Rising Hegemon
Over the past week, top White House officials have been floating a trial balloon for their strategy on the economy. At its core is a decision to put deficit reduction ahead of job creation.
The premise is that the bond markets and allied deficit hawks are demanding action to cut the budget, that Obama lacks the votes in the Senate for a serious jobs initiative, and that polls show voters care more about deficit reduction than about jobs.
So the plan, modeled closely on the work of the Peter G. Peterson foundation and the anticipated report of the president's own fiscal commission, is a deal that includes cuts in Social Security plus a new Value Added Tax (VAT), in order to get deep cuts in the deficit. As a sweetener to get Republicans to back the VAT, White House officials would cut the corporate income tax.
Hey doin' what the really really really rich white guy concern trolls want -- how fucking not awesome.
Could not be a worse idea, ever. You know what would be a good idea? More people working (unemployment is about 10 percent y'know, that's really really fucking high) and paying taxes, that would be fucking AWESOME!
But who am I but a mere keynesian?
13 comments:
I worried about what sort of mischief would come out of Peterson's little exercise, but, I'm frankly gobsmacked by this.
There are more bad ideas in those few paragraphs than in whole chapters of Mein Kampf.
Or in whole sentences of Atlas Shrugged.
If Obama even thinks seriously about pitching this to the American public, it will finally put to rest all the fanboy talk about eleven-dimensional chess.
If this is his idea of good policy, I don't want him anywhere near a second term. He'd do more damage than the Repugs could ever do.
It's time for the Barack Hussein Hoover bumper stickers....
Awesome.
At least finally the dumb repukes will be able to tag Obama with an epithet that's true: fascist. And I mean that in only the nicest, most corporatist way.
Christ, with Dems like this, we don't even need repukes.
Jesus H. Christ. Two Hitler references in two posts.
Take a deep breath.
We're not getting a VAT.
No VAT? Fine. But what aout gutting Social Security? What about not focusing on jobs? I knew Obama was no progressive when he was running for office, but for Gawd's sake, he could at least act like a real Democrat now and then. He's not ever going to have a better Dem majority in Congress than he does now. The fact that he isn't using that majority to push for anything remotely progressive says everything about him.
Solving all our budgetary problems is really quite simple and would cause no pain at all for 99% of Americans. 1) Return tax rates to what they were under Eisenhower (who also had to pay off an underfunded war) with a top marginal rate of 90% on income over $1 million. 2) Treat all income the same, including inheritances and capital gains. 3) lift the income cap on payroll taxes. 4) Establish federally funded single payer health care (rising health care costs are the primary driver of deficit projections). 5) Get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan and slash the defense budget by 2/3.
Mr. President,
I can only assume that this is crazy talk. But just in case……
If you go this route you will have “fallen victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia - but only slightly less well-known is this”: never go against the people that sent ya to the dance when their lives and livelihood are on the line.
If what is being reported above is true then it would probably mean Karl has gotten his permanent Republican majority after all.
I say this with all due respect, as someone hoping to grow a small business and as someone having contributed to your election campaign and walked neighborhoods on your behalf. At some point you have to lead for your people – them that brung ya.
Good luck.
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
All Obama needs to know about Larry Summer's financial "genius" can be found out by looking at what he did to Harvard's investments.
Why would you put someone in charge of setting economic policy for an entire country, when he failed so miserably with the last huge investment portfolio he was in charge of? (I know "failure" is in the eyes of the beholder, we learned that over the course of the last Bush years... One man's failure, is that same man's path to riches... the bigger the failure, the more riches he receives...)
If they thought the country was riled up before, just think what it's going to be when all those heavily armed teabaggers find out Obama's going to make their Social Security checks smaller and is talking about another tax....
No VAT? Fine. But what aout gutting Social Security?
Not going to happen. Also.
if he raises taxes on the rich.....
send the bill to georgee & dickie.
FSR made the same mistake.
history is a bitch.
This is electoral suicide.
Hell, you don't even have to go back to the Eisehower tax rates to fix things--- allow me to quote Howard Dean circa 2004
"A Clinton tax system will produce Clinton prosperity"
oh so you don't think they wont gut Social Security?
i wouldn't bet that way. a permanent Republican majority would be the result for sure.
and the end of the house of cards too.
the Tea Baggers will love it, cutting damn Gummint programs is win win
DrDick said...
Solving all our budgetary problems is really quite simple and would cause no pain at all for 99% of Americans... (reasonable suggestions follow)
Cut out that crazy talk this instant, DrDick. The fallacy of your argument is evidenced by your recognition that 99% of us would not be adversely impacted. But what about the 1%? Who cries for the super-rich? Really, how cruel that a huge majority of the population should aspire to a moderate lifestyle, at the expense of those poor billionaires. For shame, DrDick, for shame.
Post a Comment