Romney Ryan to Cut Medicaid, Change Food Stamps

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan today said they want to overhaul Medicaid and food stamps.

Here are the statistics on hunger in America.

One of the most common misconceptions is the assumption that if someone is hungry, that means they do not have a job and are living on the streets. What most people don’t understand is that anyone can experience hunger. It is a silent epidemic that affects 49 million Americans.

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2010, 21 million people lived in working-poor families. This translates into nearly 9.6 percent of all American families living below 100 percent of poverty have at least one family member working . In fact, 36 percent of client households served by the Feeding America network have one or more adults working.

Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, called Ryan's plan "Robin Hood in reverse, on steroids."

< Olympic Closing: | George Zimmerman to Appeal Recusal Denial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When I was five (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    My mother and I lived on welfare and food stamps in a part of L.A. these fools wouldn't dare drive through on the freeway, much less live there.  I remember being lined up for two blocks waiting for our check or stamps.  I remember my mother having to show those stamps in the grocery store, and not being proud of it...but also, not being ashamed.  

    It takes some big men to make the least among us carry the heaviest burden, when all things are factored, in supposedly the "greatest nation on earth."

    BTW, my mother has a PhD now, and is a globally respected educator.  Take that, Ryomney.

    The Bush Sr. economic recession (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    put me on food stamps for eight months back in 1991. It's a place I don't ever want to go back to, but I was grateful for it. And anyone who tells you it's not humiliating and debilitating is someone who knows nothing of the reality of poverty. I was able to stay afloat in the years following that, mostly through back-breaking work as a painting contractor. Fat cats like Romney and Ryan, our modern day robber barons, salivate every time they get the chance to kill off more poor people.

    Unless it's experienced (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:17:26 PM EST
    And anyone who tells you it's not humiliating and debilitating is someone who knows nothing of the reality of poverty.

    People like Ryan, from a well to do family and Romney from a world where everything's always been buffed and polished have no possible way of understanding what it's like to be on the outside looking in.  Neither have the decency nor the intellectual capacity to understand how cutting these programs devastates people while degrading and weakening the nation.

    Even imagining cutting back on food stamps and Medicaid is an act of immorality and to think these people call themselves Christians.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    how "well-to-do" the Ryan family was, but this entry on his Wiki page made me smile a bit.

    He worked summers as a salesman for Oscar Mayer, even driving the Wienermobile once.

    Ryan's (none / 0) (#64)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 07:41:09 AM EST
    family was one of two or three families that ran his home town. Paul Ryan is a millionaire and the 4th generation in his family to "have money."

    He currently owns a 6 bedroom, 8 bath home in a historic district of his home town.

    He's never had to worry for a minute about where his next meal is coming from or whether there will be a roof over his head or clothes on his back.

    In short, by comparison to the overwhelming majority of the American people, he's rich and has no clue about what it feels like to be of average means let alone down and out.


    My Mom was on food stamps too for a while (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:31:40 PM EST
    after my parents divorced and Dad would miss child support payments. She was working two jobs and trying to feed 6 kids. It was so humiliating for her to have to use them. I did a lot of the shopping at the time since I was old enough to drive, and I will never forget how that felt, even though I don't remember anyone being mean to me or anything. It was just embarrassing. I think people that have to do it have to build up a hard shell of pride so that it may seem to outsiders that they are nonchalant about it. I think there are very few people who would be using them if they did not need them.

    Your input and Donald's are very (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    valuable.  And look what became of the kids.  Good job, you two.  

    Around here, the food stamp money is (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    administered as a swipe card. The only people who know one is using food stamps is the shopper and the clerk

    Here too... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:03:09 AM EST
    but its still a dead giveaway you're using food stamps when you get the new subtotal for the stuff ya can't use foodstamps to buy.

    I Would be Nice... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    ...if we had some sort of program in which the rich fools had to live under the programs they want to cut for a month.  Only then would they have the right to lecture folks in poverty about wasteful spending.

