Democrats solution to sequester, more spending.

[Freeper]

babylonsister (143,273 posts)

Dems to propose plan to replace sequester that contains $100 billion in stimulus spending


 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/12/budget-war-showcases-sharp-contrast-in-values-and-priorities/


Budget war showcases sharp contrast in values and priorities

Posted by Greg Sargent on March 12, 2013 at 1:40 pm



Tomorrow, Senate Democrats will propose a plan to replace the sequester that contains $100 billion in … stimulus spending.

Yep, you read that right. According to a source familiar with the proposal, Democrats will offer a plan tomorrow that does not simply cut the deficit amid mass unemployment. It takes steps to mitigate the damage the cuts are expected to do to the economy by spending to boost job creation and job training.

According to the source, the plan — which is being presented by Senate Budget Committee Chairperson Patty Murray to the Dem caucus today — replaces the whole sequester and includes a total of $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction, derived from a 50-50 split of cuts and revenues derived from closing tax loopholes. The spending cuts include $275 billion in cuts to health care spending (but no Medicare benefits cuts; the source says cuts would be focused on the provider side), another $200 billion in non-defense spending cuts, $240 billion in defense cuts, and $242 billion in reduced interest rates.

snip//

The contrast in values and priorities between the Dem approach and the new Ryan budget could not be more stark. As Ezra Klein details, the Ryan plan embodies a fundamental and deep transformation of the role of the federal government in maintaining the safety net and investing in education and infrastructure. It cuts deeply into spending on health care for the poor and would require a massive rollback of spending on some combination of a range of other programs, even as the top tax rate — on the rich — is slashed to 25 percent. Crucially, the Ryan budget employs scary language about long term debt Armageddon to justify slashing the safety net and doubling down on austerity at a time of mass unemployment and deeply sluggish growth. But as Ezra notes, the reality of our long term fiscal challenges just doesn’t justify such extreme measures. The Ryan plan isn’t really about deficits or debt. It’s about shrinking government, whatever harm is done to the poor and to the economy be damned.

The deficit hawks will scoff at the Senate Dem plan as “unserious.” But the Dem plan represents at least an attempt at some kind of compromise. The Ryan plan represents a continuing, unrepentant, wholesale commitment to the extreme worldview that got decisively repudiated in the last election. The Ryan proposal is really the one that deserves to be seen as marginal and deeply irresponsible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251293485

This is why we are in trouble, when the government is broke they think that more spending will fix it. 

Jackpine Radical (36,328 posts)
1. Good Gawd, where'd the Dems get such an idea?

FDR come through on the Ouija board or something?

If they can make this, or something close to it stick, I'll probably have to take back some of the mean things I've been saying about them.

 

Laelth (12,904 posts)
10. 50/50 cuts to increased revenues? That's about as centrist as you can get.

It's 50% insanity (cuts) and 50% sanity (increased revenues).

And, as a liberal, I am supposed to like this?

I don't. Not one bit. It looks like my team has already given away half the game. When negotiations start in the dead middle, there's only one way for the negotiations to go, and that direction does not lead to a better America for all.

I am not shouting for joy at the moment.

-Laelth

Why are you worried? When have the democrats, or the republicans (if you want me to be honest) ever cut spending?
This is just another shell game, the dems promise to cut spending if the repukes agree to raise taxes, if the repukes go along then the dems will spend even more then demand more taxes a month later. The cuts never come, but the tax hikes sure as hell do.

[Chris_]

Why do we need more stimulus spending?  We've spent the last one five times over.  Every time the Senate Democrats refuse to pass a budget and simply use the previous year's spending, we're paying for the same stimulus program from 2009 every year.

Idiots.

[thundley4]

Why do we need more stimulus spending?  We've spent the last one five times over.  Every time the Senate Democrats refuse to pass a budget and simply use the previous year's spending, we're paying for the same stimulus program from 2009 every year.

Idiots.

No one seems to be stressing that point in Washington.  Most people are unaware that the once and future stimulus is being spent every year.

[jukin]

1+1=POTATO.

