Thursday, January 24, 2013

Huffington Post Comments, 1/23/2013

This week I ask what the democratic plan to balance the budget is.  Do you suppose that I got an answer?

Rosalee Harris
The GOP IS Ridiculous ergo anything that comes from them will be ridiculous 
You wouldn't be one of those that first claims that everything your opponents say is ridiculous, and then complains about partisanship and gridlock, would you?  

Phed Up
No surprise here...the GOP doesn't believe in math, science or education!  
It sure is fun to insult your political opponents!

BTW, what's the democratic plan to balance the budget?  
Phed Up
Tax the Rich of course!  What's the GOP plan?  Starve Grandma and the poor? 
[my reply was moderated into oblivion, I responded that spending on entitlements is more than total revenues and gave the whitehouse's stats to prove it.  And I noted that you would need to double all taxes paid to balance the budget.]
The thing is, Republicans aren't really serious about these cuts. I mean they say they are, and some of the Tea Party types might even think they are, but they don't generally mean it.

If these guys didn't like it this way, the government would be smaller. There would be less spending.

But when you hear a career politician telling you government is the problem, obviously he's lying. That's like a shoe salesman telling you not to wear shoes.

So what's actually going on?

A long time ago, Republicans decided to flog Democrats as big-spending, big-government types. Largely because they didn't have anything else to complain about. This has gone on for decades, and now it's reached such a pitch that they almost have to do something about it for real.

But they know perfectly well what a disaster it would be if spending actually decreased. They know in addition what would happen to their big defense, energy, and similar contractors.

So instead we're seeing this weird strategic retreat. Republicans will back up a few yards from the precipice, then we'll see this entire kabuki played over again as they pretend-rush to the edge once more.

But they don't intend to go over.  
BTW, what's the democratic plan for balancing the budget?  
As far as I'm aware, they're more interested in getting the economy growing again.  
How do they plan to do that? With more subsidies to green energy companies that proceed to go bankrupt? Or by taxing the only people capable of hiring more?

At least you admit that they are not interested in balancing the budget. 
Why are you asking me these rhetorical questions?  You already have the answers lined up.  
Or rather the angry declamations, which is what passes for an argument in your head.  
So we've come to name calling and insults have we?

"How do the democrats plan to grow the economy," was not rhetorical.

Is there an answer?  
I already answered that.
But it's not even the important question.  It's just the one you think is important.
What matters now is growth.  If we stall the economy, the only way we can pay off our debts is by selling off our patrimony, as in Greece or Ireland.  Those countries may need another thirty years to recover.
We have the largest economy in the world.  We have a massive production capacity, if we choose to put it to work.  If we use the government to create the economic activity we need, as we have often done, or we can pretend it's never been done successfully before.
I'd rather repeat the approach that has led to our success in the past, than try what recently brought several European nations to ruin. 
"I already answered that."


I agree that growth is important, but we've tried stimulus, and we've tried cash for clunkers, and we've tried bailouts for GM, Chrysler and Wall Street. And all we have in return is at least 8% unemployment and pitiful growth.

I'll admit that the democratic policies have worked if by 2016 unemployment is less than, say, 6% and we haven't defaulted.

Will you admit that democratic policies haven't worked if unemployment is still over 7% in 2016 or we default?
 For the thousandth time...We spend 41% of the world's defense expenditures, more than the next 10 countries combined. If we cut the defense budget by 50%, we'd still outspend everyone. We could take those savings, invest them in our decrepit infrastructure, and create new jobs. 
National defense spending is $700 billion per year.

The smallest budget deficit under Obama was in 2010 at $1.293 trillion.

The biggest deficit under W was in 2008 at about $450 billion.

We could eliminate 100% of defense spending and the deficit would still be bigger than any of the deficits under W. tables 1.1 and 3.1 
So what's the democrats plan, they haven't had one in almost 4 years. At least the Republicans are trying. You can't believe the do nothing democrats.  
Why Does it Seem So Hard
Deflection is an interesting way to defend the GOP 
The article in question says the republican plan is bad, so where's the democratic alternative?

Whenever the republicans come up with a plan the democrats attack it and insult republicans for not spending more.

Where is the democratic plan? At least the republicans have a plan.  
Why Does it Seem So Hard
The articvle is about the GOP planning to do in 10 years what Ryan could not do in 30 years.

An article about the DEMs would be about the DEMs. Or is it important that you ignore the topic and change it to discuss another point?

I suppose it must be really difficult to defend the GOP 'fantasy' and so what else can you do but deflect?

I did notice you suggested that a plan that is mathematically impossible is still a plan but I would hardly call that a compelling endorsement of an impossibility.

BTW are you suggesting that Ryan's budget(s) that increase taxes on the middle class, give tax cuts to the wealthy and increase the debt is something the DEMs would consider? The Senate told the House before they submitted those budgets that it would not pass. But the GOP was more than happy to spend tax payer money so that you would have a nice talking point today! THank the GOP for spending the tax payer money just so you could make your point today.  
[copy and paste error: I cannot find the page again, I'm not getting email notifications about comment replies, and many of mine were moderated into oblivion.]


I remember why I stopped doing this for a while: copy there, paste here, copy, paste, copy, paste, accidentally close a window, lose work, swear, wait for my comments to be moderated, notice that many disappear despite them being the same as those above, etc.


In any case, I asked about a half dozen people what the democratic plan to balance the budget and the only things approximating a response were:

"I already answered that." and "Tax the Rich of course!"

Does anyone have any idea about what the democratic plan is?

If we only tax the rich more, then the rate at which they must be taxed to balance the budget is greater than 100%.


  1. I think the Republican plan is to "grow ourselves out of debt" by invoking tax cuts to stimulate growth.

    I think the Democrat plan is to "grow ourselves out of debt" by diverting tax revenues to targeted growth areas, such as green energy and organic soy.

    To really understand these things, you have to get into the heads of progressives. They believe that the whole paradigm of modern life is incorrect. They feel that if the government invests in the more-correct stuff, like cleaning up the oceans and growing algae for fuel, then the world will start becoming a more-correct place. If you want to spend your money on an SUV, you're wrong. So if the auto-sector doesn't experience economic recovery, well that just serves them right for not inventing algae-eating cars. They want growth, but they only want growth in progressive industries like bio-fuel and iPads and micro-breweries and Trader Joe's. The other economic sectors are part of the problem, and probably owned and operated by Republican fringe groups...

    Leftism is a religion.

    1. I have lots of difficulty trying to understand how liberals think. My mind just doesn't work that way. I suppose its the same for them about what I think.

      Growing out of debt would be great, but where are the signs of growth? Aren't we at a point where we need to approximate a balanced budget soon, or reap the consequences shortly?