    It's so easy to go after people with nothing, if Ryan really had cojones, he would go after the people with everything.  Siding with the bully isn't noble or grand, it's pathetic.


    A month wouldn't do it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    because they know they'd return to their posh lives after that month.

    Let them face an unknown future and experience the hopelessness of having no real way out of poverty, of hope dashed over and over until the spirit dies because there is no hope.


    They should have to fulfill 6 months (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 06:35:09 PM EST
    living at the Union Gospel Mission.

    Show up with no money, no credit cards, no cell phone, nothing but the clothes on their backs (let's see how long those Italian suits and tassled loafers last!), share a large room each night with twelve to twenty other men off the street, get woken up at 5:30 a.m. for their shower and one free meal of the day, wait in line to use the phone (one call only), get out the door by 8:00 a.m. and go walk the streets of the city.

    If they can get someone to buy them a black marker at the drug store they can make a carboard sign and panhandle near the freeway exit. If they're really enterprising they can take ten days wages from begging and go into the Real Change office and buy ten, or maybe twenty, editions of this week's homeless newspaper for 65 cents apiece, stand on a corner and try to hawk each one for 1.00. Maybe make three bucks or five bucks and decide whether to spend it on coffee and a bagel, or forget about either lunch or dinner and save up for a disposable cell phone from Radio Shack next month.

    At 6:00 p.m., walk back to the shelter and get beaten up by a couple of teenagers yelling, "get a f*cking job, you scum!" and spend the rest of the night cleaning out your facial wounds and trying to sleep off the muscle aches and hope there are no broken bones.

    Get up tomorrow at 5:30 a.m. Rinse, repeat. Every day for six months. That would be reality for a whole lot of people barely surviving in cities all across America. And then go back to Washington D.C. six months later and tell everybody how the poor are really taking advantage of the rest of us and the richest 1% still need and deserve their big tax cut.  


    OR (none / 0) (#63)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 07:29:17 AM EST
    Repeat Mitt Romney by assuring all of us that the poor are taken care of.

    My 90 year old... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    WWII vet great uncle is on food stamps, covers 1-2 weeks worth of his daily bread...what kinda work does Paul Ryan want him to do to "earn" it? Ask the Germans, he earned it in spades.

    Or all the people already working full time and still need help staying fed. Sh*t food stamps is covering for the rampant 30 year rise in income disparity R&R love so much...it's a f8ckin' corporate handout subsidy to all the employers who don't pay their people enough to feed their families.

    Wanna cut food stamps?  Fine, raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.  

    It ain't just veterans... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    I forget exactly what percentage of active duty military families are on food stamps, but I figure any percentage greater than zero means the entire country should hang its head in shame.

    Then hang your head and I'll hang mine (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    The military has always been underpaid and over performing.

    To me, our veterans should never go (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    w/o food, shelter, and medical care.  

    I agree with this 100% (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by sj on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    I'd even go further:  to me, our people should never go w/o food, shelter, and medical care.

    The Ryan budget axe: A lot of cuts in spending (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    that affect mostly low  and middle income Americans and a lot of cuts in taxes that affect mostly high and higher income Americans.  Beside the Medicare coupon clipping program that the CBO claims will costs older citizens about $6400/year in extra costs, more than 3/5 of the $6 trillion in cuts proposed by Ryan's budget would come from programs for low-income Americans (e.g.,food stamps, Medicaid). And, then add in the cuts for  struggling college students, support to state and local governments, overloads on emergency rooms,  and job strengthening by training the unemployed.

    According to the CBO, Ryan's budget would not reach a surplus for 30 years because he would cut taxes, largely for the rich and corporations, including oil interests by $4 trillion--making Romney's tax give-aways meager in comparison, since Ryan gets rid of all capital gains taxes.   It would seem that Ryan's plan for the economy, among other things, does not even address the Conservatives'  call for eliminating the deficit.  But the plan does meet other objectives.  

    I really don't understand (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    how a person's mind can find this acceptable.  Sociopathy, if not psychopathy, seems like the only answer.

