Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner rejects Obama offer to extend some Bush tax cuts for wealthy while cutting Social Security (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where are the cuts to the Dept. of Defense? (32+ / 0-)

    Do we have to constantly remind our president that we helped him win?  Why is this "negotiation" rigged so that the poor and middle class lose, no matter what?

    Private health insurance: a protection racket without the protection.

    by rustypatina on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:38:30 AM PST

    •  In all honesty (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, nchristine

      I think defense spending is probably too big an economic driver right now to cut it.  Not how it should be,  but this economy is a joke and defense spending, at least, is real and creates lots of good jobs.   I am not arguing for it, but you do need to move that stimulous money into another portion of the economy instead of just cutting.  Who is fucking for GROWTH?  Anyone? If not, we better start arguing for 30 hour work weeks soon -- cause we got nowhere else to go . . .  There is a reality and it ain't about simply demonizing R's

      •  but it can be moved (4+ / 0-)

        into more effective economic drivers, the economic proof is already out there, has been for years,  move $100 billion from defense, fund SNAP, infrastructure, unemployment benefits and similar programs and see twice the bang per buck.

        Let's stop reinforcing right wing memes by saying defense can't be cut.  Just tell economic truth which is that defense can be cut a lot. Other spending that helps people more needs to be increased.

        •  I agree with some of that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo

          I really could care less whether something is an R or D talking point anymore -- they're both against us far too often.  Fact is Defense jobs are good jobs at good wages.  I agree we need to move that money to good jobs in other areas, but the battle right now is to keep this economy afloat while we work through all of the structural issues.  

          I am tiring of the extend UE benefits argument.  Fact is, it leaves far too many people out and there is some merit to the claim that a meaningful number are disincentivized by it.  It is not perfect to have people with expired benis, but no one would argue they should go on in perpetuity, so where and why is the cut off?  I would rather see that money channeled into something new like self employment tax reform so that the millions working for themselves in the craigslist economy have more protection from the crush of taxes (the self employed are paying huge taxes while creating job #1).    

          Infrastructure fine - but I'd rather see direct government hiring (talk about bang for the buck).  SNAP okay but where is the growth -- and we better see some rhetoric about the economic impact of subsidies to the poorest or they are gonna get hit hard -- D's better learn that the economic case is much stronger than the compassion case (compassion doesn't sell when middle class families are getting crushed).

          We could go on and on . . . but nobody's listening. Ain't that the point?

          •  Actually I disagree with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            COBALT1928

            your slant on most of what you said.

            SNAP first and foremost keeps people from starving, a laudable goal without any economic return, but since every penny of snap goes back into a store, it is spent, it creates jobs and keeps the economy going.   Same with unemployment benefits,  every penny basically gets spent, rent, food, utilities, keeping jobs going and families from being homeless.  Again, laudable even without the economic impact, which again about doubles what we get from a dollar of defense spending.   And there is virtually no disincentivizing effect of unemployment, it is set too low to meet a family's full needs, and if jobs that pay better than unemployment are out there, almost everyone takes a job.  Further,  this recession is clearly not a typical business downturn,  and it produced unemployment and underemployment, has forced down wages, while companies sit on enormous profits, no productivity increase have been shared with workers.  So jobs aren't coming back, more people have less money, consume less and that continually threatens the economy.

            Seems to me your assumption that these programs only help the poorest means you have not been listening either.   Huge numbers of people are depending on SNAP,  not just the poorest but lots of formerly middle class families that have not replaced jobs, or have a job now at half or less of their former income.  Lots of people over fifty aren't being rehired and are thankful for what they can get.

            Direct government hiring is great, and we should start by returning money to states for teachers, fire fighters and police, as well as direct hiring at the federal level to replace people at SS that the freeze has eliminated (it is taking months more to process claims) and lots of places that help people before we go looking for another defense contractor to bring in through the revolving door of favors and kickbacks at defense.

            Compassion sells very well in this country to everyone that isn't a FOX news addict.  

      •  defense spending is very capital-intensive, and (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quixotic, COBALT1928, rustypatina

        creates far fewer jobs per dollar than other kinds of government spending.

        even though cutting defense spending means some loss of jobs, those cuts and job losses could be worthwhile overall, b/c they could relieve some of the huge pressure other spending comes under b/c of debt/deficit worries, and b/c they could curb some of the excessive power of the military industrial complex.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site