Skip to main content

In her very first opening remark on ABC's This Week program, after President Obama's historic re-election and solidifying the Senate as well as decreasing the GOP House majority, this is how she chose to open her opportunity to speak on national TV:

MURRAY: Well, here's where we are, our country has a tremendous debt and deficit problem. We also have a challenge in making sure that we educate our work force. We need to make sure we care for our veterans who need that care today. We need to have research. And we need to be able to compete in a global marketplace, those investments are important.
Sen. Patty Murray is
[an]influential member of the Senate – Budget Committee member Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair and co-chair of the 2011 "Super Committee" on deficit reduction.

No! We don't have a tremendous debt and deficit problem. Please, Democrats - stop buying into the Republican framing of this 'crisis' that they manufactured.

The Democrats won this election decisively yet they continue to allow Republicans to frame the problems  and thus set the agenda. We will not hear anything until after inauguration day other than the debt and deficit crisis facing this country. Democrats have to seize this and reframe it and take away this talking point.

There was no other Democratic politician to push back on it but fortunately there was Katrina vanden Heuvel to speak up. Thankfully, she was listening to the opening segment where Sen. Murray spoke, and not just waiting for her turn to talk later in the program.

First she defines the election:

VANDEN HEUVEL: I don't think -- this was not a status quo election, this was a decisive win for a different set of values both the social values, the issues of immigration, of fairness, of dignity, but also of rebuilding a middle class that has been really hit hard in these last 30, 40 years. So that is not a status quo election.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I agree with Paul Gigot. Americans voted decisively for fair share taxes on the richest, for protecting Social Security and Medicare, but also for growth and investment. You cannot get growth and investment with the spending cuts as they are laid out in the grand bargain.
And finally she tells it like it is.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Certainly not the sequester. So I think part of the problem we're having, George, is the fundamental assumptions overriding this entire discussion. Senator Murray said that we have a big debt and deficit problem -- no, we don't. We have a big public investment and jobs problem.

(CROSSTALK)

VANDEN HEUVEL: Last point. We're not Greece. Austerity, if you believe in evidence-based politics and economics, you look at what's going on in Europe, and austerity, which we may have American-style in this country if we proceed the way we are doing, has led to economic pain, has led to killing growth. Killing growth.

(CROSSTALK)

VANDEN HEUVEL: And debt and deficit.

If Democrats want to win this fight they are going to have to not accede the playing ground before the game starts. President Obama is right, he campaigned on raising taxes on the rich, and despite Sen. McConnell's protestations to the contrary,
 he knows he has hand. As Bloomberg News said the day after the election:
In Obama’s second term, leverage will shift to the Democrats on almost every issue of importance. And that shift has already begun.
Use it, please.
UPDATE: H/T Jim P

Link to Sen. Patty Murray's contact form. Please write to her to stop opening arguments with Republican right wing think tank talking points.

UPDATE: H/T Progressive Pen

Originally posted to Barefoothoofcare on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM PST.

Also republished by The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, Dailykos Kossacks For Action, and Keynesian Kossacks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (210+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, Gooserock, stevej, myeye, second gen, bluezen, VegLane, One Pissed Off Liberal, DRo, maryabein, Ray Pensador, fou, limpidglass, Eyesbright, highacidity, tcdup, howabout, TracieLynn, PeterHug, tofumagoo, Azazello, karmsy, David Kaib, TexMex, CanyonWren, shortgirl, SneakySnu, mike101, Missys Brother, bleeding blue, TAH from SLC, EquityRoy, maggiejean, Chaddiwicker, anodnhajo, puakev, cybersaur, SaintC, Just Bob, dskoe, kathny, LookingUp, 2laneIA, muddy boots, DeminNewJ, Gowrie Gal, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, HoundDog, JDWolverton, Progressive Pen, roses, Mistral Wind, jennylind, lotlizard, skyounkin, majcmb1, Sailorben, science nerd, turn blue, DvCM, StrayCat, owlbear1, joe pittsburgh, offgrid, opinionated, oldpotsmuggler, seefleur, nailbender, ask, Bluehawk, Shockwave, Molly Weasley, RandomNonviolence, Lily O Lady, democracy inaction, Librarianmom, joanneleon, Troubadour, dwahzon, boadicea, profundo, greengemini, Its a New Day, nirbama, greenbell, grollen, JanL, Melanie in IA, Alice Olson, Nicci August, pdrap, glorificus, sb, hubcap, Cassiodorus, David Futurama, Michael James, vacantlook, chrississippi, qofdisks, EdSF, Nica24, divineorder, blueoasis, Mother Mags, rat racer, Horsefeathers, lcrp, dejavu, hyperstation, sodalis, defluxion10, tgypsy, kck, eru, Mike08, no way lack of brain, Preston S, zerone, tapestry, implicate order, citisven, Cory Bantic, Quantumlogic, JoanMar, Lefty Coaster, elwior, Curt Matlock, helpImdrowning, zerelda, mirandasright, La Gitane, mahakali overdrive, Jakkalbessie, LeislerNYC, bnasley, artisan, Pithy Cherub, Gorette, ChemBob, Sassy, slowbutsure, lazybum, ranger995, MarkInSanFran, rapala, The Wizard, statsone, binkycat, Brooke In Seattle, figbash, mkor7, Burned, priceman, ichibon, wasatch, Lujane, reflectionsv37, vahana, MartyM, denise b, xhale, pgm 01, fumie, chicagoblueohio, ColoTim, quagmiremonkey, palantir, alain2112, 2020adam, concernedamerican, gulfgal98, WheninRome, quinn, Miss Jones, megisi, Tool, aliasalias, Nailbanger, techno, billlaurelMD, Medium Head Boy, CT Hank, slinkerwink, mrkvica, cacamp, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, DamselleFly, RUNDOWN, StateofEuphoria, WisePiper, Woody, Mathazar, Timothy J, Pluto, OldDragon, Matt Z, RFK Lives, KenBee, Bluesee, IndependentRadical, Ryvr, Liberal Thinking, caul, Big River Bandido, PhilJD, sable, artebella, Oaktown Girl, splashy
    Hidden by:
    Aquarius40

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:04:03 AM PST

    •  Keynesian Economics: (43+ / 0-)
      A theory stating that government intervention is necessary to ensure an active and vibrant economy.

      According to this theory, government should stimulate demand for goods and services in order to encourage economic growth. It thus recommends tax cuts and increased government spending during recessions to reinvigorate growth; likewise, it recommends tax increases and spending cuts during economic expansion in order to combat inflation.

      Many economists believe that Keynesian economic theory is more efficient than supply-side economics, though critics point to the theory's inability to explain stagflation in the United States during the 1970s.

      Just like Newtonian physics explains 99% of everything we do, Keynesianism is good enough to use for the vast majority of practical situations here on earth.

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:39:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Technically, we have been in a period (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, TexasDemocrat, caul

        of expansion for over 3 years, but it has been weak, and only the rich have seen much improvement, while everyone else is effectively still in a recession. I'm not sure if Keynesian theory addresses this.

        "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:14:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  93% of all productivity gains now goes to 1% (11+ / 0-)

          of the population.

          Keynes had a lot to say about productive uses of deficit spending vs. non-productive uses, about progressive taxation, etc....

          •  But my question is, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina

            should we still engage in stimulus, deficit spending, and reduced taxation, given that GDP is and has been increasing, and unemployment is going down? What does Keynesian theory say about that?

            "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

            by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:13:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He'd say correct the corruption that is allowing (6+ / 0-)

              93% of gains going to 1% of the population :)

              More generally, I think he'd say you should have full employment and a working infrastructure and a smart grids so that we have a planet to live on. And what ever size deficit is required to accomplish this is the right sized deficit.  Any smaller is bad, any larger is bad.

              •  I thought the theory mainly had to do with (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                eXtina

                the short term issues of using government spending to create demand in order to counteract recessions, and doing the opposite during expansions to counteract inflation. I guess since unemployment is still high and inflation is relatively low, maybe stimulus is still appropriate. Are these other views of his considered part of that same theory?

                "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

                by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:38:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right, and a dying planet is a bad time, so have (6+ / 0-)

                  to spend so that we can have good time....  

                  I'm sort of joking.  But Keynes was a nuanced thinker who thought a lot and had lots to say.  My understanding of him is that he'd say spend to defend your boarders if need be, spend to defend your planet if need be, spend to feed your starving citizens if need be.

                  In other words, he was very aware of real life stuff as well as financial stuff.

          •  That is the No. 1 statistic in the USA (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            caul, katiec

            They don't spend enough in the US to stimulate the economy.  That money is taken from the workers who produce it.  

            Bernanke said he's going to create hundreds of billions of dollars in the next three years to keep the economy going.  But none of that money is reaching us because he's buying bad mortgage derivatives and such from hedge fund managers w/those hundreds of billions, none of it will get into our economy.  Where is the outrage.

      •  You are in a better position to do stimulus (6+ / 0-)

        spending when the government is not heavily indebted. This is not on Obama but rather it is on Bush. There is a big difference between deficit spending when times are good and that same spending when times are bad. The Bush tax cuts made it much harder to recover from this collapse. There were utterly irresponsible. You do not fight a war without paying for it. Especially a war of choice.

        We were assured that the business cycle no longer applied, that our economy was so fundamentally different that the old rules did not apply. And so we de regulated banking in the Clinton era. And encouraged risky lending by the banks. And then when the whole thing fell apart we made the investment class whole. After we ran record debt and deficit.

        Big difference between Obama and Bush. Obama had to use deficits. Bush chose to use deficits at a time when we should have been running surpluses and paying down the debt and reinforcing Social Security and Medicare.

        •  the debt has been there for (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina, zett, mahakali overdrive, caul

          a long time, and even when we had surpluses, it wasn't enough to pay down the debt.

          "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

          by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:40:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um, Remember Clinton? Debt was on way out (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            milkbone, AaronInSanDiego, Matt Z

            until we put two wars on the credit card, an unpaid-for medicare drug benefit and a rather major tax cut that mainly helped the rich.

            I consider the debt to be a political construct -- we could elminate it several ways from raising taxes (we have room for it) or printing money, or creative financing (our current preferred option.)   That doesn't mean that it is imaginary; all of those approches have positive and negative aspects.  

            There are actually downsides to eliminating the debt - US Government bonds are the lingua franca of international commerce.   However we cannot expand it forever...

            •  I don't have a copy but there is existing tape of (6+ / 0-)

              Senator Warren Hatch from Utah saying:  "We did not pay for anything under Bush.  That was our plan."  i wish someone cofind it and air it.

              Also there was a "secret" meeting of the SEC during Bush that pulled all of the loop holes they could so that banks no longer had to have cash on hand to cover their deposits, etc.  all of this mess is Bush's and the GOP's.