"Am I telling you that we have to borrow and spend money to stop from going bankrupt, YES I am!"  Joe Biden (Economic & Shotgun Super Genius)

[Dori]

A 50% spending cut and a 50% tax increase?

Hmmmm, let me think.  If you add a negative to a positive of the same value you get zero. 1 - 1 = 0.

So for the bottom line, that doesn't look like it would move the needle.

What am I missing?

[67 Rover]

A 50% spending cut and a 50% tax increase?

Hmmmm, let me think.  If you add a negative to a positive of the same value you get zero. 1 - 1 = 0.

So for the bottom line, that doesn't look like it would move the needle.

What am I missing?

Missing?
Choomes and a lack of basic critical thinking skills would be a big help in trying to understand that DUmmie.

[JohnnyReb]

The democrat answer to every thing is always "More Money".

I smoke tobacco....WTH are those idiots in Washington smoking?

[NHSparky]

Whatdya mean we're broke!  We still got checks!!!

[FiddyBeowulf]

No one seems to be stressing that point in Washington.  Most people are unaware that the once and future stimulus is being spent every year.

To tell the truth, I did not realize that was happening. But since they have not passed a budget since 2009 and have been running on continuing resolutions I should have known. 
 

[RayRaytheSBS]

Whatdya mean we're broke!  We still got checks!!!

"Whatdya mean we're broke? I just printed more money"?

These idiots seem to think all we need to do is print more, cut nothing, and spend to stimulate the economy and everything will be okay.  It sounds like under-pants gnomes economics to me. 

[Freeper]

The DUmmies want the debt to get so big that there will be no other alternative than to tax the rich until they are as poor as the DUmmies are.
They constantly say they want tax brackets in the 90% range, they want to tax every dollar you manage to have at the end of your life and want to pass on to your family, they want to tax the rich based on their assets the wealth tax, and they want the government to take all that money and hand everything to the DUmmies. The DUmmies want to be the new 1%, but they don't want to be bothered to work to get there.

What these idiots don't understand is if we tax the rich into poverty all of us in the middle will be the next target. Anyone that works for a living will be expected to continue to fund the progressive state that they want so bad. They want us to do all the work and struggle to make ends meet so they can sit in front of their computers smoke pot and eat cheetos all day.

[jukin]

A 50% spending cut and a 50% tax increase?

Hmmmm, let me think.  If you add a negative to a positive of the same value you get zero. 1 - 1 = 0.

So for the bottom line, that doesn't look like it would move the needle.

What am I missing?

Well taxes are running at $2,700 billion and spending is running at 3,750 billion so a 50% increase would mean that we would get a proportional bigger deficit. So it would be a negative number not the happy cheerful zero.

[Wineslob]

Well taxes are running at $2,700 billion and spending is running at 3,750 billion so a 50% increase would mean that we would get a proportional bigger deficit. So it would be a negative number not the happy cheerful zero.

Dummie = WIN!

[USA4ME]

John Maynard Keynes was an idiot.

.

[Big Dog]

John Maynard Keynes was an idiot.

Keynsian economics in two sentences:

Good times: Spend more than you earn, borrow the difference.
Bad times: Spend A LOT more than you earn, borrow the difference.

What's missing? Pay back the money you borrowed.

[98ZJUSMC]

A 50% spending cut and a 50% tax increase?

Hmmmm, let me think.  If you add a negative to a positive of the same value you get zero. 1 - 1 = 0.

So for the bottom line, that doesn't look like it would move the needle.

What am I missing?

It sure isn't this:

According to the source, the plan — which is being presented by Senate Budget Committee Chairperson Patty Murray to the Dem caucus today — replaces the whole sequester and includes a total of $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction, derived from a 50-50 split of cuts and revenues derived from closing tax loopholes. The spending cuts include $275 billion in cuts to health care spending (but no Medicare benefits cuts; the source says cuts would be focused on the provider side), another $200 billion in non-defense spending cuts, $240 billion in defense cuts, and $242 billion in reduced interest rates.

None of that makes any sense, whatsoever.