Figured this merits its own thread. LINK I believe we have a sensible, centrist approach in this plan - one that's difficult to attack on ideological grounds (unless you're truly opposed to tax rates that we "endured" just a few years ago and resulted in a balanced budget before the republicans broke the country), and one that asks sacrifice to be shared. I think it's a great start.
what are you talking about, those tax cuts and the effects of deficit financing two wars have finally trickled down to the poor, and we are just now beginning to see record employment!
In that case, it's probably a bad plan, because the likely outcome will be that Obama's sensible, centrist plan will define one extreme, Ryan's the other extreme, and there will be a compromise halfway (more or less) in between. Obama precompromised again.
So by what year is the deficit 0 and the debt paid out? Preemptive “Not soon-enough” we can do better!.
I'm hearing that you think that he should have proposed a radical leftist agenda in his budget, then prepared to have it pulled to the right in a long rancorous budget fight. That's certainly not his approach. Well he's staked out positions he won't compromise as well. And this whole "precompromise" idea is a little bit worn out at this point. Greenwald does a nice job explaining a point of view that I think only Chris M. has really espoused here. http://www.salon.com/news/budget_showdown/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/04/13/obama Perhaps Obama has communicated his real position, perhaps he has actually communicated something to the left of where he wants to end up. We just don't know. I do think he's a lot smarter at this than he gets credit for, and a lot less "lefty" than a lot of left-leaning pundits wish he was. To pose as his budget something leftist that asks for whackadoodle tax hikes and no spending cuts would have been political suicide leading into an election year in this climate. This is a sensible start, and isolates the right as extremists without the interests of ordinary Americans at heart. You can only assume he's "precompromising" if he ends up swallowing some horrible deal in the end. I don't think that will happen. We shall see.
Also note that this isn't the Democratic proposal, it's the Presidential proposal. There has already been criticism from Congressional Democrats that speaks directly to your point and states that the President's starting position is to the right of where they would be willing to support it. Let the tug of war begin.
Good point, Tom. I didn't really think about congressional democrats trying to go left of the prez here, but now that you mention it, it makes sense for them and for Obama.
GOP is already blatantly lying about Obama said on National TV. Pure bullshit. I wish they could all be tried for Perjury.
Of course it makes sense. There is no reason to think that Obama needs to position himself far to the left to end up in the middle. He has left himself some wiggle room, but the true rock 'em sock 'em negotiations are between the two parties in the congress.
Is called spin, what did you expect, for them to say oh shit they got us, this is the best plan ever. We are not worthy! We are not worthy!
They have to. Something like 80% of Americans are supportive of an increase of the tax rates on millionaires as a component of addressing the debt. The truth isn't going to sway any of those people. They have to lie.
You would think it would be higher, I mean are 20% of Americans millionaires? I also feel dumb, I did not know once a family makes over 250K per year they are millionaires. Shit ask me if my neighbor should pay higher taxes to help with the debt, and I say hell yes. Ask me if I should pay higher taxes, I'll say hell No! I kid, I kid! I think taxes should go up for us all, repeal the full Bush tax cut IMO.
Great article by Glen. He is slightly more cynical about the presidency than I am but he hits a lot of the substance right on the head.
Republicans are not averse to telling the truth. They only lie when they need to. And they really need to on the budget, because if you had a calm, neutral observer explaining who would gain and who would lose from the plans of Ryan and Obama, the public would greatly prefer Obama's plan. So the only way the Reeps have a chance politically is to bullshit. Note by the way how much more direct is Obama's commentary on this matter than is Ryan's. Obama gives details and said why. Ryan in contrast keeps his talk very high level about being serious and responsible for future generations. That's because Obama benefits the more that people know the details, whereas Ryan is hurt.
Honestly, I do think there are plenty of people with money who would not object to the Bush cuts expiring. They weren't complaining about their taxes in 1999 either.
I think the biggest, most contentious issue will be the tax cuts/tax increases. and that's an ideological issue, so you can expect the debate will be fierce. everything else they can eventually haggle out. the problem is that neither proposal tackles defense spending - by far the biggest chunk of our budget, so how much progress can really be made toward deficit reduction. all these issues that they are haggling over are on the periphery, and don't address the areas where the biggest cuts could be made.
No, not only in Washington. It's how the world works. It's called negotiation. If you want to sell your house for $500,000, you don't put it on the market for $500,000, you put it on the market for $600,000. If you're willing to spend $500K on a house, you offer $400K.
That's not true. I mean, if I'm a baseball player, and my team puts forward a contract extension offer, and my agent counters with a good plan, I'm firing that dumbass. You're right, time will tell.
without a stock market crash and reasonable house purchase and a household income of $250K (and not having 19 kids), wealth will accumulate rather quickly. Most of these folks, though technically millionaires, don't consider themselves to be 'millionaires.'
"In truth, Mr Obama’s speech today was less a blueprint of how to save America from fiscal ruin than a means to establish a stronger negotiating position. Until last week, Simpson-Bowles had represented the centre of the fiscal debate; it was the basis for the Gang of Six’s deliberations. Mr Ryan’s plan threatened to move the centre of debate significantly to the right. By staking out ground to the left of Simpson-Bowles, Mr Obama may succeed in moving the debate back to the centre." From the economist. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/04/americas_budget_fight
Gee, thanks for the tip. You should teach a class or something. Of course, if you want to sell your house for $500,000, you don't put it on the market for $1.2 million either.