    These proposals are stomach heaving.


    The word you're looking for is (none / 0) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:28:27 PM EST

    That's what people like Ryan are.  Just like his idol Ayn Rand.


    He's a sociopath if he doesn't care (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    how many people die or are hurt.  If he takes pleasure in how many people die or are hurt, he's a psychopath, right?  

    I realize I'm oversimplifying potentially complex diagnoses, that feels about right.  

    He shows definite sociopath tendencies for sure.  The jury is still out on psychopath.  Doesn't rule it out completely, IMO.


    Given what (none / 0) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 07:24:32 AM EST
    I've read about Ryan he's never developed intellectually past his teen years.

    And speaking of adolescence, his "budget" is the product of the mind of an adolescent.


    You know what would be nice? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    If the Senate Democrats actually passed a budget plan.  It's been over three years since they've done so (April 2009).  The last time they submitted a budget plan was in April of 2010, although it was never brought to the floor for a vote.  They were supposedly waiting for the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.  

    But that ship has sailed, and since budget resolutions can't be filibustered, what have they been waiting for?


    Before everyone gets too giddy about (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:31:40 PM EST
    just how extreme and draconian all of the Romney/Ryan budget/spending proposals are, and how that can help Obama's chances for re-election, we should take a moment to reflect on the problem of that plan and that ideology being the end-point Obama and the Dems will be going up against.

    The problem is that Dems won't define the debate where it needs to be. Obama will make every attempt to show how reasonable he is, how much he is for all the people, and he and the Dems will work for a middle ground that isn't defined by where most of us think we should be, but by where the Republicans are.  Expect a lot of talk about how it isn't that we don't need to deal with the deficit, or fix entitlements or reform the tax code, it's that we don't need to do it in as extreme a fashion as Ronmey/Ryan want to.

    This election will not be, as David Dayen says, about competing ideologies.  He says:

    It's a choice between one distinct ideology, and a technocratic center which doesn't reflect the core belief of the party as it has been defined over the years. The part of the debate that believes Social Security needs to be adequate to provide in retirement and not cut from its already puny benefit - that will not get a hearing. The part of the debate that says that Medicare and Medicaid do a better job of controlling health costs than private insurance, and that they should be expanded and joined for a single-payer program, starting with allowing people to buy in to Medicare - that will not get a hearing. The part of the debate that says that in a time of mass unemployment, government must be the spender of last resort to increase aggregate demand and create jobs - that will not get a hearing. This great deception, that the pole of the debate represented by the Administration represents the rightward pole, will only facilitate a post-election move to cut safety net spending, as the "wise responsible middle course."

    I don't think that the electoral outcome will give running room for policies to deal with mass unemployment - that seems like a rabbit out of the hat. It seems much more like it will give running room for the policies that would naturally arise out of a two-month debate where one side wants to end a substantial portion of the safety net, and the other side merely wants to cut it in the spirit of compromise as part of a grand bargain.

    The Romney/Ryan extremes may help Obama get re-elected, but that's a double-edged sword in Obama's hands, the blows from which may not kill us outright, just allow us to slowly bleed to death along with the government that should have been standing up for and protecting us.

    Read this (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    Do liberals prefer (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:42:53 PM EST
    Government cutting these programs or the market?

    Because one of the two is going to happen.

    Either we cut them now to or we wait for the investors to force our hand.

    See Europe.  See California.

    The liberal myth is the economy is ever going to grow enough to fund our welfare state.   Either we cut it now or we wait for the market to do it for us.

    This election is a choice on which we would prefer.  Now or later.

    I would prefer now, but that's just me.

    The conservative myth (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    is that medicare and food stamps are the reason for the budget deficit. Funny how they gloss over the enormous, unsustainable cost of two wars (one of which was totally unjustified) and the billions that are lost in revenue every ear because the 1% have said "scr*w you!" to the rest of the country.

