaking out over hypotheticals

Sorry, but life is too short to add a few more grey hairs or points to my blood pressure worrying about things that do not exist and may never exist. If someone starts a fire I certainly will help put it out but I am not going to run from room to room looking for imaginary sparks.

[cthulu2016]

85. Your world would be nothing but ashes

I hope the rest of us don't have to live in it.

Prevention is 99.9% of fire safety.

[Jersey Devil]

86. I also don't look for bogeymen under my bed

You sound like the type of person who runs out and buys 2 gallons of milk and 4 loaves of bread every time a snowstorm is forecast.

[krawhitham]

87. I miss unrec

[glinda]

88. K & R n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

90. You're nothing but a troll. Just the other day, Obama

came out and said that keeping entitlements intact was a precondition for a deal with the Republicans.

What's that you say... his only precondition is that the wealthy go back to the pre-Bush tax rates, where they'd still paying a far-lower percentage of their income in taxes than does America's middle class?

Interesting.

Never mind then. I withdraw my accusation.

[Liberalynn]

94. Neither did I

I just tried to write to Schumer about his appearance on CSPAN today since he is my Senator but it kept telling me I didn't have my email listed and I did.

I will try again tomorrow or call.

[Evergreen Emerald]

98. I did not vote for the grand bargain

Either. Hey Mr. President, are you listening?

[ballaratocker]

100. What is actually being said?

If Obama gets clowned by the Republicans in this term, it will be disheartening to say the least. I think he knows better now... I HOPE he knows better by now!

[humbled_opinion]

101. You have a point but

You are wearing your pollyanna shades if you think that Obama + some congressional Democrats won't cut entitlements. The right has won on the talking point that entitlement spending is what has put the debt on unsustainable path to insolvency. We can try and try we should but it's only a matter of time before our leaders cave.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

102. Absolutely agreed.

I hope I don't get burned again.

[Nye Bevan]

106. The people elected a Democratic President and a Republican Congress.

Without bipartisan bargaining, nothing will get done.

[sabrina 1]

107. Then let them bargain with the Military Budget which is destroying this country

and most of the trillions spent are never accounted for.

But SS had and has nothing to do with the Deficit. Wars, Bush tax cuts, those are some of the culprits, including our obscene Military budget, so let them focus on the actual causes if they are really serious about this issue.

Frankly there is no problem reducing the Deficit. So all these games they are playing do not hide the real goal, to privatize Public funds while continuing to direct huge amounts of money into the hands of the already far too wealthy minority in this country.

Growth is what we need, not Austerity anyhow. We see what those policies have done in Europe. They have turned once first world countries into third world countries, but they HAVE cut their Social Programs, which is one of the main, and so transparent dreams of the far right for decades. It's up to Dems to stop them, period.

[woo me with science]

112. "It is up to Dems to stop them, period."

Exactly. You do not bargain and accept compromise on things that will be DAMAGING to the country, just for the sake of compromise.

Democrats have a moral and ethical responsibility to do everything possible to block malignant policies and to insist on policies that will begin to fix the mess we are in.

[cui bono]

114. But they VOTED for a Democratic Congress.

Gerrymandering screwed us.

[Nye Bevan]

120. They gerrymandering is horrible, and both sides have engaged in it.

I would strongly support mandatory, non-partisan boundary commissions that establish districts purely based upon geographic factors and population clusters.

[cthulu2016]

144. Amen to that

[sabrina 1]

125. Btw, the people did not elect a Republican Congress. That is Republican math you're

using there.

Republicans lost 8, maybe 9 seats in Congress and it was only through Gerrymandering that they did not lost more, THIS time.

They lost three seats in the Senate and they lost the WH.

Iow, the were trashed. We won, they lost. We have the momentum and if we do not use it this time, the effects on the Dem Party will be monumentally bad. People held their noses this time to vote against Republicans, but they did not trust Dems the way they used to. That is why Unions and other Dem Organizations along with SS advocacy groups formed a huge coalition even as the voted for Dems, because this time they were not willing to trust them.

If they do not step up to the plate this time, I can see huge coalitions across party lines, and maybe a complete rejection of both parties, with more candidates running as Independents. Iow, this is probably the last chance for Dems to stand up for Dem principles.

[SCALA13]

143. I believe this to be true

since a lot of voters were able to see that the Republicans of the 2010 Congress, were full of anit-bipartisan, disgusted of thier antics during the debt crises,we were able to cast them as the party of "NO".

By using this rehetoric are we no better then they were.To comprise, is to compromise ones beliefs for the greater good, I believe.

