Buttigieg says Dems should focus on cutting the deficit

[bluewater]

Link to tweet

OK, roll back the Trump tax cuts... then what? That still leaves a huge deficit.

Cut military spending? Cut entitlements?

We need to hear some specifics, Pete. Platitudes and vague generalities will not suffice.

Details. Where are the details?

[SWBTATTReg]

1. Maybe the repugs should be doing this, eh? I know that Pete got good thoughts, but the ...

republicans did bring this on. Why should democrats fix all of the problems?

[guillaumeb]

2. No, the Democrats should let the voters know that the GOP ran up the debt and deficit.

Any talk of cutting the deficit invites the standard GOP response about cutting the social safety net.

[squirecam]

3. It takes a woman with a plan.

Amy has one.

A Dedicated Fund for Deficit Reduction and Stimulus

To help achieve her debt reduction goals and also finance economic stimulus when needed, Senator Klobuchar proposes to establish a new dedicated fund “to tackle U.S. debt and protect our economy.” During normal economic times, new revenue increases or cost savings dedicated to the fund would go toward deficit reduction. During economic downturns, the fund would automatically be tapped to increase funding for government programs that provide stimulus to the economy, such as “infrastructure spending, increased unemployment and nutrition assistance, and [increasing the] federal share of Medicaid and CHIP spending.”

The stimulus component of this plan would help discretionary fiscal policy act more like automatic stabilizers – something we propose in our Break Glass Here plan and highlighted in the Brookings Institution book Recession Ready.

Senator Klobuchar plans to “initially seed the fund" with $300 billion from raising the corporate tax rate and eliminating duplicative government spending. As we understand the policy, the majority of these funds would come from raising the corporate tax rate by 2 percent, which, on top of the four percentage point increase she proposes as part of infrastructure plan, would lift it from 21 percent to 27 percent. This would generate a little more than $200 billion over a decade, leaving spending reforms to cover the remainder of the seed money. Senator Klobuchar emphasizes that the $300 billion is simply a down payment and that further budgetary savings would be dedicated to the fund over time.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/amy-klobuchars-plan-govern-fiscal-responsibility

[jalan48]

4. LOL-The Republicans run up the deficit when they are in power then it's the Democrat's

responsibility to cut it when we are in power. In other words, no new or expanded social programs for the citizens when the Democrats are in power. If I didn't know any better I would think this dog and pony show is intentional.

[PatrickforO]

5. Focusing on the deficit is a tricky thing. That's what brought us sequestration during

Obama's term.

If you're going to talk sound fiscal policy, then you're going to have to advocate 1) a repeal of all Republican tax cuts since Reagan that are still in effect, and 2) a revision of the tax code so it redistributes wealth away from the super-rich to strengthen the middle class and alleviate the grinding poverty of the lowest socioeconomic classes.

And, this will also entail some systematic and progressive cuts to the military budget. We can't go too fast on that because so many Americans get their paychecks from working in the defense industry, so we have to have a plan to retool and retrain around more gradual cuts.

If those are the kinds of things you want to do, Pete, then I'm with you. But if you say one word about cutting Social Security or Medicare, or raising the retirement age, you've lost me.

You also need to be cognizant of the rest of the social safety nets. You get rid of those like the oligarchs want and people will starve during the next downturn. Even now, around forty million Americans struggle with hunger each month, and many of these are working poor.

[squirecam]

6. You can raise the cap on Medicare taxes.

Nt

[PatrickforO]

24. Yes, totally, and also on the Social Security payroll tax.

Those are good, and also Bernie's idea about taxing trades on Wall Street. Oh, they are fighting that tooth and nail, but all it will do is have a minuscule effect on the arbitrageurs and the arbitrage 'bots that pull the trigger on a trade when a stock's price is up a tenth or less.

And capital gains could be taxed at regular income rates.

And so on.

Realistically, though, those things would be unpopular unless we had a real payoff for them, like single payer healthcare. Having spoken to many people from other nations, I can tell you that people generally don't care how much income tax they pay if the benefits are there. I'm thinking specifically of a Danish friend I have.

Get him going on healthcare and free college and he'll tell you all about why Danes are generally happy in spite of the climate. The state pays for healthcare cradle to grave, and for education up to and including graduate school. The Danes aren't perfect by a long shot, but the people are healthier, live longer, have lower infant mortality and MUCH LESS stress.

I don't know how our economy got so brutal, but it did. Maybe because we've never had a real labor party. Every American is going to eventually become a millionaire, don't you know...

[TwilightZone]

7. From a quick search:

His health plan would lower the deficit $450 billion, according to one study.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/02/09/unlike-rivals-buttigieg-health-plan-reduces-deficit-and-covers-30m/#42e44e5c7f65

[bluewater]

9. Pete's Heath Care plan "saves money" By offering less coverage. Much less. 10x less.

It has LESS Cost Reduction, LESS Direct Offsets and LESS Additional offsets than either Sanders or Warren's plan.

The details of The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis shows that in the very first page:

http://www.crfb.org/sites/default/files/Primary_Care_Estimating_Leading_Democratic_Candidates_Health_Plans.pdf

The only reason the Buttigieg Plan "saves money" is by offering 10x less coverage and services!

That is shown clearly in that table also.

So, Pete is pushing an austerity measure, not a health insurance plan that meets the coverage Americans need.



There is no free lunch. If Pete has a plan that costs 10 times less than other candidates, there is one simply reason why... it does less.