              There is no way that medicare, medicaid and social security should have to bear the burden...... they did not contribute one dime to the deficit.  If the dems give it then they are playing into the original plan of the GOP -- Don't pay for anything - raise so much debt that we have to raid the big 3 to pay off the debt.  That is the GOP plan.  They can't stand to see money on the sidelines.  It has to go to the stock market for the 1% to capture.  By that I mean they want younger people to have to put money in 401Ks that are in the market and when the market fails ...well we know how that story goes.  i remember people under Bush in 2002 who had planned to retire and after Bush became Prez the market went straight down for almost 2 years.  People who were doing okay and wanted to retire could not.  But what does the GOP and 1% care?

            •  debt was going down (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              caul

              but it would have taken many more years of surplus to bring it down closer to zero, and the idea that surpluses would continue that long was unrealistic.

              I've heard people say that printing money would get rid of the debt, but I don't understand how that would work.

              "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

              by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:19:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If deficit equals zero, then no money in private (0+ / 0-)

                hands.

                Every dollar in private hands comes from the Fed Gov, who issues the currency we use.

                If we wipe out the deficit, we wipe out all currency.

                Of course, we COULD create private currencies.  But we haven't yet.

                •  why is that the case? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  katiec

                  Isn't the money created when the fed loans it to banks? Why would having zero federal debt prevent this?

                  "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

                  by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 09:48:15 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok, when the Fed loans one dollar to a bank (0+ / 0-)

                    the accounting is:

                    Fed, one dollar deficit.

                    Private sector, one dollar asset.

                    Here the word "deficit" could be changed to the phrase "dollar in private sector".  It's just an accounting term, a math term.  And it doesn't mean a debt in the way you or I have a debt.

                    So, can't get rid of deficits, cuz every time a dollar is put in the private sector, it's recorded as a deficit to the public sector, to the Gov.

                    Again, we could  call it something else that doesn't sound like household debt.  Cuz it's not like household debt.

                    There's a movement that wants the US to issue "non-debt" money, meaning -- mostly -- they want the US to stop issuing bonds, or selling it's debt/deficit.

                    Even then, there's still the matter of accounting.  We can call it deficit, or something else -- like dollars in the private sector.  But we still need double entry accounting to keep track of how many dollars the US has spent and thus how many dollars are in the private sector.

                    Hope this helps.  I'm fairly new to understanding all this, and it was tough at first because it seem counter-intuitive until you really think it through.  Then it makes a lot of sense :)

                    Like 2 plus 2 equals 4.

                    But the talking heads and politicians keep talking about national accounting as though it's just like household accounting, it's not.

                    There's a really good diary on DKos called....  stay tuned so I can find it.  I'll get back to you :)

            •  I did say this was on Bush, didn't I? (0+ / 0-)
    •  Please (19+ / 0-)

      since when has understanding it been a priority?

      It's about going out there and toeing the party line.  Where have you been for the past six months?


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:22:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Keynesian economics -- (10+ / 0-)

      made sense for an expanding capitalist economy in which nation-states had a degree of autonomy.  Keynesian economics made especial sense for the golden age of capitalism (1948-1971).

      What's needed today is a postcapitalist economy.  Capitalism has reached its limit in terms of the exploitation of labor and of nature.  Let's manage the transition to something else.

      "Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

      by Cassiodorus on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:42:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That would be my preference but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina

        we're still in a Capitalist system. While in that system, it's the better choice, economically. When and if we get out of a Capitalist system, then implementing a postcapitalist economy would make more logical sense then doing so while still entrenched in it, when Capitalist forces would easily swat down alternate, emerging, and countervalent economic systems.

      •  I think there's a short term and (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, eXtina, zett, Pluto

        a long term component to the problem and the solution. But the way our system works, the short term is always what gets addressed.

        "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:18:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Erm, there is another explanation for this type (14+ / 0-)

      of behavior by Dems is there not?

      Big donors like this kind of talk.

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:55:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This isn't a matter of economics, it's about power (6+ / 0-)

      Let all Bush tax cuts expire and , bring on the Sequestration cuts to defense.

      by kck on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:57:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Economics are entirely political. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        katiec, kck, billlaurelMD, eXtina

        Somewhere, somebody[s] knew exactly what was happening and why it happened and wanted it to happen.

        It's not as if we don't have enough data to go on. It's true there are a lot of idiots in congress and we should aspire for some more technocrats but a large contingent of them had to know. With a few minor alterations it's a rerun of past episodes of economic instability. Follow the money.

    •  our state just legalized gay marriage and pot (13+ / 0-)

      and one of our senators, Patty Murray, is responsible for the gains made this election in the senate  and you want to lecture HER about messaging?

      what the fuck ever, Laurence

      maybe some of you should listen to what those of us who live in blue but still closely divided states have to say about how to win difficult fights

      so long and thanks for all the fish

      by Anton Bursch on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:26:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes (10+ / 0-)

        i don't care who it is, or how much good work they do in other arenas- when someone is wrong, particularly on a major issue, they need to. be told.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:28:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  she didn't say anything but what Obama ran on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skwimmer, malharden

          and won this election.  so, i don't know what you are talking about.

          i agree that we on the left need to hold the line, but i think you guys are reading between the lines too much worrying about what Patty said

          so long and thanks for all the fish

          by Anton Bursch on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:20:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You think THIS is what got out the vote?: (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina, Pluto, slinkerwink, splintersawry
            Our country has a tremendous debt and deficit problem.
            You think this is what motivated people to stand up to eight hours in line to cast their votes?

            THIS is the mandate we sent to the president?

            Solve the DEBT "problem"?

            Obama mentioned frequently in the campaign that the debt needed to be addressed, but that's NOT the plank that sent him back to Washington.

            Millions and millions of Dems voted for Obama in spite of his obsession with cutting the deficit/debt in the middle of a fragile recovery. Their primary motivation was to keep the radical Republicans out of office. For these Dems their vote was hardly an endorsement of austerity.

            "And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory." - Krugman

            by WisePiper on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:51:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  our country DOES have that problem (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              debedb, malharden

              and denying it is not going to do anything but lose us a seat at the table in figuring out how to deal with it

              fuck me.  how much more evidence of people fucking themselves over due to denial do you need after this election?

              do we need to deal with the debt and deficit right now?  YES WE FUCKING DO, because otherwise we are going to default to across the board cuts at the end of the year.

              do we have to solve EVERY problem with the debt and deficit right now?  of course not.  and neither Obama nor Patty Murray have even suggested that we do.  they are talking about how to do what needs to be done now.  and once we DO deal with what we need to do right now we can MOVE ON to other issues like jobs and immigration and climate change.

              so long and thanks for all the fish

              by Anton Bursch on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:09:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You couldn't be more mistaken. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink, splintersawry

                NOTHING has to be done before the end of the year, nor SHOULD anything be done. The projected negative effects of the sequester are calculated over the entire year.

                The Dems are in the catbird seat (provided they're not too timid to occupy it and dictate from it).

                "And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory." - Krugman

                by WisePiper on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:13:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  politically, yes, it does have to be done (0+ / 0-)

                  and of course it will be done, so, i don't even know why anyone is wasting time talking like it won't be unless you're all just playing the part of angry left base that gives Democrats more bargaining power or something.  

                  so long and thanks for all the fish

                  by Anton Bursch on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:40:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  she IS wrong about this and for starters (7+ / 0-)

        Sen. Murray is not responsible for legalizing pot, a lot of voters are and I don't remember her saying anything about it prior to the vote (maybe I missed it). As far as legalizing gay marriage that had already happened there was just an initiative on the ballot to repeal it, and both of those things are safe issues. It's when the subject comes to the 99% vs the 1 % we see the real side of our reoresentatives in Congress and don't forget she was on the last Super Cat Food Commission.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:34:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A YES vote for 74 APPROVED gay marriage (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skwimmer

          and the positive thoughtful approach to winning support for gay marriage is how it was approved

          that kind of positive thoughtful approach was also used to legalize pot

          that's how we make REAL progress in WA state

          Patty didn't say anything in the interview but what the President won the election saying, so, i don't know what everyone is freaking out about

          and I said that Patty is responsible for not only holding the senate but making gains in the senate

          Patty made gains in the senate using the SAME approach that was used in WA to approve gay marriage and legalize pot

          as for your 99% vs 1% argument.  i think you are blinded by your ideology.  

          so long and thanks for all the fish

          by Anton Bursch on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:19:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  candidates like Tammy Duckworth won because (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink, samanthab

            of whom she is and what she represents and btw I live in Washington State so I missed all that thoughtful stuff said by Sen. Super Cat Food Murray about pot or even the Federal raids on legally operating medical marijuana dispensaries.
            (It's worth mentioning that Sen. Murray didn't write either Bill)
            What she really did fail to do was show support for Darcy Burner (I don't watch much tv but I heard nothing elsewhere) and in the fight to stop the building of the largest coal terminal in North America she is nowhere to be seen. All she has offered is the big dodge others have used,asking that all environmental impacts be studied before building it.

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:38:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  excuse me I meant Elizabeth Warren as an example (0+ / 0-)

              of the person elected to the Senate because of whom she is and where SHE stands. (I was reading about Tammy Duckworth's story and continued typing while I was still thinking about her great story).

              without the ants the rainforest dies

              by aliasalias on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:45:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  okay, i'm sorry, but where did i... (0+ / 0-)

                say that Patty Murray was responsible for legalizing pot or gay marriage?  i said that she was responsible for keeping and increasing the majority in the senate.  and she is.  and if you don't want to give her credit for that, well, i don't know what to say to that kind of bullshit.

                congratulations on your swooning love affair with the senator from Mass.  why don't you move there and she can be your senator too.  

                so long and thanks for all the fish

                by Anton Bursch on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:59:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  okay, yes, i also swoon over Warren (0+ / 0-)

                  although, that's mostly because of my great hopes for her as a senator

                  so long and thanks for all the fish

                  by Anton Bursch on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:50:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  now I remember why I don't respond to your (0+ / 0-)

                  comments and for starters I don't care for the DCCC and it's Blew Dogs,in the House or in the Senate.
                  As far the rest goes I would gladly trade Sen. Murray for Sen. Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat and it's about their policies not personalities so you can stick the swooning stuff somewhere uncomfortable.
                  Also I think it's an insult to voters to say they voted for people like Elizabeth Warren (for an example) because of what was done by the DCCC under Sen. Murray when many may not even know who she is (or care) and fwiw they (Murray, Warren) are not ideologically even on the same page.

                  I like Howie Klein's question (which also applies to the Senate DCCC)...

                  Will the Obama administration wake up and push for the DCCC to become friendly to progressive candidates?  As Klein notes above, “When will the corrupt Inside-the-Beltway Democratic Establishment learn that actual Democratic voters don’t want Blue Dogs and that Republicans have their own reactionaries so they don’t need them?”