What I think what should be done is to negotiate onces more, though I believe it will be harder,Obama now has the momentum.It is true that he was way to nice to the republicans last time,so he needs to study the LBJ art of persuasion,arm bending and no holds bar smackdown; its how LBJ was able to pass legislation even with hard core conservatives within his own party.

Social Security should be left off the table, not just as a symbolic move, but since there is really nothing wrong with, at least maby 50 or 60 years from now.

Everything else, we will have to play ball with the republicans.

[Angry Dragon]

109. kick

[limpyhobbler]

110. Obama should punt this to the next Congress where Dems are a bit stronger.

That said, I think Medicare and Medicaid will be the targets.

[cui bono]

113. Nor did I.

We really need to organize protests to let Obama and the legislature know that we do not want them to touch SS or Medicare.

[TM99]

115. I am a conservative Democrat

and I did not vote for a 'grand bargain' either.

I want to preserve the tradition of moderate social security and medical care for those retirees who have already paid into and generations like my own that have been paying into our 'entitlement' as well for decades now.

We do need to cut that deficit, and that is best done by raising taxes to at least the Clinton 1990 levels on those making about $150,000 and by making cuts to the pig at the trough that is the massive military industrial complex.

[Overseas]

116. We voted for NO CUTS to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. NO CUTS.

We voted to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

We voted to Stop Giving All The Benefits to the Top Ten Percent.

[agent46]

117. I'm not sure

why anybody might believe that Obama will suddenly go left and fight the progressive fight. He's far more likely to return to his corporatist-lite compromiser and deal maker stance. I see no reason why he would suddenly change. Obama is not a liberal and the GPO is now making small conciliatory noises in order to remain relevant. They seem ripe for making deals.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

124. You're not sure "why anybody might believe that Obama will suddenly go left"? The answer, I suggest

is due, in part, to his demeanor.

He doesn't openly show contempt for liberals and progressives. He doesn't engage in name calling and has never had to apologize for calling liberals "fucking retarded," nor has he ever been known to denigrate liberals and progressives as being "purists."

Others may do that, but he doesn't.

[agent46]

127. That's because

Obama is a gentleman not because he's any kind of Liberal. Imo.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

129. I agree with your second part, but the first part gives me a reason to pause.

Imho, I think the answer is that he is smarter than Rahm Emanuel, people like him, and those who want to express their contempt of liberals and progressives (as some do on this board) by calling them "purists."

When he is working towards his third-way goals, he sees no reason to openly insult others. Doing so would simply be irrelevant to his goals.

[KoKo]

118. I pushed mysellf to vote for Obama again & my worry was because of the "Grand Bargain" he might do.

I guess there were not enough of us that swung the vote for him that he cares about, though.

It's what it is that he might think so little of us who got out there and voted for him. The Demographics for us might not be large enough that his pollsters can quatify...so ...therefore...we are to small as the "fence sitters" that Rahm Emmanuel told him to forget about.



And, yes...the fear that Romney would be "worse."

[democrattotheend]

119. I did, sort of

I don't like what the Republicans want to do with Social Security and Medicare but I also think something needs to be done if we want to preserve these programs in the long term. I'm in my late 20's and not even the most optimistic projections say that they will be there for me at the current rates. Cuts are going to have to be made at some point, and I would rather have it happen now when we have a Democratic president and Senate who can push a better solution than if it were left up to the Republicans. I read the other day that Obama is open to compromise but wants to make sure that any cuts don't hit the poorest beneficiaries of SS and Medicare, and I think that is the right approach. I would rather see my fairly well-off grandfather have his social security checks shrink a little bit than see cuts to food stamps or FEMA or other important programs. If we don't curb entitlement (and defense) spending there will be less and less available in the budget for other programs in the future that are considered "discretionary".

[eridani]

131. That is right wing talking point horseshit--that same damned garbage that I first heard in college--

--back in 1965. Cuts will never have to be made, period. However, changes in the initial benefits calculation system could definitely shift more money to lower income people and less to higher income people. That's exactly what happens now, but more skewing toward lower income people could definitely be beneficial.

People with other sources of income besides SocSec will find that almost all of their benefits are taxed. People who get the maximum benefit of ~$32K are about 1% of recipients--and they pay much more money into the system than what they get out anyway.

[lonestarnot]

121. K & R!

[randome]

123. You voted for a representative to make decisions for you.

That's how a Democracy works. I don't recall 'No Grand Bargain' running for President.

[argiel1234]

126. Unfortunately we probably will

I continue to read here that Obama must compromise with racists and greedy sociopathic repukes, and that there is nothing we can do about it so we must accept it.

