Not Surprising but Incredibly Favoring to the Rich

[KeithE]

[Cathy]

No surprise that I agree with you, Keith. How long can they beat the same drum that is so destructive to our society.

I might have thought that the Republicans would mellow a bit when they actually could pass a bill with a majority but instead we see the same deadlock and absurd offerings of trickle down economics.

[Haruo]

A lot of them actually believe it, and think God does, too.

[KeithE]

And see that they can get elected by spouting off conservative (ie corporate friendly) talking points they have been primed for by Rush, O'Reilly, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Ingrahm ...

[KeithE]

Want a Better Approach?

[William Thornton]

Run BarneyEliabeth, run. I can vote in the Dem primary and would vote against Hil. Four or 8 years of her messes would be difficult.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Here in GA there is no party registration; so, voters may choose the Dem or the GOP primary. It is not unusual for voters who identify with one or the other party to cross over and vote to foul up the nomination process.

Barney/Bernie - I got confused thinking about the Andy Griffeth Show where the 'Good Times Girls' from Mt. Pilot would call Barney Bernie.

I sometimes get my socialists confused.

[Dave Roberts]

The GOP attacks on Social Security and Medicare are disgusting. Not one of them will talk about the permanent fix for Social Security--raising the cap. I also believe that those who work at minimum wage should be taxed at a lower rate for Social Security and Medicare. Try to get a GOP congressman to talk about this and they scream, "It would hurt the job creators." If we are protecting the "job creators," where are the jobs--China, Honduras, and Viet Nam?????

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

In my congressional district, I would not have a prayer. It has been gerrymandered to give the current occupant of the congressional seat majorities in every election above 60% of the vote. Candidates against him don't even get money from the Democratic Congressional Campaign committee since they know it has been fixed before election day by the state legislature. Our district looks like a dog's hind leg lifted for marking territory.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

Of course, that's assuming the voters remember how to follow a well-crafted sentence.

[KeithE]

The 4 budgets are Obama’s, The House’s, the Senate’s, and the House’s Progressive Caucus.

Please click and read. You will find that the Progressive Caucus lines up with what American’s say they want in all areas except achieving a balanced budget.

This includes the areas of:
Domestic Discretionary Funding: infrastructure, energy and environment, housing, job training.
Job Creation
Education
Social Security
Health Care System: ACA,Medicare, Medicaid
SNAP (food stamps)
Defense: Pentagon, Overseas Contingency Ops
Taxes: Corporate, Wealthy, Middle Class, Lower Class
Sequestration

As I said, only the wish for deficit reduction favors the House or Senate’s version.

The deficit reduction claims over the next 10 years are:
Obama’s : $1.8T (increases both spending and projected revenues)
House’s : $5.5T (decreases spending and tax rates); “balances annual budget in less than 10 years"
Senate’s : $5.1T (decreases spending and tax rates); “balances annual budget in 10 years”
Progressive Caucus: $3.4T (increases spending on jobs/infrastructure and increase taxes on wealthy to Clinton era).

Obama’s and the Progressive do not plan to eliminate annual budget shortfalls but lowers them.

The trouble I have with the House’s and the Senate’s proposal is that cutting domestic discretionary spending has not worked throughout the Reagan, Bush II eras in terms of reducing budget deficits. It seems reasonable but utterly wrong. This is plain historical fact.

And in our economic times of underemployment they will not work since the tax revenues go down more than the domestic spending cuts demanded.

Alternatively stimulating the economy (and thereby putting money in the hands of people) has worked to reduce deficits as Obama has shown. Deficits are down by 65% since 2009 (last Bush era budget).

Another alternative is to reduce the defense budget drastically say to only 3 times the next highest defense spender China. But that will reduce jobs and job training.

But read the link closely.

[Haruo]

Thanks, Keith, that looks to me like one of the most evenhanded treatments I've seen, and one of the most readily digestible of your many many links and graphs. But then I'm a text person. I do better with texts than with graphs.