                  To take back the House in 2014, the Democrats need to do the opposite of what Obama functionaries like Rahm Emanuel did to progressive activists and candidates between 2008 and 2012.  By the beginning of December we will see if the White House will move leftward in the upcoming term.  If they do move left, and want to regain the U.S. House, pushing for a full purge of the DCCC might be a helluva a place to start.

                  http://my.firedoglake.com/... (emphasis mine)

                  without the ants the rainforest dies

                  by aliasalias on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:09:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Just because she did a good job on the election (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, Minnesota Deb, Anton Bursch

        does not mean that she won't give in.  We have to keep lecturing her to hold the line on the Big 3.  i agree with Laurence.

        Obama and some of the more moderate dems will make an agreement that will have liberals and most of us dems pulling our hair out.  It is better to call and demand they hold the line than to see them give away the Big 3 as a compromise.  They do have a history of compromising with the GOP and giving away the store. That store is "My" SS and Medicare and the fact that if I have to go into a long term hospital - My medicaid.

        Better to demand now than cry later.

    •  maybe if we promoted construction (9+ / 0-)

      you know...like really improving bridges, highways, ports and modernizing our educational infrastructure, instead of simply allocating money to backfill existing state budgets for social services and public employee retention...maybe then the Keynesian model would explain itself.  Maintaining a status quo is sort of hard to explain as being truly stimulative, because there is nothing to show for it after the money is spent.

      Oregon: Sure...it's cold. But it's a damp cold.

      by Keith930 on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:32:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  10-year debt trading at a yield of 1.61% (10+ / 0-)

      The bond market does not believe the US has a debt or deficit problem.

      And neither should Dems.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:21:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Especially when Keynesian econ means (0+ / 0-)

      deficit hawking in good time...not bad...they can still be fiscally responsible...actually more...

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:36:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well It's a Conservative Framing, and a Lot of (25+ / 0-)

    Dems aren't "buying into" it because many of them are conservative.

    This is discouraging to hear but we didn't have a choice this year to vote out austerity.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:10:12 AM PST

  •  I am so glad Katrina Vanden Heuvel (83+ / 0-)

    was there to over-ride the nonsense Patty Murray was spewing!  On a good note, I heard newly-elected Senator Tammy Baldwin interviewed locally this morning and she was crystal clear that she does not support the "tremendous debt and deficit" that some Democrats appear to be putting out there like Murray (along with the Repubs, of course).  Tammy came right out and said that SS has NOTHING to do with our debt OR deficit.  Don't remember the specifics of the rest of her comments, but she was quite clearly of the same mindset at Katrina is.  She's gonna give a few of her fellow Democratic Senators heartburn and frankly, I hope she does.  

    We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis D. Brandeis

    by 3goldens on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:14:45 AM PST

  •  The problem with Vanden Heuvel's approach (15+ / 0-)

    is that the President did not run on "Let's just raise taxes on the rich."  He did not run on "we don't need to do anything about our deficit and debt."  He ran on "a balanced approach to deficit reduction."   If he has a "mandate" as some argue, it's not a mandate just for raising taxes on households over $250,000.  The "mandate" (if it exists) is for "a balanced approach to deficit reduction."  

    And since raising taxes on two income families over $250,000 does very little in terms of deficit reduction, ($80 billion when the annual deficit is over $1 trillion) that means that there has to be a something else besides those tax increases that will contribute to deficit reduction.  The question is what that "something else" will be.  

  •  Murray's position sounds (10+ / 0-)

    identical to that of the Whitehouse.

    Too soon?

  •  i thought patty murray was the one who said (15+ / 0-)

    she was willing to lead the d's over the cliff if that's what it took to force the r's hand.  

    lawrence o'd has shown the clip of her news conference from sometime during the summer making the pledge to do just that, so this is disturbing.

    •  And she repeated that this morning. This (5+ / 0-)

      diary seriously misrepresents Murray's position this morning.

      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

      by ratcityreprobate on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:53:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please post it nt (0+ / 0-)

        "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

        by eXtina on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:22:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure. (9+ / 0-)

          Everyone who has looked at this, including the supercommittee that I served on, said we need to have revenue as part of the solution to this problem as well as looking at entitlements and spending cuts. What has been the missing ingredient is congress to date has been the revenue and to make sure that it is fairly distributed and the wealthy pay their fair share. That is what we face right now. If our Republican counterparts can step forward with that revenue piece we will be able to find a solution.
          STEPHANOPOULOS: And if not, go off a cliff?
          MURRAY: Well, clearly, we have the ability between now and the end of the year to not go off the cliff. But we can't accept an unfair deal that piles on the middle class and tell them they have to support it. We have to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share.
          We just had an election where President Obama ran on that. We increased our majority in the senate with Democratic candidates who said that so solve this problem the wealthiest Americans have to pay their fair share, too.
          So if the Republicans will not agree with that, we will reach a point at the end of this year where all the tax cuts expire and we'll start over next year. And whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this.
          STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Chambliss, you said there could be riots in the streets if this isn't done right. So what is the right way to do this? You just heard Senator Murray say the defining principal for the Democrats, the president has said exactly the same thing, is that the wealthy are going to have to pay more.

          Bolding mine.

          Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

          by ratcityreprobate on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:53:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Sen Murray is correct (25+ / 0-)

    But maybe we're uncomfortable with the framing because the framework is used by the GOP for their own agenda.  We do have a debt a deficit problem and it's largely due to two unpaid wars and big tax cuts begun under G.W. Bush.  How bad is the problem?  Maybe not so much in the short-term, but the longer we wait to address the problem, the problem is only going to get bigger and solving it will only get harder.  What we really need to fix the problem is economic growth, and lots of it.  Unfortunately, huge spending cuts will do anything but promote growth.  So what do we do?  How long can we continue kicking the can down the road?

    Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

    by winsock on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:30:00 AM PST

    •  Exactly. Let's not be stupid here (17+ / 0-)

      This denial about the debt comes across as so ridiculous. THE DEFICITS ARE REAL PEOPLE. This doesn't mean that we have to gut social programs or anything like that, but it means WE HAVE TO offer comprehensive and progressive debt plans instead of playing just defense and complaining how the stupid establishment is talking about the debt.

      The debt is real. It is a problem. Does it mean we have to reduce SS benefits (changing COLA etc.)? No. But it does mean we have to talk about solutions like the carbon tax or comprehensive progressive tax reform (beyond the top Bush tax cuts) instead of just denying that the problem exists.

      We're supposed to be a reality based community. I get the frustration about gutting social programs but by the love of god, let's not be ridiculous and say we don't have a debt and deficit problem. And by the way, just taking away oil company subsidies and raising the top tax rate will not solve the problem. Let's be smart and offer our own solution instead of coming across as ignorant.

    •  Our deficit needs to be LARGER, not smaller (20+ / 0-)

      Fiscal contraction during a severe economic slump will only prolong the slump and increase its severity.

      This is fundamental Keynesian economics. See the disastrous austerity measures in Europe for evidence.

      How long can we continue kicking the can down the road?
      Despite all the talk of the debt/deficit "crisis," the US government is still able to borrow money at low interest rates. So there is no crisis.

      Sen. Murray is not correct. Democrats should be talking about only three things:

      1. jobs
      2. jobs
      3. jobs

      •  Exactly. (9+ / 0-)

        Krugman said we always have a deficit and that is not the major problem. There is free money now so we should borrow it for a stimulus and get people back to work, once people are working the deficit will go down. In fact it is already going down under Obama. We need stimulus not spending cuts.

        The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

        by GustavMahler on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:52:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You are 100% right, (9+ / 0-)

        IF you want a good economy.

        But the rich people who have purchased our gov't don't want a good economy. They want what they want. Notice the record corporate profits the last few years during our "bad" economy.

        They want low inflation, high unemployment, low minimum wage, low social safety net, low taxes for them, higher taxes on the poor, no regulation on them or their businesses, and a two-tiered justice system, where white collar criminals are free to ply their trades without fear of consequences amongst other atrocities.

        They don't want smaller gov't either. They want increased spending in the form of corporate welfare, tax abatement, and a transfer of the remaining public services to private control - where they can be perverted for a profit motive instead of the public good. They want a reduction in the amount of entitlement spending and anything deemed to help the poor or needy. But that money will not be "saved" or removed from the budget, it will be transferred to war or defense spending or be used to pay for further tax cuts for the rich.

        And for the most part they have been getting what they want from Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. (And not to mention the Propaganda/Corporate media.) Their desires are over-represented in our corrupt system of gov't, to the extent that a "good economy" is not possible or even a desired goal of our leaders. A good economy would be a fair and prosperous economy. We know what works. There is fact based evidence. We also know what doesn't work - austerity and tax cuts. We have proof of that too. But they are still trying to sell that to us - because they want it.

        The rich have been fighting a war - for at least my whole life time - and they have been winning. They have used gov't as a tool of control (the few controlling the many) - creating good passive, obedient consumers and keeping them in line - and as a tool of wealth re-distribution (from the many to the few). The smart money thinks they will continue to win. Especially with sellout Dems like Murray and Schumer, and too many others to count, on their side, not to mention the whole Repub party.

    •  If you had a money making machine in your (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, aliasalias

      kitchen, would you EVER have a debt/deficit problem?  No.

      Neither does the US.  Dollars are never in short supply for the Fed Gov.

    •  Exactly -- we do need to put a plan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      in place for the takers (and my notion of the takers is the opposite of Romney's) to contribute more to the common welfare through higher taxes. There's nothing wrong at all with acknowledging the inexorable math of the deficit and the debt as the foundation for increasing taxes on the wealthy and the polluters. There's going to be a deal and progressives should be more focused on a fair deal both as to the timing and burden of the tax increases and which programs will take the cuts and to not stick their heads in the sand.

    •  It's also due to record unemployment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      Can someone explain why, when voters told us it was the most important economic issue, we should ignore it?

      Please stand by. I'm looking for a new sig line.

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:07:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The whole point of how the sequester bill (5+ / 0-)

    was structured, was to make the result so obnoxious that there would be no choice but to address it.

    Framing will be the key to success - IMO the time from now until January should be used exclusively to tie the coming tax increases and spending reductions to Republican intransigence.

    Once they go into effect, the Democrats will be able to sit down and start a fresh negotiation regarding the issue, with the Republicans on the defensive.

    There probably should be spending cuts as part of the deal - and they should exclusively come out of Defense and corporate subsidies.

  •  Come on Dems, you can do it! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, divineorder

    Do not be afraid!

  •  I have faith in Elizabeth Warren (6+ / 0-)

    to tell it like it is.