Now, how much more shit are people willing to swallow is the pertinent question.

And the answer seems to be quite a bit more shit

[agent46]

128. No matter

who gets the WH seat, the corporatist agenda is now the paradigm of the land. It will continue barring some massive intervention. Imo.

[BainsBane]

132. The President campaigned on reaching a debt reduction deal

So why should you be surprised he wants to do that now? If Obama doesn't do it now, the Republicans will do it later and the results will be much worse. We must put in place a plan to pay down the debt.

[TheKentuckian]

137. Let the tax cuts expire and the ill advised sequester the same folks cheered kick in.

The unwillingness to do nothing and do the best thing is maddening and all it is doing is making matters worse on our watch.

Apparently, the mission of some folks is to have Democrats dismantle everything we have built under TeaPubliKlan supervision.

"Grand Bargain" folks will reinvigorate the TeaPubliKlans and take a hit on our party and no amount of heckling or banning folks from boards will fix it.

Never does it even cross poll watching, belt way addled folk's minds that doing things that damage the social contract, even to win tactical battles is bad governance and disaster politics.

You want to win elections? Don't do stupid and wicked things that absolutely screw the people in some idiotic game.

[BainsBane]

138. How does it help for everyone's taxes to go up?

Including the payroll tax?

[rudycantfail]

148. Debt reduction.

It was what your previous post was about.

[BainsBane]

155. Not true

taxes on lower and middle income Americans suppress spending, which results in slower economic growth, lower employment, and higher debt.

[rudycantfail]

156. We are talking about Bush's tax cut

which was disproportionately weighted toward the wealthy (surprise!). Tax breaks for the middle and lower income is small as would be the effect of allowing them to expire.

Are you a Bush and Cheney lover?

[BainsBane]

157. The fiscal cliff includes many taxes

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. It includes the payroll tax and tax increases on middle and lower income Americans. The House needs to pass the Senate bill to prevent those taxes from increasing.

[rudycantfail]

161. Let the so-called fiscal cliff, a boogyman created by both parties, happen.

Put up a solid middle class tax bill and get the Republicans on the record on their vote.

[BainsBane]

162. Such a bill has already been passed by the senate

I fail to see why you are so anxious to go off the cliff. The House should pass the Senate bill now.

[rudycantfail]

165. Please stop with the cliff, cliff, cliff, off the cliff nonsense.

It's probably more like a slope that may result in a mild recession if allowed to go on very long. But it shouldn't even exist. It was created by the two parties in another chapter of the shock doctrine. A mild recession could be headed off by a good lower and middle income tax break as I've said. And this could be attempted again in early 2013 if the Republicans don't cave this time. Remember, they are on the canvas right now, a place they didn't think they'd be when they originally conjured up this boogyman. Make them squirm. For once, the Republicans will cave and we won't have to sacrifice SS and medicare to make it happen.

[BainsBane]

171. I think that is the likely result

but what bothers me is that people are advocating for going over the cliff as though it is a goal in itself. Why? Perhaps because Lawrence O'Donnell promotes it, but many seem to have no idea of what provisions and taxes change. The point is to get taxes raised on the upper 2%, and the more time lapses the weaker the President's bargaining position is. Moreover, If the government reverts to Clinton taxation on everyone, that means the poorest families will lose 17% more of their paychecks. What do you think that will do to their ability to procure food and shelter?

[rudycantfail]

149. Ending the payroll tax holiday

decouples SS from the debt.

[BainsBane]

154. It is estimated that ending that holiday

could cost 2-4% in GDP. That is the most important cut because it is entirely directed at incomes below $110,000, and is income spent, which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.

[rudycantfail]

158. Sell that Kudlow CNBC shit somewhere else.

The payroll tax holiday couples SS with the national debt, which is its purpose, and I think you know that. What's important now is protecting SS from shyster propagandists.

[BainsBane]

159. It isn't Kudlow shit

It is demand-side economics. And the two issues aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible to make a deal on taxes without bringing SS into the discussion. I'm talking about taxes on the poor and middle class. Do you know what payroll taxes are? The poorest Americans will see their taxes go up 7%, while some who do not currently pay taxes will end up with a 17% increase if we go off the cliff. I'm in the 25% bracket, so my taxes will go up 5% (3 points in marginal rates and 2 points in payroll taxes). That payroll tax holiday puts money in the pockets of the lowest income, working Americans. How do you suppose the poorest Americans are going to afford food when their paychecks are 17% lower?

[rudycantfail]

164. "It is demand-side economics"

But in this thread you've been advocating supply-side economics. You said, "How does it help for everyone's taxes to go up?" In other words, if everyone's taxes go down, it helps the economy. Classic supply side.