[TwilightZone]

10. If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

Or, perhaps more accurately, if you weren't going to accept any answer regardless, why bother asking?

Oh, right.

[bluewater]

13. To get DETAILS from Pete. More details would be greatly appreciated.

Looking at the DETAILS of his Health Care plan showed it only "saved money" by offering 10x less coverage than other health plans.

What other austerity measures is he advocating to "reduce the deficit"?

[FreeState]

15. Here's a ton of details

https://peteforamerica.com/a-new-era-for-health/

Good reading too!

Here is his white paper on it as well:

https://storage.googleapis.com/pfa-webapp/documents/MFAWWI_white_paper_FINAL.pdf

[bluewater]

16. We already saw an analysis of his health care plan, it only saved money by offering less coverage.

Pete's Heath Care plan "saves money" By offering less coverage. Much less. 10x less.

Here is what we see from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget think tank analysis of his plan:

It has LESS Cost Reduction, LESS Direct Offsets and LESS Additional offsets than either Sanders or Warren's plan.

The details of The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis shows that in the very first page:

http://www.crfb.org/sites/default/files/Primary_Care_Estimating_Leading_Democratic_Candidates_Health_Plans.pdf

The only reason the Buttigieg Plan "saves money" is by offering 10x less coverage and services!

That is shown clearly in that table also.

So, Pete is pushing an austerity measure, not a health insurance plan that meets the coverage Americans need.

So, serious question... what are Pete's other plans to reduce the deficit?


.

[FreeState]

21. This is actually why I love Pete's campaign

A large part of his campaign method has been involving everyone with shared values to talk about the issues and then roll out the policy. He believes, and I agree, that this way people are included in policy at all levels. He is constantly releasing policies rather than rolling them out at once. His over arching tax policy will be released last as it is built on all others. My guess from watching him is he’s coming out with a deficit reduction policy/plan this week (he usually starts talking about an issue in the press first and then releases his plan shortly there after).

Pete is the only candidate that has shown how everything he is proposing will be paid for. Every white paper shows in detail how it will be paid for - he and Warren have fantastic policy pages compared to the rest of the candidates IMO.

Here is the list that leads to his white papers (all very detailed and comprehensive):

https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

[bluewater]

23. He doesn't seem to have a comprehensive plan on Deficit Reduction listed there.

Would you be able to provide a link to one?

This deficit reduction issue has struck a nerve with me, I must be honest. Too many politicians grandstand on the issue and either have no real plans or just plan to cut entitlements and benefits for average working families..

We have seen that the analysis Of Pete's health Care Plan only "saved money" by having 10x less coverage than Warren's or Sanders' plans.

Pete's Health Care plan has LESS Cost Reduction, LESS Direct Offsets and LESS Additional offsets than either Sanders or Warren's plan.

The details of The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis shows that in the very first page:

http://www.crfb.org/sites/default/files/Primary_Care_Estimating_Leading_Democratic_Candidates_Health_Plans.pdf

That same analysis table clearly showed that Pete's health Care plan has 10x LESS coverage too. It's right there in that first table.



And, not to be argumentative, but for the record I disagree when you say :

Pete is the only candidate that has shown how everything he is proposing will be paid for.

[tishaLA]

8. Ezra Klein with the correct take

Link to tweet

[bluewater]

11. +1000

[BusyBeingBest]

25. Yup.

[BeyondGeography]

12. This again?

[bluewater]

14. What? You don't like a deficit hawk?

[squirecam]

17. There is nothing wrong

With wanting to pay down the debt and not leave it for the children and grandchildren to pay for.

[bluewater]

19. The only thing wrong is not providing details while espousing a vague generality.

Seriously, I would love to hear all of Pete's plans to reduce the deficit.

Has he provided anything approaching a comprehensive plan?

He held Warren responsible for giving details, he should be held to the same standard.

[squirecam]

20. Amy has a plan

Which I posted above.

[bluewater]

22. What's Pete's Deficit Reduction plan?

Let's not let Pete espouse generalities with little or no details. He just stressed how Democrats should focus on cutting the deficit.

After all, why should only the women candidates have to present detailed plans?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[AngelicaHora]

18. Thank you Pete

The deficit is terrifying, more and more of our budget goes towards interest. Obama's achievements in reducing the annual deficit are somehow not known to the general public. Republicans are the ones who deserve the reputation of being fiscally irresponsible.

[cherryinpa]

26. Deficit is fine

As long as it is paid for.

The GOP believes in giving money back to the rich.

Pete in wrong party if he feels the solution is austerity.

Right approach is to say we need to increase taxes on wealthy to ensure deficit doesnt go out of control.

This is what Biden / Warren / Amy are saying and have well though out programs.

Pete going too much on Republican talking points on this, won't win him much support.

Rich must pay now.

[LonePirate]

27. No wonder Bernie's supporters were chanting Wall Stree Pete last night.

[randr]

28. Repugs will respond with drastic cuts

to all programs other than military

[democrank]

29. I agree with Pete Buttigieg on this.

It wouldn’t be a bad idea for our leaders to give a crash course on our deficit, the national debt, the interest paid, who we owe money to, etc.

Our local paper has a daily front page section on how much each American owes. The numbers are truly staggering and the interest is downright scary. We can do better than this, particularly by ending these ever-present tax cuts for billionaires and these free rides for so many corporations.