  •  I will add video when available, not up yet nt (0+ / 0-)

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:26:40 AM PST

  •  Here is another excellent diary to compliment this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, aliasalias

    Republicans...What a nice club...of liars, cheaters, adulterers, exaggerators, hypocrites and ignoramuses. Der Spiegel -6.62, -6.92

    by CanyonWren on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:27:58 AM PST

  •  2 general things about Barack Obama (5+ / 0-)

    I've noticed:

    1.) When he makes noise about something, as opposed to pandering to the electorate he wants to pacify, Obama generally means business.

    2.) In a given negotiation, Obama can look like he's caving on every single point, but he somehow or other seems to walk away with most of what he wanted.

    Yes, I'm generalizing. But the fact Obama has made noises about fairly taxing the wealthiest interests in society heartens me very much.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:32:40 AM PST

  •  I hate to be the turd floating in the pool (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mike101, eXtina, Cassiodorus, Timothy J

    But I have my fingers crossed that a "grand bargain" that aint so grand may be in the works.

    We need to be doing some "nation-building" at home.

    That damn "cliff" meme is working.

    Maybe one day the Fourth Estate will take their jobs seriously. Or not..

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:51:47 AM PST

  •  Why are you bashing the woman who (5+ / 0-)

    engineered the massive victory we just won in the Senate? She's a freakin' hero and you diary is way off base.

  •  Americans want these things but don't want to pay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, Timothy J

    Unfortunately the idea that we are broke has seeped into the minds of most voters. They still want investments, but believe taxing the rich is all that is needed to finance those investments.

    Sad to say, but in most states, Dems cannot run successful campaigns without seeming fiscally responsible and unfortunately we long ago agreed to a Republican-DLC frame on that value. As a result, deficits only matter when a Democratic administration holds the Executive branch.

    That people are worried about the so-called "cliff" is a tell that austerity doesn't lead to prosperity.

    We are were we are. This is an opportunity for Progressives to finally take advantage of an opportunity. It doesn't appear that OWS is going to amass again so it is up to us to be proactive. We need to stop being on the defensive and start putting on a show so that we are at the table and entitlements are off of it.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:52:56 AM PST

  •  We *do* have a debt and deficit problem. (10+ / 0-)

    Almost all of the debt, and most of the current deficit, are due to Republican administrations and policies (with some complicit Democrats).
    National debt (including some debt that is not included in international comparisons) is a bit above 100% of GDP. We are currently headed further into debt, and, long-term, it's not sustainable.
    Deficits need to increase in economic downturns. Keynes was, and is right.

    I recommend White House Burning.

    The problem is real.
    We should not deny reality, but we should be honest about the causes and solutions, and raise taxes on the wealthy (and on many of the rest of us, too) and invest in infrastructure, research and education, and repair of the social safety net.

    We had a national debt of 119% of GDP at the end of WWII, and taxed and built our way out of the hole and into middle-class prosperity, until Reagan.

    Let's not emulate Dick Cheney's remark about Reagan showing that deficits don't matter.

    Joe

    "There is just one way to save yourself, and that's to get together and work and fight for everybody." ---Woody Guthrie (quoted by Jim Hightower in The Progressive Populist April 1, 2012, p3)

    by CitizenJoe on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:02:10 PM PST

    •  I"m confused. Do you think we should spend (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      more?  Or reduce the deficit?

      •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        katiec, eXtina

        We need to spend a lot more right now on infrastructure (trillions of dollars over a fairly short term), and enough on research and education to make us world-class. We need to spend less on the military (a lot less money in absolute terms and a moderate amount less in relative terms.

        These will increase the deficit and debt over the short term, but will ultimately create much more wealth that will be taxed.

        So my "yes" answer means spend more now. Taxes should be increased and military spending should be decreased, but the deficit would likely rise short term despite those offsets. Long-term, though, the deficit would disappear (as it did in the latter Clinton years, and in less than a century, we could pay off the national debt, if we wanted to. Some debt is good, though, so we might not want to.

        Once again, I'd cite White House Burning.

        "There is just one way to save yourself, and that's to get together and work and fight for everybody." ---Woody Guthrie (quoted by Jim Hightower in The Progressive Populist April 1, 2012, p3)

        by CitizenJoe on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:22:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Deficit would disappear"...... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina

          If the deficit were 0, where would dollars come from?  Right now they come from the government and the deficit equals private saving to a penny.

          But everything else you wrote I agree with.

          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

            If the deficit were zero, then the budget would be in balance.
            If (and when) we do better than that, then we will have a surplus--as we did under Clinton's last years.

            In either case, the dollars come from taxes, mostly.

            Joe

            "There is just one way to save yourself, and that's to get together and work and fight for everybody." ---Woody Guthrie (quoted by Jim Hightower in The Progressive Populist April 1, 2012, p3)

            by CitizenJoe on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:46:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If I was running a deficit of $100 dollars for 5 (0+ / 0-)

              years, then I'd have $500 deficit.

              If today I started to balance my budget, I'd stop running deficits, but I'd still have a $500 deficit.

              If I started running a surplus, I could use that money to pay down my deficit.

              A balanced budget comes before a zero deficit, and only when we get to a surplus, which must be applied to reducing the deficit rather than buying lipstick, would we eventually get to a $0 deficit.

              Now let's think about where every dollar in the private sector comes from.  They all come from the Federal Gov.  If you want money in the private sector, you don't want the deficit to be $0.  If it were, then there'd be no dollars in the private sector.  That would suck.

              Every dollar is both a public liability and a public asset.  This is double entry accounting.  If you only want 1 dollar in the private sector, then the deficit will equal exactly 1 dollar. Etc....  

              The US is a currency issuer.  You and I are a currency user.  But only if the US actually issues that currency, ie, runs a deficit.

              The US must spend BEFORE it can tax.  Cuz there has to be dollars in the private sector to tax.  And those dollars come from the Fed Gov.

              Taxes do not fund fed government spending.  You wouldn't need to tax if you had a money making machine in you kitchen.  You'd just push a button, and poof, you have dollars.

              The Fed Gov IS that money making machine.

  •  Correct answer: Look at Europe and Greece. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, msdrown, divineorder, aliasalias

    Europe in general and Greece + Spain in particular have embraced brutal austerity as the response to deficits and the aftershocks of the Bush/Cheney meltdown. And the results have been predictably catastrophic. Spain, Greece, even Great Britain are all experiencing economic suffering and unemployment quite literally at Great Depression levels.

    And it's not like this should be a surprise to anyone! This is precisely what happened in 1929-1933, when stupid deficit-obsessed politicians around the world slashed government budgets, turning a leverage-based banking and financial downturn into a totally preventable global economic catastrophe.

    Austerity and spending cuts in the face of recession create brutal economic suffering and full-out depression.

    And anyone who fails to understand this repeatedly demonstrated empirical truth proves they are unfit to serve.  

  •  I agree with you, and only hope (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, Miggles

    that she and other Dems are saying this just to get the Obama tax cut passed without an additional tax cut for the wealthy.

    Still, even if that is the goal, I hate the messaging and the total capitulation to a Repub frame.

    But what else is new?

  •  We got them elected, now they need to fear us... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, Timothy J

    ...and our power to organize.  Chickenshit Democrats need to be put on notice that TeaBageers are not the only people that know how to organize a primary challenge.  And this President needs to know that he was not re-elected to deal with the deficit, he was elected to fight for the 99% of America that is getting screwed over by the rich.

    The bear and the rabbit will never agree on how dangerous a dog is.

    by fromer on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:20:48 PM PST

    •  They just won their seats, they don't need to (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, greenbell, eXtina, aliasalias, Timothy J

      pander for another 2/4 years.  They'll laugh off any organization of the left just like they did for the last 4 years.

      NOW SHOWING
      Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
      Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

      by The Dead Man on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:39:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  organize better. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, Timothy J

        Occupy showed that the American people have the power to change the national narrative.  Until Occupy, it was the Summer of Deficit.

        No reason similar influence cannot again be wielded.

        I don't know, say a group that found credible populist primary candidates, created funding mechanisms that would sustain an 18 month campaign of candidate awareness, and went after anyone, of any party, who dared put Wall St ahead of main St?  Think that would get laughed off?

        I wrote a diary about it early in the week, and cite the example of Wayne B. Wheeler and his successful drive to get Prohibition enshrined in the Constitution. Worth a read.

        The bear and the rabbit will never agree on how dangerous a dog is.

        by fromer on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:59:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  One of the annoying things about democracy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    is that it tends to breed "leaders" who are actually followers, and are thus susceptible to being brainwashed by their own opponents.

    "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

    by Troubadour on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:22:50 PM PST

  •  IMHO, Murray has it right (7+ / 0-)

    We DO have a debt and deficit problem.  We need to get our finances on a sustainable path and the question is really "how best to do that?"  We can tell from Europe that austerity doesn't work great.  So it seems that it would be better to grow our economy in the short term with the explicit promise to be reasonable and prudent in the longer term.

    But to think that we can run trillion dollar deficits year after year and that will not significantly impact our kids is pure folly.

    So let's go with moderate short term stimulus with an understanding that in the long term we need to live within our means.

    And while it's not a popular view, each of us, conservative or liberal, need to understand that each of us is benefiting from deficit spending.  We need to understand that we need to sacrifice to get our fiscal house in order.  I'm willing to accept slightly higher taxes and slightly lower expected benefits in order to not hurt my kids and generations yet to come.  

    It would be interesting to see what conservatives and liberals are collectively willing to give up in order to create a sustainable solution.  Sadly, it appears that each side is mainly only interested in forcing the other side to make sacrifices.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

    by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:26:15 PM PST

    •  We DON'T need to sacrifice to get it in order. (10+ / 0-)

      We need sensible tax rates at the top and a sustainable health care system. The end.

      Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
      Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
      Code Monkey like you!

      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

      by Code Monkey on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:46:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My friend, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lorzie, guyeda

        you think that only the wealthy need to sacrifice.  I would say that the problem is much more severe than that.  I hope you are right and that I'm wrong but from most analysis that I have seen, raising tax rates on the top 1, 2, 5 or 10 percent doesn't quite accomplish the task.

        I think the reality based community needs to realize that we are facing a situation where we need to deal with AGW, peak oil, and a huge deficit/debt problem.  To think that only the small percentage at the top will have to sacrifice seems foolhardy in my opinion.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:49:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  restoring top 20% taxes gets pretty close (4+ / 0-)

          it might be closer to top 30%.

          But it's not true that the bottom 50%-60% needs to sacrifice to balance the deficit.

          And the long term deficit is all about health care.

          •  You and I might not be that far apart (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ferg

            To put it in concrete terms what is the tax rate that you offer for the top 1 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 10 percent, the top 20 percent and the top 30 percent?

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

            by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:04:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  call it 60/40 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eXtina

              For the top 40%, restore the Clinton tax rates.

              For the bottom 60%, keep the current rates.

              For the top 1%, some smaller additional increases like a slight additional rate increase, normalizing cap gains, micro-transactions tax, etc.