Demand-side economics is when you keep interest rates low, and they're currently as low as they can go and you stimulate the economy by spending on infrastructure, which Obama did a weak job of, and the real reason we've had such a tepid recovery.

[BainsBane]

168. NO

I have specifically talked about taxes on lower incomes, which is demand side. People with lower incomes spend their income, which creates demand and stimulates the economy. It is the opposite of cutting taxes on the rich and hoping for it to trickle down. If you really think families of five making $25 k a year should pay an additional 17% in taxes on top of the payroll taxes they already pay, you are either indifferent to or not thinking about the hardships those families face procuring basic food and shelter.

The fiscal cliff is not simply an exercise in political posturing. It is about people's lives. I don't know if the government will automatically deduct higher taxes as of Jan. 1, but if that is the case it will create SEVERE hardship for the poorest working Americans.

[cthulu2016]

178. That is not supply-side, it is basic Keynes

There is no intrinsic difference between tax cuts and government spending in their effect on stimulating or contracting economic activity and growth.

The differences are entirely practical—effects of who is taxed and/or what the spending is.

The payroll tax holiday is by far the most stimulative tax cut we have ever seen, dollar for dollar. It is economically the same as handing every working person a few bucks a week on the side which is the ultimate in efficacious stimulus spending. A small sum is not typically saved. It is spent.

And raising taxes does, in fact, contract the economy. The contractionary effect of tax hikes for the rich is less than the contractionary effect of tax hikes for the non-rich, but less doesn't mean zero. It is less.

Supply-side is to take all of that and add a plainly false assumption that the most stimulative fiscal policy is tax cuts for the rich. In reality that is the least stimulative. So supply-side is wrong.

But supply-side is no more than that theory that tax cuts for the rich are the best thing for the economy.

The idea that tax cuts, even for the rich, are stimulative is not supply side, it is just Keynes, and one of those theories that has been confirmed so often in the real world that we can treat it as fact.

[BainsBane]

160. How can you possibly think Kudlow and his type give a damn about payroll taxes?

They only affect incomes up to $110k. Romney ran on ending that payroll tax holiday that the President fought for, and some have said that more than anything else has helped economic recovery.

[rudycantfail]

163. Coupling SS with the debt via payroll tax holiday

weakens SS by making it a contributor to the national debt. Kudlow and his fellow reptiles have been trying to undermine SS for decades. They want that money.

[BainsBane]

173. The payroll tax holiday is Obama's

in fact he has proposed doubling it. Republicans advocate for its repeal. Those are the facts. I never watch Kudlow, but since he's a right winger I can only assume he agrees with Romney on ending the holiday.

I do not like being accused of being a right winger because you haven't bothered to read my post carefully enough.

[theaocp]

150. Congress can introduce a bill in January

to cut taxes for 98% of Americans and force the Republicans to vote against it. It's called balls and about time for the Dems to grow some. I won't hold my breath.

[TheKentuckian]

167. Helps more than robbing my Social Security and adding years of desperate prayer

to make it to Medicare.

[Fearless]

134. 100% End of story.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

139. "the deficit is largely a product of low economic growth"

Actually it's the result of investors fleeing the Stock Market after the crash and running to the safety of the bond market. Republicans want those investors to return to Wall Street where they can be ripped off. That's why they bad mouth bonds, calling them "IOUs" and they keep saying the government is broke.

Also, of course, Republicans spent us out of house and home on bridges to nowhere, a drug benefit that was payolla to Big Pharma, two wars that were money pits on purpose to the well connected and tax cuts for the rich which cost more than the wars.

[mother earth]

140. NO GRAND BARGAIN!

[quantass]

152. THUMBS UP

[Puzzledtraveller]

153. But you are going to get one

Seriously, I support the president but I never had any illusions that he would suddenly in his 2nd term become more entrenched. He wants a positive legacy to be sure as did Clinton and he signed WELFARE REFORM!!!!

[Taverner]

166. Relax...if we can get the GOP to bargain, we might actually get something done

[Egalitarian Thug]

169. Bargain with what to get what done? n/t

[jsr]

174. But, cat food builds character

[davidn3600]

176. No you did not. But America did.

The GOP has control of the House. So if you want to get anything done, they have to agree. It's just the way the government works.

America has always been one big grand compromise from day one. The Constitution itself is a compromise. It's not bias to any one ideology.

[Shilo]

179. I agree--- we did not nor ever will get rid of all or enough sitting Republicans so compromise

unfortunately is the only way