    Why would the market... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:50:37 PM EST
    wanna see cuts to food stamps and Medicare/Medicaid?  "The market" is the one seeing the money at the end...supermarkets, food producers, doctors and hospitals, drug companies.  The recipient of the bennies get in one hand and spend in the other.  They ain't Mitt Romney's hoarding cash.

    If the programs get cut or eliminated, the poor and working people can only afford so much, then they go without till they die.  Dead men make lousy customers.


    Or there's going to (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    be even more uninsured people using the ER which is going to cost other people even more money right now.

    Ryan Plan Part II... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    emergency rooms can start refusing lazy hammock loafer patients...just wait GA.

    I'm afraid (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    you're right. Only the "right" people can go to hospitals. Only the "Right" people can get medical care etc. Of course, lots of doctors will be closing up shop without any patients.

    Almost forgot... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    debtors prison for the doctors who close up shop and can't repay their 6 figure student loans, and for the patients who can't pay their 6 figure medical bills, also part of Ryan Plan II;)

    And of course, debtors prisons will feature chain gangs and forced labor.


    kdog (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    the market he refers to is the money market. You know, the one that we borrow the 40% we spend in.

    I'm all for ceasing/easing the borrowing... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    but we both know it's not a choice between borrowing and gutting the safety net.  There is lots of unnecessary spending to gut first, and we can always raise taxes to ensure the survival of the vital SS and Medicare programs.

    I hear Ryan's plan would not only gut the safety net, but lower Mitt Romneys tax rate to under a single percentile.  I don't know about you, but I was not born yesterday.


    Gutting the safety net (none / 0) (#49)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 07:44:18 AM EST

    About 40% of US households get some form of government benefit check.  Is that 40% about right, should be larger, or trimmed a bit?



    Depends on the need (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 08:37:53 AM EST
    OTOH - we could use the converse argument of conservatives when they argue against tax increases - there's nothing to prevent people/liberals from voluntarily paying more taxes.  Similarly, there's nothing to prevent conservatives from cutting social spending by voluntarily giving up their own government benefit checks.

    I'm guessing they wouldn't be in favor of having government benefits "trimmed a bit" when it's their own SS/medicare benefits on the line.


    The number can't be considered in (none / 0) (#57)
    by observed on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    a vacuum.
    Republicans will cut aid, even if it means people will starve.
    Sensible people want to know the facts before they start recommending drastic cuts in federal household aid.

    We don't need no stinkin' facts (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 03:34:35 PM EST
    Geez (none / 0) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:33:22 PM EST
    We're borrowing money at just over 2% and selling significant amounts of bonds at negative - people paying us to hold their money.

    The conservative myth (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    is that we have a welfare state. How much of our budget is food stamps?   78 billion last year, which is the high point in many years.  Defense budgert was close to 1 trillion.

    Are we going to grow are way into supporting our defense budget? All it take is more tax cuts, I'm sure.


    Defense budget.... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    talk about a welfare state...products no one outside the US military wants or needs, and so over-paying for the stuff that there is a market for outside the US military.  Austerity, please!

    Cut that trillion to 200 billion, and if we're still short then we'll talk about tax increases and/or cutting government services/assistance of actual value.  Till somebody starts talking about that, I'm left to think they're all full of sh*t, Brand R and Brand D alike.


    We Live in a Welfare State.... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    ...the problem is you got to be very rich to get those bucks.

    Even the military doesn't want some of (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    this stuff.  

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    ...Fox talking points are so awesome, of course 2 wars and war time tax breaks had nothing to do with anything.  GWB and the republicans did nothing to the economy but destroy it, and the idiots can't wait to vote for them again because Fox tells them it's not their fault, like therapy for really dumb people.

    The main grip with Obama seems to be is he isn't fixing their disaster quick enough.  Is anyone on the right aware of why all these problems exist ?  Or is it just plain ole magic ?

    And while I complain about Obama often, the fact is the republicans failed on a absurd level, and their savior wants to repeat all those policies.  It's insanity.