              That should be in the ballpark of a balanced budget without needing spending cuts (assuming the war spending ends.) That proposal is pretty close to the Progressive Caucus budget a few years ago, which the CBO scored well.

              Have the CBO score that and if it saves too much, raise the cut-off to 70/30 or 80/20 or whatever.

        •  Reality: The US can always pay it's obligations. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina

          So, in what way do we have "huge deficit/debt" problem.

          In what way would you if you had a money making machine in your kitchen?

      •  Can I have my pony too? n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  Most deficit solutions floated are regressive-- (16+ / 0-)

      that is, their impact will be felt most by people who can least afford to absorb them.
      Once we start talking seriously about addressing the deficit, which is the direct result of the Bush-era tax cuts and two unfunded wars, in a way that does NOT further disadvantage the middle-class and the poor, then I'm up for it. My own favorite remedy is to EXPAND public works and create government jobs, if need be, to develop a green infrastructure for telecommunications, energy, and transportation (just to start). Otherwise, we're continuing to undermine the long-term health of the economy and the country far more dangerously than running a deficit can do.

      I'm seeking to organize DKos members in SE Michigan--roughly, from the Ohio line at Lake Erie NE to Port Huron, W to Flint and back S from there. If you'd like to join our new group, Motor City Kossacks (working title), please Kosmail me.

      by peregrine kate on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:49:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you to a certain point (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ferg, lorzie, eXtina, guyeda

        In 2001 we had a decision to make regarding the surplus.  We could apply the surplus to the debt, we could expand government or we could cut taxes.  We chose to cut taxes.  It was, likely, the wrong choice.

        Then we chose to fund two wars on the credit card.  Which was also the wrong choice.

        So we are where we are now.  I think it's obvious that we can raise taxes on the wealthy in such a way that the tax rates are 20 percent below what they were in Reagan's first term and not overly harm the economy.  This is hardly regressive.

        But I do not think that balancing the budget solely on the backs of the wealthy is a long term viable option.  Personally, I'm at around the top 20 percent of earners.  I don't favor a regressive approach for the country and so I think that people in my situation can sacrifice as well.

        As Obama says, a balanced approach is the right way to go and what that means is shared sacrifice.  I realize that the farther down the income scale you go there is less of an ability to sacrifice but, considering the circumstances we find ourselves in, it seems pure folly to think that shared sacrifice is not the call of the day.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:01:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The kids never have to pay it back. So in what (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, priceman

      way will it impact them?

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

        You think that there are economic free lunches?  It must be nice to think that we can run up deficits year after year and not think that we are actually harming future generations.

        I would like to think that the reality based community rejects this simplistic and misguided thinking.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:56:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reality: We have a fiat monetary system. Really. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina, priceman, vacantlook

          Unlike a commodity monetary system, fiat money is merely a unit of account, it's not a thing.  It's like inches, miles, ounces, etc....  Or, as Geitner stated, like points at a bowling alley.

          Do the kids owe themselves inches?  Lol.  What would that even mean?

          Plus, the US owes all it's debts in dollars, which it creates out of thin air.  The kids will inherit this money making machine.  No debt will be too large for their computers to make marks on a screen, which is what most currency is now days.  

          If the US were one person, then it would be analagous for either me or my kid to say:  I owe myself money which I create out of thin air.  

          In other words, they will inherit real wealth, or lack thereof, (like bridges, smart grids, etc...) plus the accounting book which kept track of how dollars were spent into the private sector to create wealth minus the dollars destroyed through taxes.

          That's all.  And that's reality.

          •  To take your argument to the outer edges of (0+ / 0-)

            logical consistency....then let's not even tax ourselves.  After all, no debt will be too large for our posterity to make marks on their computer screens.

            Seriously, if you think that running deficits is no big deal than why would we even bother to pay taxes?  Perhaps I don't entirely understand your argument but it would seem that your argument falls apart once you attempt to answer this question.

            Deficit spending is simply an accounting trick (as you sorta point out) to bring future spending forward.  It helps the current economy at the expense of the future economy.  To argue otherwise is something I seriously don't understand.

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

            by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:14:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong. We tax for 3 reasons: 1) to give state (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              David Futurama, eXtina

              money it's value.  If you have to pay taxes then you'll work to obtain state money, the dollar in the US case.

              2)  To distribute the fruits of a labor more fairly, ie, to tax free lunches, like the various rents.

              3)  To drain dollars from the private sector if the economy heats up too much, ie, to prevent/reduce inflation.

              You need to aswer this question:  Does the US have a fiat currency?  The answer is yes.  Again, if you had a money making machine in your kitchen, you would not need to tax before you could spend.  Neither does the US.

              You're stuck in Gold Standard thinking.  Our money is no longer tied to shiny rocks.

              We are not borrowing from the future.  We are spending units of account today.  Our kids will spend units of account in their day.

              And stop being rude to me.  I'll go head to head with you as far as economics is concerned any day.

              I'm rarely rude to someone.  But read a damn book about our monetary system.  Get with the times. The Gold Rocks days have been over since 1971.

        •  And yes, there are economic free lunches, like (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman, eXtina

          when you or I earn interest on our savings.  

          •  I'm sorry. Apparently you don't quite understand (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pgm 01

            the economic term "free lunch".  Sacrificing current spending in the hopes of having increased spending in the future does not fall under the category of "free lunch".   Respectfully, I would say that there isn't an economist spanning the spectrum from Krugman to Mankiw that would agree with your comment.

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

            by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:21:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I had the privilege of having a liberal economic (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina, guyeda

            professor in college and even he started the class as follows:  Day 1, class 1, first lesson is that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Somebody pays somewhere somehow.  

            My church actually does offer a free lunch for senior citizens.  However, volunteers make the food and the ingredients are purchased using donated funds.  It is free for those senior citizens but there is an associated cost, it is just borne by the church, not the people partaking in the meal.  Interest is a payment given to you because the bank borrowed your money to loan it to somebody else, your interest came out of somebody's pocket.

            •  First, banks don't borrow my money to loan (0+ / 0-)

              to somebody else.

              Banks loan first then find reserves later, when or if there's reserve requirements.  At any rate they are not reserve constrained.  New IMF paper about this.  Google Steve Keen, it's his lastest article.

              If there are reserve requirements, and a bank does not have the reserves to cover a loan, they find it AFTER making the loan through overnight inter-bank lending.  If they can't find it that way, then they go to the Fed, who acts as lender of last resort.When this happens, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air.

              While the banks create the principle, they don't create the interest.  To cover this NEW dollar demand, the Fed must create new dollars.

              If the money to pay interest to me comes through someone else's pocket, where did they get that money, etc....  eventually, you'll come to the Fed.

              Where the heck do you think dollars come from originally?  Think I make them up in my basement?  Maybe Alec Baldwin does?  NO.  The Fed Government does.  It issues every dollar in existence.  Including every dollar in you pocket.  Thank God for deficits, which equal private savings to a penny.

    •  Why? (5+ / 0-)

      You make some assertions about the danger of deficts. Please explain.

      Also, most of the deficit is due to a weak economy and too-low tax rates. Fix the economy and raise rates, and you've drastically reduced the deficit. $80B might not seem like a lot but it's nearly 10% of $1T, which is not nothing. But that $80B goes way up in a healthier economy.

      But I still want to know why you think the debt and deficits are so bad.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:29:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's an interesting argument that you are (0+ / 0-)

        promoting.  I would make a simple argument that running deficits is simply a way to bring future spending forward.  For example, we have been running deficits for the better part of three decades now and the result is that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year in interest payments on those past deficits when we could be spending those billions of dollars on education, infrastructure, climate change, etc.

        Another way to put it is that our current economy is actively hurt by the failure of past congresses to spend within their means.

        As a last point, I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding your $80B figure.  Can you expand your line of thinking on that so I'm clear on what you mean by that?

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:07:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are we really paying that much in interest? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina, aliasalias, splintersawry

          Does it exceed the likely net economic growth that they made possible that has been drastically undertaxed?

          To what extent does our present and future ability to borrow money (currently at zero interest) or print money (which is really the same thing when you think about it) cover and make moot this interest?

          These and similar questions need to be addressed to determine to what extent our debt and deficits are good or bad, and sustainable or not. I don't think it's as cut and dry and some make it out to be. Debt is infinitely sustainable if not excessive, but what is excessive? And to a certain point deficits can be large and long-term and not suicidal, but to what point?

          But the arguments being made that our present levels of debt and deficit are dangerous and need to be dealt with immediately are specious, dishonest and self-serving. At the very least they can be put off a few more years, and likely longer. They are, really, what's keeping us from plunging deeper into recession, which of course would increase both. It's putting the debt and deficit before all else that's suicidal, not the opposite, as is often claimed by pundits.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:36:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll assume that you are a person of good will (0+ / 0-)

            I'll also assume that you are human (shocker that) and are not perfect.  And I'll ask you this question, fully understanding that you and I are imperfect and are likely to guess wrong on the answer.  But in the last five fiscal years, from FY08 thru FY12, how much do you think we paid in interest on the national debt?

            If you are honest and could please answer prior to googling the answer and then if you could please post what your research says, that would be most helpful in advancing the dialogue.  

            As I side, I assume that you are a person of goodwill and I think the answers to those questions would be an eye opener.

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

            by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:53:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And what did we pay the interest with? Gold? (0+ / 0-)

              or Fiat money.  Which is like inches -- a unit of account.

              •  Ok, I give up. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                katiec

                You are right.  We can cut the the top marginal rate by 20 percent, increase the deficit, and it will have no negative impact on future growth.  We will just print more money when we need it.  Damn!  Free lunches are great!

                BTW, do you care to guess how much we have spent on interest on the national debt in the last 5 years or are you going to stick with your argument that it doesn't matter because we can print more money?

                We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:38:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lol. I know you don't like this, but.... (0+ / 0-)

                  fiat money is free.  It just is.  

                  The older Galbraith realized that this was so simple the mind abhors it.

                  But, how much does money from nothing cost?  Nothing.  I'm pretty sure....

                  The US Gov issues the currency.  Pretend that there's  no dollars in the private sector.  In order to get dollars into the private sector, the Gov spends it into existence.

                  The accounting looks like this:

                  Gov 1 dollar deficit.
                  Private sector 1 dollar asset.

                  If you want dollars in the private sector, you got to have a deficit.  This is by accountiing identity.  It's a tautology.  It COULD be disproven, but hasn't been yet.

                  So, if the real economy (hiring labor, producing and moving goods around, etc) needs 100 dollars, the deficit should equal 100 dollars.

                  If the economy needs ONLY 100 dollars, then the deficit should be ONLY 100 dollars, else you get inflation.

                  But NEVER do we want NO deficit.  At least not until we decide we don't need to use a currency to produce  and move goods around.

                •  You keep thinking large is bad cuz it's large. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm a woman, I know, large is good :)  Just kidding.

