Group items tagged

White House Spin on Cave-In: In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.

Pollin, Robert The U.S. Fiscal Deficit: Scare Stories vs. Reality Publication Date: 9/15/2009

Can Greece pay its debts? What about Portugal or Spain? Can a new prime minister reduce Britain's gaping budget deficit? Will the crisis rocking Europe spread? And what about the American economy?

"In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama called for a "non-security" discretionary spending freeze to help bring down the deficit. "

Speaking at the Twitter Town Hall at the White House today, the president said Congress "shouldn't be toying" with the debt ceiling and cautioned against risking the financial health of the country in order to protect the interests of the super wealthy.   "Never in our history has the United States defaulted on its debt. The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, for oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.  I mean, I'm happy to have those debates.  I think the American people are on my side on this," Obama said. The president was adamant that when it comes to fixing the economy and solving the deficit problem "we should go with what works," and that's a tax increase on the wealthy. "If the wealthiest among us -- and I include myself in this category -- are willing to give up a little bit more, then we can solve this problem.  It does not take a lot… when people say, you know, "job-killing tax increases, that's what Obama's proposing," we're not going to," he said. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.  And the facts are that a modest increase for wealthy individuals is not shown to have an adverse impact on job growth." "We can test the two theories.  You had what happened during the '90s.  Right?  Taxes for wealthy individuals were somewhat higher, businesses boomed, the economy boomed, great job growth;  and then the 2000s, when taxes were cut on wealthy individuals, jobs didn't grow as fast, businesses didn't grow as fast. I mean, it's not like we haven't tried what these other folks are pitching.  It didn't work.  And we should go with what works," he said.

"...when the economy falters deficits are part of the remedy; when the immediate problem is what it is now-a lack of demand, not a shortage of capital-higher spending is generally more efficacious than lower taxes, especially lower taxes on the rich.

Who is Standard & Poor's to tell America how much debt it has to shed in order to keep its credit rating?

Obama met his agenda. First and foremost, it's to get re-elected. What's that worth to progressives? Hmmmmmm....

| Glenn Greenwald | Salon.com

Maybe some of you can tell me why so many very smart people have, since the day Obama was inaugurated, deluded themselves into thinking that this admittedly very smart man, albeit one with limited political experience at the national level, was somehow going to step into office and proceed to rewrite the political laws that have governed presidential politics for the last two centuries? I'm listening.

A Peek at the Military's Budget for Eternal Salvation ~ @Truthdig http://t.co/8dDs1Gm

If the banks can create trillions of dollars in credit out of thin air for lending, why can't the government create it for the people? Read about introducing $2.5 trillion of debt-free money into the economy (via the Cook Plan). Pretty radical suggestions here. But they make sense to me.