    But if you want to discuss myths, start with the myth that magically this time their policies won't collapse the American economy like they did last time.  That Obama is on some crazy level worse than GWB, that the republican failed policy is worthy of another go.

    There is something so funny, yet disturbing about the Fox viewer lecturing others about myths.  But the really sad part is to watch middle class Fox viewers stand up for the wealthy, too dumb or too idealized to realize they are going to get screwed with the rest of us while the folks at the top laugh all the way to the bank.

    that Social Security, that Medicare, that's stuff they are taking away from ALL of us, not just democrats or liberals, they are talking it way from you too.  But keep telling us why they rock, how D's are living some myth, and how exactly cutting your SS benefits is a good thing.


    The GOP has (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:56:05 PM EST
    been very good at convincing people that if they defend the wealthy in this country that one day they are going to be wealthy too. It's the old if you repeat a lie enough people will believe it.

    And then at the same time they are talking about how the middle class doesn't pay taxes. They're just insane.

    Read this: link

    It made me understand where these people are coming from and they are literally crazy.

    BTW, Ryan has a 94% pro-Bush voting record. One of the local Republicans had a melt down when I told him that because he said Bush has nothing to do with any of this. I said if you don't want George W. Bush to come into the conversation then don't pick a VP who has a 94% pro Bush record.

    I have not had this much fun with Republicans since the Supreme Court upheld the ACA.

    BTW W is not going to the GOP convention. At least that's one thing Romney is doing right.


    You are wrong, Slado. We do not have to (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 05:31:43 PM EST
    gut the safety net. In fact, there is a budget proposal that has been out there for some time that eliminates the deficit over ten years and does not gut these programs.

    It is the budget proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    Of course, since, among other things, it closes loopholes enjoyed by some huge profit-generating corporations like oil and gas, and requires that the very wealthy pay a more equitable share of taxes, neither Obama nor Romney will give it the time of day.

    We can fix the deficit and take care of our fellow Americans. What we lack are leading politicians and journalists willing to buck the conventional wisdom.


    What (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    the two R's are proposing is eternal war for eternal peace and an increase in military spending while everybody else takes it on the chin.

    Get back to me when the GOP actually offers up some military spending.


    And the irony (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    is that CA if is funding the red "welfare states" like SC. They lose about 25% of their tax money right now because of it.

    Oh the California card (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    Funny how they always seem to forget Vermont, Massachusetts, etc...

    And I'd still live in California over Mississippi.

    Yup, me too. Over about 45 other states (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    as a matter of fact.

    Come on out CST (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    the weather in my neck of the woods ROCKS! and we have great beaches also. :)

    If they keep bashing CA, I'm gonna start a campaign where we keep our 25%.


    Hey, maybe, if we're lucky, (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    bashing CA deters Zonies from moving here.  

    P.S.  It is is unusually hot here.  


    Okay you folks have convinced me (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    Ryan's plan is no good.

    Now, can anybody tell me how Obama is going to solve the problems?

    Because they exist. And they aren't going away.

    well, supposing neither side (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by observed on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    has a long-term solution, it seems logical to chooose the candidate who does less harm in the short run.
    This is a variation of JM Keynes quip that in the long run we are all dead.

    Cut defense.... (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:19:45 PM EST
    ok, not down to 200 billion, I know its important to you, I will compromise and meet you at 500 billion.  500 billion savings.

    DEA...good bye, 2.4 billion dollar savings, plus the federal sales taxes collected on legal drug sales, say 10% rate on 40 billion in sales, 4 billion.

    Sh*t man we're already approaching 510 billion in savings without breaking a sweat or breaking the backs of the poor!


    Your numbers fail arithmetic (none / 0) (#50)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 07:54:08 AM EST

    Your numbers fail arithmetic.  If you completely eliminate both defense spending and the DEA, the you only cut the deficit by about half.  That still leaves unsustainable borrowing and fast growing entitlement spending.