                  Really, what's a currency for?  Why do we want it?

                  We want it for practical reasons regarding the real economy.  You need to look at the real economy and see what it needs.  Does it need a small, medium, or large deficit?  

                  It can't be too small, it can't be too large.  It needs to be just what the real economy needs it to be.

                  How many inches do I need to build a house?  Depends on the size of the house.

                  And yes, the inches are free and I can never run out them.
                  The wood, plumbing, etc aren't so free :)

                •  Dean Baker: We don't borrow from the future (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't know how to send links, but the article is called

                  "Children and Grand Children Do Not Pay for Budget Deficits, They Get Interest on the Bonds".

                  Good article, there's lots more from the like of Galbraith, Stiglitz, etc....

                  But Dean is a good place to start.

                  But also, more generally:  The US is a currency ISSUER, it does not obtain dollars from anyone.  Thus there is no one to whom it can pay back.  I know this initially seems weird, but it's true.

                  If you had a money making machine in your kitchen, and used only the money you made, how would you owe anyone some money?

                  Debt, deficit, borrow, income, surplus, are all words that need to be placed in semantic context of national accounting of a nation who is sovereign over it's currency, and which owes all debts in it's currency, and whose currency freely floats.

                  None of these words have the same meaning for the US government that it does for you, me, and businesses.  Cuz the US ISSUES ALL dollars.  You and me merely use that issue.  

                  The US is not monetarily constrained.  You and I are.

                  What is a deficit if you have an infinite supply of dollars?  It's an accounting, or mathmatical, notation.  That's all.

                  •  For future reference (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    katiec

                    If you want to hyperlink an article copy the URL and then paste it in your comment.

                    http://www.cepr.net/...

                    Then highlight the web address and click on the "Link" button at the bottom of your comment.  It's a useful tool so I would suggest go ahead and practice it once here since it's probably mostly just us two on this thread now.

                    There might be a shorter way to do it but that is the way I always have done it in the past and it seems to work.

                    Be well.  I'll try to read the article in a bit.

                    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                    by theotherside on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:33:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Ballpark? (0+ / 0-)

              I'd guess (and likely be way off on) $100B, or an average of $20B per year. Now let me google it and find out how wrong I was...

              From this site:

              2012  $359,796,008,919.49
              2011  $454,393,280,417.03
              2010  $413,954,825,362.17
              2009  $383,071,060,815.42
              2008  $451,154,049,950.63
              That's over $2T, a bit off from my guess. :-) I think you can rest assured that I "honored" your request, or else I wouldn't be this wildly off.

              Egg on face to wipe off.

              Seriously, though, while these sounds like and are gynormous numbers, so far we've been able to deal with it and it doesn't appear to have hurt the economy (beyond the hurt it's otherwise sustained).

              Sure, this may be a case of delaying the inevitable, but it may also be the case that between new debt costing far less to service due to zero interest rates than old debt being retired, an improving economy bringing in new tax dollars to help pay down the debt, higher net tax rates (once you factor in closing loopholes), and cutting defense and other unnecessary spending, this is likely to go down.

              Plus, there's still the question of how much the spending that the debt that this interest is being paid on has generated in additional tax revenues above what would have been generated without it--and we're talking about spending and debt going back decades--due to increased economic activity. We're talking roads, schools, research, sewage treatment, even defense programs and wars, that has undoubtedly generated tons of tax revenue. Is it not possible that this has actually exceeded what we spend in interest, or at least negated much of it?

              You need to look at the whole picture, and not just the debt, deficit and interest part of it, to know whether it's all worth it, and sustainable. I'm not qualified to answer that. But many people who are reassure me that it is.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:45:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Fiat money -- out of thin air money -- (0+ / 0-)

          can always pay those interest rates.

          When you have a fiat money system, taxes don't fund gov spending.

          If you could make dollars, you wouldn't have to tax in order to spend.  Neither does the Fed gov.

          •  On the bright side there a quite a few (0+ / 0-)

            pretty smart Zimbabwe finance ministers that would agree with you.  On the down side, this is not a compliment.

            If you are going to comment on economic theory threads, may I suggest you read some books somewhere on the spectrum between communist and libertarian because there is hardly a one that will agree with what you are positing.

            It's ok to be ignorant.  In this incredibly complex world all of us are increasingly ignorant on a great many scientific fronts.  Admittedly I'm ignorant on an enormous spectrum of modern advances in everything from physics, chemistry, computer science, etc.   But to spout ignorance on a website is not a virtue.  

            If you study economics in the next couple of years, I'm pretty sure that you would disagree with your comments posted here.

            I don't mean this in a dick-ish way even though I'm direct in my argument against your economic theory.  What I'm suggesting is that while we, as a government, have the ability to print money it is not divorced from the underlying economic activity of our country.

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

            by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:20:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Galbraith, Dean Baker, Stiglitz and others. (0+ / 0-)

              Zimbabwe differs from the US in two important ways:

              It owed debts in currencies other than it's own.  The US owes all it's liabilities in it's own unit of account:  The Dollar.

              Mugabe had destroyed most of Zimbabwe's productive capacity, mostly it's farming.  Thus, new currency meant too much money chasing too few goods --  equals hyper  inflation.

              The US has loads of unused productive capacity.

              The US and Zimbabwe aren't analogous.  Neither is Weimar Germany.

              Of course it's not divorced from the underlying activity.  So....  in what way, precisely, is the deficit bad for our economy?

              And you have spent more time being rude than you have putting forward an argument of any kind.

              •  Yes, I'm being tough on your argument (0+ / 0-)

                It's nothing personal.  You and I simply disagree.

                And perhaps we are arguing past each other but the argument is not whether deficits are bad for our economy.  Running a deficit is actually great for our economy.  It's just that running past deficits, by and large,  is bad for the current economy and our future economy will largely be hurt by the current extremely large deficits.

                So does that mean that we need to follow Republican austerity plans to quickly take care of the deficits? IMO, clearly the answer is no.

                And, you are quite right that Zimbabwe and pre-Hitler Germany are not analogous.  We have far more economic advantages over them that would preclude any meaningful comparison between our economy and those two economies.

                However, the argument that because we can print our own money that deficits don't matter is extremely wrong.   Yes, I'm very dismissive of this point of view and it can be viewed as being rude without that intent on my part.

                But economics is a complex subject and perhaps you and i aren't as clear as we would like to be in the few paragraphs that we have shared on this thread.

                We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                by theotherside on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:25:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Much nicer :) Thank you. I too appologize. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'll try to find some really good articles that put forward the argument that we are not borrowing from the future.

                  From prize winning economists.

                  Not to convince you per se.  But I find that once I really think about the logic of fiat currency, there's no other logical way  to think about it.  

                  Deficits DO matter, always.  We need them to have currency in the private domain.  

                  They can be too small, thus creating deflation.

                  They can be too large, thus creating inflation.

                  Anyway, I'll be nice if you're nice.

                •  Deficits equal private savings to a penny. (0+ / 0-)

                  If we ran NO deficits, there'd be NO money in the private sector.  That would suck for our kids.  No currency to do nothing.  They'd inherit NO real wealth.

                  Where do dollars come from?  The Gov.  

                  It's the size that matters.

        •  That interest is mainly owed to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          ourselves through various instruments. China maybe has a third, which isn't bad because if we follow the money, we have it and China doesn't.

          The problem is jobs and fair wages. One cannot pay taxes if one doesn't have a job. Any sovereign's greatest asset is its people in the form of labor and idea making. We have a stalled population. Trillions of dollars in untapped ergs, going on 12 years now. The unemployed are our most valuable resource, shelved.

        •  We've run deficits since the beginning of our (0+ / 0-)

          history, except for 6 very short periods.

          And each of those periods were followed by a recession.

          We are not borrowing from the future.

          That's like saying we borrow inches or miles from the future.  It's non-sensical.  Dollars are not a THING, they are a unit of account.  This has been the case ever since we went off the Gold Standard.

          You might want to learn a little about our actual monetary and national accounting system.  The one we have now as opposed to the one we had when we were on the Gold Standard.

  •  Obama's Grand Bargain is job #1 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, blue earth, aliasalias

    The 1% want it, and they're going to get it.

    Simpson-Bowles is what we're getting.

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:38:23 PM PST

  •  Here's the video of Katrina Vanden Heuvel (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, aliasalias

    Might be useful to post it in your already excellent diary.

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...

  •  Then drop Murray a line. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice Olson, eXtina, Matt Z

    pronto.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:44:18 PM PST

  •  Someone was promoting her to replace Reid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hyperstation, eXtina, priceman

    No way.  Not trustworthy.

    Please stand by. I'm looking for a new sig line.

    by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:51:14 PM PST

    •  More like not bright and tough enough (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think she's dishonest, just kind of weak and clueless. Overall she's one of the better ones, and clearly good at electoral politics. But she's not a leader, at least legislatively, from a progressive perspective.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:25:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  some of you are ridiculous (5+ / 0-)

      She says one thing that's not precisely framed according to some of the folks at DKos and people here are like, "Fuck her! Never trust her."

      How stupid can you be to make the same mistake of '09-10, when instead of pushing to get things done, folks on sites like DKos immediately took to intra-party sniping?

      No offense, but Patty Murray is a whole lot smarter and politically competent than most people here. I think all the folks going after her are guaranteeing is that you're taken less and less seriously in terms of the Democratic Party. There's a reason you don't see a lot of pols posting here like they did back in the day.

      •  Over the years (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, eXtina

        there have been a lot of complaints from her constituents here at Dkos.  I respect the opinions of those people, many have been long time Dem activists.

        I usually don't weigh in on local Dem politics outside of my own CD and state, so I have no opinion on her status in the state of Washington.  

        But I do provide input when those Dems are being considered for national office, appointments or leadership positions or when they are taking roles that shape key legislation.

        There are many, many, many good, skilled, experienced Dems who should make the short list of people to replace Reid.  There's no need to consider someone who appears to be quite unpopular with many of her Dem constituents.

        As to whether Sen. Murray is smarter or more competent than people here, I think its best to avoid putting our elected officials on pedestals.  

        There are many people out in the real world who are smarter and just as competent as our own elected officials. Because they chose not to follow a career in politics does not make them inferior to elected officials, even Democrats.

        Please stand by. I'm looking for a new sig line.

        by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:35:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Their Just Obfuscating the Issue (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    msdrown, eXtina, aliasalias, WheninRome

    Its all b.s. to satisfy their wall street masters, both parties. Until you close the loopholes which allow for offshore tax avoidance and are able to tax the existing offshore money; it is total b.s. to raise rates and cut entitlements. The estimates are there are TEN to TWELVE TRILLION US DOLLARS in off shore tax avoidance havens.

