Sorry I missed it. You guys do seem like a parody of liberals sometimes, so the line can get blurred to us in the reality-based community. 
ETA: I need to start quoting. This was to prr.
So it’s all helpless, we shouldn’t even try? If we can’t solve a big problem all at once, we should say “Fuck it” and go get drunk instead? Something like that? Or do you have an actual proposal instead?
And what is your definition of a “dent”?
We have to restore revenues.
Yes, they did. And their chances of succeeding depend heavily on their access to the roads, national defense, public education, which Democrats are seeking to provide in abundance to all Americans, not just to those who are already doing very well at the moment. The GOP wants to cut off spending as of now–“I’m okay, Jack–fuck you, get yours” should be their slogan, if they had an honest bones in their bodies.
So, Strat, you really would want to live in the world the Ryan budget would create. Really? No reservations?
We already even tried it. You can read about it in Dickens.
But what he’s proposing is to let some of the Bush tax cuts, those for the richest, expire (at least for income in excess of $250K). Call it what you want. It’s not much of an impact.
My comment on the Pubbies was to point out their version of a “painless” strategy, not to describe their entire platform.
Elvis, honestly, I wish the Republicans would give on what Obama proposes on taxing the rich, because it would make apparent that it does almost nothing. This crisis will not be fixed in any large degree by the tax increases Obama is proposing.
- SARCASM ALERT * * SARCASM ALERT * * SARCASM ALERT * *SARCASM ALERT * *SARCASM ALERT *
Yes, that’s why we’ve raised taxes on the rich so often in my lifetime.
In much of the world, no they don’t. That’s what distinguishes us five from another five in some other country. And I don’t think Obama is marginalizing anything by pointing that out.
I assume that at some point you’ll get around to providing some factual support for your positions, contrary as they are to experience and basic arithmetic. Right?
Really, what I’d like, is for this to be a true debate of solutions for the most critical campaign issue: the debt crisis and the impact on the economy. Let Ryan’s plan be a starting point. What is the Dems’ solution? Let’s stop talking about throwing grandma off a cliff and “who built what?” and actually act as if this is a critical point in our nation’s history, and that our decisions will determine whether or not we’re going to drive off a cliff.
This is not just the bottom of a severe but typical business cycle. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. We were downgraded n 2010! We can’t afford the future stream of entitlement payments, and we’re already $16 trillion in debt. What will we do? How will we solve this?
I have little hope anyone, in either party, has the stomach to actually address the root causes here. I was enthusiastic at Ryan being chosen because it offered at least a glimmer of hope that this election would be a debate of ideas, and not the typical campaign nonsense.
Do you understand what Ryan’s plan is? It is to assume we cut spending to a certain percentage of GDP (that happens to entail cutting all non-military spending).
That is a deficit plan in the way that “stop them from getting nuclear weapons” is a plan for dealing with Iran. Worse, actually, in that not only is it a non-plan, but it’s sole and simply posited detail is actually terrible policy.
What mainstream Republican wishes to eliminate public roads, education, and national defense? I mean, we can quibble around the edges about whether vouchers are good or bad, if teachers unions are good or bad, how much defense spending is enough or too much, but in any event, every mainstream candidate wants to provide these things.
To the extent that “soaking the rich” has a symbolic element (and I don’t think any Democrat is claiming that it will fix the economy all by itself), the symbolism is important to the middle-class who is getting screwed by the tax structure. It’s hard to ask a postal worker to dig deeper into his pockets for a extra nickel or two when you’ve got a government claiming that it WANTS those far wealthier than he is to be getting a tax break at the same time. Give me my symbol first, give it clearly and openly, and then we can start talking about taxing the middle-class a little more. Until that day, you’ll get my nickel when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, to use rhetoric some rightwingers will recognize fondly.
Except for the third category, Paul Ryan.
I agree there is a problem. The sort of problem that was remediated pretty well during the Clinton years. Why not let THAT economic plan be the starting point? It has a proven track record out here in ‘reality’.
jtgain: That’s why they only talk about cuts, but without ever saying where. Other than to repeal (and replace? ) ACA, which in fact reduces the deficit. Or the chump change to PBS and the NEA. Or the old classic “wastefraudandabuse”.
So you’re considering STFU about budgetary issues? That’s certainly good news.
That’s $65 billion his proposal will net gain if only the portion he wants to expire does. Or count the whole $215B. Whatever. Our current year’s budget deficit is projected to be what, $1.2 trillion? Can you do the arithmetic for me, Elvis?
Let’s discuss that, then. Let’s see what works when the numbers are crunched. But understand, we’re not in the Clinton years any more, whoever’s fault that is. We are in an enormous hole.
Let’s let the ideas be debated.
Taxes for the rich are lower now than it has been in decades and the supposed “job creators” still haven’t created jobs. I say keep raising the taxes on them every year until they start hiring. Tax increases should be tied to jobs, that should get them moving