    What is cutting the deifict going to do for us? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 08:40:13 AM EST
    Seriously, what benefit derives to us if we cut the deficit?  Does it help anyone get a job?  Does it put more money in the pockets of the people who don't currently have it to spend?  Does it improve the overall standard of living for those whose quality of life is already substandard?

    I'm already hearing Romney talk about a balanced budget.  What's that going to do for people?  On whose backs and out of whose hides will the budget be balanced?

    It has never been cheaper for the government to borrow money, which presents an incredible opportunity for it to make significant investment in the country and put millions back to work.  

    But, no...the mission apparently, is to go austere in the mistaken belief that it will improve the economy.  It won't.  It's a recipe for disaster.


    Borrowed money will be repaid (none / 0) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:00:06 AM EST

    The debt is far to large to be repaid quickly when interest rates inevitably rise to more normal levels.  The debt is long term, so it is foolish to base a borrowing decision on short term low rates.

    This government is not about "investment in the country" but rather funding crony capitalist boondoggles.  The private sector is where investments are made that will create wealth.  The government "investments" mostly consume wealth for the benefit of key constituents.

    Compare investment in private sector fracking that is producing abundant low cost natural gas to government investment in politically favored solar power companies that go bankrupt producing a product that almost no one wants to buy unless the taxpayer or ratepayer gets stuck with the tab.



    Right, ... or ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55:43 AM EST
    ... instead of cherry-picking a single example, we could look at all of the incredible technology developed through the use of government funding, and compare that with, say ... Enron?

    Computers, microchips, jet engines, water filtration systems, the internet, medicines too numerous to count, GPS, voice-activation technology, seed hybrids for increased crop yields, railroads, interstate highways, nuclear power, etc, etc...


    So (none / 0) (#59)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 11:32:22 AM EST

    Which of those are the product of this administration's "investments?"  

    BTW, most of your list includes large amounts of private investment as well.  


    Ohhhhh .... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    This government is not about "investment in the country" but rather funding crony capitalist boondoggles.  The private sector is where investments are made that will create wealth.  The government "investments" mostly consume wealth for the benefit of key constituents.

    So, when you're talking about "this government" you mean only the past 3 1/2 years of the Obama administration, and your broader charges that the private sector creates wealth while "the public sector only consumes wealth for the benefit of key constituents" only apply to this administration?


    BTW, most of your list includes large amounts of private investment as well.

    Uhhhhhmmmm,..... no kidding.


    Your excuse for Obama's crony capitalism (none / 0) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 12:35:22 PM EST

    seems to be that in the past the government gave some aid to industries that were well on their way with private investment meeting private demand, but Obama has nothing to show but "industries" that exist solely because of mandates or subsidies.

    Funny (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    Both the premise that these industries were "well on their way" without government funding, as well as the idea that solar power exists only because of government mandate.

    I Know, I Know... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:07 AM EST
    ...(frantically raising my hand)...

    Don't let the GOP back into the White House to kill the economy, thus reducing government intakes via taxes, or giving tax breaks during duex war times.  Better yet, don't let the GOP start BS wars, that alone would have saved us about 4 trillion buck-a-roos and about 5000 American soldiers who instead of being dead, could be paying taxes.

    Maybe we could even adopt the Clinton plan and have a budget surplus...  He figured out what alludes the GOP, taxes = deficit reduction.


    You seem to forget (none / 0) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 10:14:18 AM EST

    Under Clinton federal spending averaged below 20% of GDP and bottomed at 18.3%.  Of course the private economy grew with cost of government so low.  During his term the capital gains tax rate was cut to 15%.  

    BHO has already said that he is willing to raise the cap gains rate even if it produces less revenue.  He not only has no plan to reduce the cost of government but on the contrary wants to increase that cost to the economy.



    Nothing like reducing (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    complex economic issues to a one-dimensional, talk radio pissing contest, in which "of course" (everybody knows!) less Govt spending always stimulates growth in the private sector economy..

    These debates are more about the theological-economic leaps-of-faith people take - and definitive proof that economics is no exact science - than they are about revealing some sort of common sense truth that 'everybody knows'..