    What these f....ckers in both parties are doing is ignoring the real problems and not leveling with the American people. The wealthy and corporations are paying the lowest tax revenues in 50 years and raising the tax rates on them will only allow them to at best, pay the second lowest tax rate in 50 years. Until you get rid of the corrupt deductions and tax avoidance schemes; the entire argument is for the sake of political justification to cut the entitlements.

    And before they ask us to cut entitlements for outselves, 0parents and granfdparents; they should go after the taxes of the rich and large tax avoidance corporations who dont create jobs in the U.S. anyway.

    Of course before they would ever do that; it would mean the politicians would no longer be funded and owned by them.

    Obama will have to go along with this cosmetic b.s. until we can win back the house in 2014. Then get public financing of campaigns and anything else he can do to truly reform government.

    For4 the meantime we are truly f....ked except for the margins and given the state of the economy; we can be tinkering around the margins.

    Anotherwards we are truly f....ked

  •  1937 (4+ / 0-)

    That's the object lesson. In the midst of the 1932-1937 economic recovery the FDR administration bought the arguments that many conservatives in business and politics were making: that the depression was over, and inflation and deficits were the greatest danger facing the republic. They balanced the budget in 1938 and sent the country into a recession. It only lasted a year before the deficits returned and economic recovery resumed on its previous course.

  •  correction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    ...1933-1937 recovery.

  •  Sigh (4+ / 0-)

    I like Murray. Until very recently she was one of my two senators and I voted for her in the two elections I was able to. I'd do it again, in a heartbeat. And yet like so many leading Dems these days, whether because she truly believes it or has been conditioned into thinking she believes it or out of basic political calculation and fear, she regularly says things that are simply not true, but which, because they've been determined to be true by beltway pundits and "think tanks"--most of whose members are not subject matter experts in the topics they weigh in on-she feels she has to say.

    That's not leadership. That's being led, by people who aren't fit to lead and have their interests, not the country's, in mind. Like many leading Dems she may have gotten good at electoral politics, but at legislative politics, and policy, she frankly still kind of sucks. I include Obama in this group. None of them are very impressive from a legislative or policy point of view. We need more Sanders, Graysons, Warrens and Browns to lead the party.

    Thankfully, we now do.

    This country does not have a serious debt or deficit problem. It has a serious public investment and infrastructure problem. Solve that, restore tax rates to sane levels, cut unnecessary spending on defense and corporate subsidies, make Medicare more effective, and the debt and deficit problems go away.

    Dems have to start leading legislatively, rhetorically and ideologically in addition to politically. Stop letting Repubs run the show. The public doesn't want them to and clearly they suck at it.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:21:54 PM PST

  •  my note to Senator Murray: (4+ / 0-)

    Dear Senator,
    After reading that you said "Well, here's where we are, our country has a tremendous debt and deficit problem" on ABC's This Week program, I would like to point out that there are a number of Nobel Prize winning economists who say with confidence and absolute certainty that there is no problem with our debt. I ask, and at this point beg, you not to continue to march in lock step with deficit hawks like Pete Peterson and the Republican party. Our deficit is not our most pressing problem, jobs are.

    I know I am not a constituent of yours, but I am asking you to sincerely reconsider the position you stated on ABC television this weekend.

    Thank you very much for your time,
    Barnaby Levy

    "like a roofer or a dancer or a cheese cutter or a lumber jack" " rubyr Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 12:24:28 AM PDT

    by sometv on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:23:36 PM PST

  •  If that is the problem, we can do nothing and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    Solve it.    But people want to act like the cliff will cause debt.

    "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

    by justmy2 on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:23:37 PM PST

  •  We need to quit blaming repubs (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, greenbell, priceman, aliasalias

    and quit making excuses for dems.

    No! We don't have a tremendous debt and deficit problem. Please, Democrats - stop buying into the Republican framing of this 'crisis' that they manufactured.
    What I really think we need to do is stop buying into the framing that this is something solely manufactured by republicans.  Democrats are equally up to their necks in framing this manufactured crisis to the public as well.
  •  What choice except pounding the White House (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, aliasalias, David Futurama

    and the Democratic Leadership with the message: "No We Don't Have A Fiscal Crisis, We Have An Income Crisis. Fix that and the budget heals itself!"

    Add a note about how austerity has proven a disaster everywhere it's been practiced, and Republican agendas will not be tolerated by Democratic voters, as the last election just proved.

    The Dem leadership lives in a bubble created by right-wing think tanks and corporate media. We gotta pop that and immediately and once and for all.

    Sen Murray's contact info: http://www.murray.senate.gov/...

    And let's make it the custom from here on that no essay on gone-astray, Republican-talking, Democrats goes without a link to how to contact them.


    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:32:35 PM PST

    •  thanks for the link I'm a constituent and I'll (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim P, eXtina

      write her, but what she is talking about will affect people in every State, so everyone should send her a comment. In fact I'll be calling her office tomorrow and ask that she get off the austerity train...again.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:06:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Forget The Debt (4+ / 0-)

    In today's dollars, the debt from WWII is similar to today's debt. The spending then got us out of the Great Depression. Guess what? We never paid it back.

    As the economy grew, the debt just became another amount of money that we owed, but with growth it eventually disappeared.

    The great majority of the debt we owe to ourselves. We may have to deal with it at some time, but now we need to spend money to get people back to work and the economy humming.

  •  i may just have to renew my subscription... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    to The Nation.

    I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

    by blue drop on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:39:53 PM PST

  •  I liked Chris Hayes' this morning explanation: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, priceman, aliasalias, WheninRome

    the markets and CEOs are bothered not by the deficit but by the fiscal "cliff" leading to the reduction of government spending! The contraction it would cause.

    This makes much sense to me. So I don't know why Democratic senators like Patty Murray are saying such things except that they, too, are captive of the GOP/tea party line of the deficit. Democrats should get together with economists who should be able explain this better to them.

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:47:10 PM PST

  •  The top marginal tax rate should be 70% or more (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, aliasalias, WheninRome

    If we want a Mickey-Mouse Free market Economy where the rich get richer on economic rent and excess profits then we are going to have to correct that with marginal tax rates. That way you transfer wealth to the broad working class and they can keep the economy healthy. Economic investment is a function of market opportunities, not the extreme wealth of a few.

    We need government to create the infrastructure, including education, research and large projects promoting the public good. That is the cost of civilization, the alternative is chaos and poverty for all. Those who become fabulously wealthy on this economy have a duty to support those government activities. It's no accident that the best and fairest economic growth was in the 50s and 60s when the top marginal rates were extremely high.

    The Republicans are anything but honest in talking about the deficit. Reagan and Bush claimed that deficits don't count. Now it's an anvil to hit Democrats over the head and simultaneously achieve their goal of reducing government to the point of being ineffective. This diary is exactly right, the Democrats must not allow the deficit framing to steal the dialog.

  •  Patty Murray+her here defenders FAIL accounting (6+ / 0-)

    This is what deficits do.

    Anyone who doesn't understand this chart should shut up about deficit and debt and OMGZ CRISIS!

    I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

    by priceman on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:30:17 PM PST

  •  Which Dem senator says debt/deficit is not a prob? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    Seriously, which senator says debt/deficit are not a problem. Dems bought into this a long time back.

    Or

    Dems recognized this is not a position we can fight in the PR game. The country has been brainwashed for 40 years now. Not sure why we should blame my senator for this position that Obama also takes.

    PS : Actually debt/deficit is a problem in the long run. I'd rather we didn't have any debt than the debt we have now. But currently anaemic growth is a bigger problem ..

    Enjoying driving the electric Nissan Leaf as the primary car since Feb '11

    by EVNow on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:35:13 PM PST

  •  Why must we be simple minded about this? (6+ / 0-)

    Yes, I understand that "debt and deficit" have been contorted into republican code talk for "kill social programs". Yes, I understand that debt is a useful tool in times of economic stress.

    But does that mean that every time we look at debts and deficits we're obligated to react as though those problems don't exist in any way? Are we supposed to pretend that debt is good rather than a necessary evil? Are we supposed to do those things simply because conservatives have been successful at adopting a contorted framework for those issues?

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:39:17 PM PST

    •  Deficits are a necessary GOOD, NOT evil. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, WheninRome, eXtina

      All dollars are created by the government.  Every dollar in existence.  

      When a dollar is created it's recorded in a ledger as a public liability, a deficit.

      That deficit is now a private asset.  A dollar in your pocket.

      No deficit would mean no dollars in your pocket. It's simple math, double entry accounting.

      No deficit, no dollars in the private sector.  Period.

  •  I hope everyone who shouted down... (4+ / 0-)

    kossacks who warned of Simpson/Bowles  & The Catfood Commission are happy.

    There was so much howling and fury directed at anyone who tried to discuss the Commission, it's members and the threat it posed*.
    Eventually people stopped discussing it because they were tired of being shouted down.

    So take a bow--you win.

    *For my part, I underestimated the scope of S/B's agenda. Nor did I think the DEM party would enact---or even worse, propose---what seemed at the time a right-wing wishlist.   So, I hope this doesn't come across as defensive. I too didn't believe the democrats capable of this---but I didn't shout down anyone who mentioned it.

    :::
    :::But I wonder why we couldn't have a serious discussion about S/B?

    •  Btw, this comment isn't written in anger... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      at all.
      I believe in saying congratulations when you lose. And the ragtag crew who tried to get the word out got spanked!

      It was an amazing effort. Think about it---not only are the democrats going to push through these cruel cuts but, stunningly, these changes will slip through without ever having been debated publicly.

      Spike the football. I would.

    •  that's BS too (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, Matt Z, sviscusi

      No one was shouted down for opposing S/B. The argument was about not slimeing Obama right before the election. Dkos was near unanimous in opposing S/B that's why we called it the catfood commission. Your memory seems very selective. Not one kossack I can remember endorsed the catfood commission, get real.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:39:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  haha... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, slinkerwink
        No one was shouted down for opposing S/B.
        "So you're using a POLITICO story for evidence?"
        "The democrats would never slash these programs, they are the ones who created it!"
        "Stupid firebagger emoprogs, jumping at any story, as long as its against the President!!!!"
        "Holy shit, he thinks we're going to believe some crap from FORMER REPUBLICAN ARIANNA HUFFINGTON!!!"

        That stuff was commonplace.

        And it has an impact, eventually. People work and date and take care of the kids, deal with life. They're tired and stretched thin. And in the limited time they can devote to discussing Democratic politics, in depth, they(often) meet a wall of  venom and rage.

        And who wants that?
        Who wants to deal with a riot every day?

        I get it. Liberals lost, and the dems are gonna cut 100s of Billions from MEDICAID and other programs.

        I'm a liberal. I've got this "losing intraparty fights thang" down.
        So, I'll recover.
        ::::
        ::::
        ::::
        But is this a teachable moment? What are we going to do the next time there's early reporting that suggest the Dems are about to do "something unthinkable?" Are we gonna ignore our cliques and mobilize together to make sure that "unthinkable thing" doesn't happen?

        N/M---I know the answer.

        •  NONE of the those are actual quotes... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina, slinkerwink

          I want to be clear-----It's a representation of the type of language heaped upon anyone who argued we should be wary of S/B. Thankfully, this is Dkos and anyone could go back and read it themselves.

          Refresh your recollections.

          •  even in your non-quotes you're wrong (0+ / 0-)

            even your made up quotes don't mention Simpson/Bowles which was and is roundly condemned by a big majority of kossacks. Taken as whole your comments seem to be seeking justification and reek of paranoia...

            I get it. Liberals lost, and the dems are gonna cut 100s of Billions from MEDICAID and other programs.

            I'm a liberal. I've got this "losing intraparty fights thang" down.
            So, I'll recover.

            now that's sad. :)

            America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

            by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:31:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And the insults begin.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slinkerwink

              making my point for me, lol.

              even your made up quotes don't mention Simpson/Bowles which was and is roundly condemned by a big majority of kossacks. Taken as whole your comments seem to be seeking justification and reek of paranoia...

                  I get it. Liberals lost, and the dems are gonna cut 100s of Billions from MEDICAID and other programs.

                  I'm a liberal. I've got this "losing intraparty fights thang" down.
                  So, I'll recover.

              now that's sad. :)

              •  I'm not upset...I had an awesome... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink

                weekend and I'm the least bitter guy you can imagine. Oh I don't have a paranoid bone in my body(nice insult, though?).
                :::
                :::
                I'm trying raise questions about how we discuss politics here, and how something as consequential as Simpson/Bowles got this far, without us ever really "pushing back."

                Or even discussing it substantively(benefits/drawbacks/etc.)?
                I find that extraordinary!

                But you jump in and immediately, and without any provocation, start slinging mud and call me paranoid(and sad?)
                .
                You just answered my question. That's how you shut down discussions.
                Attack, attack, attack!!!

                It's an effective tactic----how to shut down debate 101.
                Trademark that shit, it works.
                It worked!

            •  Please don't accuse him of paranoia (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dclawyer06, eXtina

              That's over the line. Stop it.

  •  She said 'tremendous' problem ... she is wrong n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina
  •  We won! Let the infighting commence! (0+ / 0-)

    So long, comity. It was nice knowing you. You did a good job of getting O re-elected, holding the senate, and fighting back the GOP and tea party tide. But, now you've served your purpose, and we liberals would like to get back to doing what we do best: reveling in the tyranny of minor differences and telling each other go fuck ourselves.

    •  Minor difference? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Futurama

      totally adopting the RW frame that 'we have a huge debt and deficit problem' is minor? Is there a Dem/Progressive side to this argument or do we all agree this is the problem?

      "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:13:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ladies and Gentlemen, Exhibit A (0+ / 0-)

        Yes. We have a huge debt and are running a deficit and it's a problem. Is it a long term problem? a short term problem? are cuts the right prescription now? later? how much borrowing? how much bailout? to whom?

        The dem/progressive side is in HOW we deal with debt and deficit in the short and long term, it is not in denying math and facts. KVDH's assertion that we have a "jobs" problem, not a "deficit" problem is intellectually dishonest. Deficit and jobs are interconnected and the deficit is not a right wing invention. When you spout off as though it is, you sound like a right winger claiming that global warming is a liberal invention. It's embarrassing. Attacking a hard working democratic senator who just helped a lot of other senators get elected for this choice of words is also embarrassing.

  •  We need to push progressive framing instead (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, David Futurama

    on the deficit by focusing it on jobs creation instead. Following the Greece model will not actually help the US in creating the needed jobs.

  •  11 aircraft carriers and building a 12th? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    countless unneeded military weapon systems still funded?  Corporate welfare to extremely profitable companies?  Rich people protected at all costs from being forced to pay closer to their fair share of taxes?  I cannot stop but laugh when I hear republicans worry about financial responsibility.  They being dishonest.

  •  Progressives need to be heard right now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, eXtina

    Thanks for the diary. Murray is a good person and did a great job heading up the senatorial elections. But she and the whole Democratic leadership team has fallen right back into the trap of letting the GOP/MSM set the conversation in their terms.

    OWS freed them from that meme for awhile but now that the election is over they're back in the trap. Obama should be saying 'lets deal with jobs and stimulus first' and let the Bush tax cuts expire. then we'll make a deal on tax cuts for the middle class.

    So Patty isn't alone in this it's the lack of progressive thinking and voices within our party. They got our votes, support, hard work and were reelected. Now our progressive issues should be heard too.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:49:15 PM PST

  •  Austerity and acknowledging the debt is different (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    Yes, I understand the frustration how some Dems/pundits/the establishment adopt the wrong framing of the issue; that austerity measures are needed now to reduce deficits drastically. We need to be smart about our debt - the point I'm making is that instead of ridiculing and/or being terrified of people who are talking about the debt, we need to be proactive and propose a comprehensive and progressive debt plan (and this can include stimulative measures as well).

    Of course, we're not going to get all we want. But if we just play defense, we're going to get even less. Let's play offense and let's acknowledge that the debt is real and that even if don't endorse the conservative idea of the deficits and austerity, we can still implement smart AND progressive policies to fix our public finances.

    And I don't think printing our way out will work. Sure, some inflation might actually be good but let's not kid ourselves that there is a realistic or smart way of making our debt just disappear. This is all I'm saying - we all know by now here at DK (it seems) that the conservative approach to the debt and deficits are harmful and wrong but let's adopt a proactive strategy to counter them instead of ignoring the debt alltogether.

  •  It's an Income Problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    It isn't a debt or deficit problem, except for the deficit that matters (the trade deficit). The problem is entirely an income problem. If you're having problems paying your taxes you need more income. Probably you need a raise. Perhaps you need a union.

    Sen. Murray has to get the message right.

  •  Senate and Congressional Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    Giving away what they've won at the ballot box, before they even get to the negotiating table.

    Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

    by Big River Bandido on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 05:00:50 AM PST

  •  Have a look at Greece's budget here... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    5.4 billion a month in gov't expenditure.
    1.1 billion a month in debt service.

    We are talking about an extreme form of austerity here. Greece' budget used to be 120 billion a year, or 40% of GDP.

    This should tell everyone that Greece is not overspending in the least.

    More austerity math: the new bailout requires Greece to cut 13.5 billion.

    Subtract 13.5 billion from the projected 65 billion budget for 2013, and you get 51.5 billion budget for the year.

    If, as the logic of cutting goes, public expenditures cause a 3x dent into the economy, then revenues will decrease much more than the 26% cut to the budget. And that means the debt hole will open wider. We can then expect that Greece, now spending 13.3 billion a year to service its debt, will spend 15 billion a year because of the multipliers.

    Let's run through that again:

    51.5 billion in gov't budget expenditures projected.
    15 billion in debt service.

    Had Greece defaulted down to 80% debt to GDP just 3 years ago, it would have soaked the banks for a mere 60 billion. Given that the debt was selling for 20% of value on the secondary market, a real bailout of Greece would have been cheap.

    If you apply the same 80% debt to GDP marker for sustainability now, however, the level of overhanging debt skyrockets to 240 billion.

    This folks is the logic of austerity. Austerity measures increase debt while decreasing your ability to do anything about it.

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:58:53 AM PST

  •  Keynes said that time for austerity was in (0+ / 0-)

    boom times, not in bust times. And he was not a believer in permanent deficits, bu any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Stigliz or Krugman. Or Hyman Minsky.

DeminNewJ, Marek, LeislerNYC, oofer, grollen, slinkerwink, Liberal Thinking, Gooserock, PeterHug, bosdcla14, Shockwave, Minnesota Deb, Wintermute, hyperstation, azale, RFK Lives, MarkInSanFran, hubcap, alain2112, opinionated, concernedamerican, Dave G, wonkydonkey, SamSinister, ask, pdrap, highacidity, Pithy Cherub, joe pittsburgh, stevej, roses, jalbert, splashy, artebella, SneakySnu, ninothemindboggler, scorpiorising, psnyder, Ryvr, Miss Jones, figbash, 2laneIA, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, ranger995, Eyesbright, draghnfly, dwahzon, lizah, defluxion10, lcrp, Oaktown Girl, zerelda, ybruti, vacantlook, Sassy, TexMex, Gowrie Gal, sb, nailbender, joanneleon, Bluesee, 3goldens, quinn, denise b, ichibon, sometv, qofdisks, caul, democracy inaction, Big River Bandido, ajsuited, myeye, Brooke In Seattle, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, eru, owlbear1, majcmb1, Burned, Kayakbiker, lotlizard, skyounkin, Tool, techno, WisePiper, turdraker, Cory Bantic, mightymouse, kathny, Mother Mags, Medium Head Boy, cybersaur, profundo, ActivistGuy, HoundDog, Gorette, seefleur, KenBee, The Wizard, fromer, fou, kck, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, megisi, TalkieToaster, StrayCat, philipmerrill, cRedd, real world chick, Preston S, Timothy J, Cassiodorus, Brunette, PatriciaVa, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, FoundingFatherDAR, tgypsy, ColoTim, offgrid, EdSF, puakev, DvCM, Matt Z, dclawyer06, aliasalias, bnasley, artisan, second gen, tcdup, Librarianmom, CT Hank, cacamp, sable, JDWolverton, gundyj, zerone, Sixty Something, dadadata, elwior, tporky, Lujane, tofumagoo, RandomNonviolence, Missys Brother, Horsefeathers, Troubadour, priceman, binkycat, Nica24, Old Surgeon, palantir, SpiffPeters, David Futurama, statsone, squarewheel, fayea, GustavMahler, maggiejean, McGahee220, danoland, greengemini, divineorder, bobatkinson, cantelow, CanyonWren, jennylind, mkor7, dskoe, sfarkash, jpmassar, LookingUp, Just Bob, Progressive Pen, JoanMar, gulfgal98, samanthab, 2020adam, xhale, Johnny Q, nirbama, Betty Pinson, DrTerwilliker, science nerd, Quantumlogic, no way lack of brain, Onomastic, Mike08, TAH from SLC, Philly526, StateofEuphoria, slowbutsure, implicate order, vahana, boriscleto, La Gitane, iowacaucus, Mistral Wind, Nicci August, lillyspad, Alice Olson, EquityRoy, mirandasright, zukesgirl64, muddy boots, Reinvented Daddy, peregrine kate, PhilJD, cjo30080, Lucy2009, Azazello, OldDragon, anodnhajo, Mindful Nature, Citizenpower, Jakkalbessie, edebs, MartyM, oldpotsmuggler, David Kaib, rat racer, catchy, wasatch, katiec, CalBearMom, Ray Pensador, Chaddiwicker, DamselleFly, glorificus, howabout, Oliver St John Gogarty, RUNDOWN

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site