Why should I participate in the right-wing two Santa Claus strategy by pushing for a balanced budget only when Democrats control government? Personally, I don't want to play that game. We're in a recession (most of us are, anyway). I think the Federal Government should be spending more, not less. Interest rates are at historic lows, so it's less painful than ever for our government to borrow (and it should continue to do so until interest rates rise significantly).

So, I'm out on the balanced budget B.S. If and when the Republicans ever come back into power, they can worry about balancing the budget on their own time. You'll notice, however, that they never do. They cut taxes, launch expensive wars, and drive the deficit sky high every time they get into power so that Democrats will have to take the electoral punishment for cuts in government services.

No, thank you. I am tired of playing that game.

-Laelth

chortling about how deficits matter, two faced, hypocritical, heartless asshole.

If you're a Republican, deficits matter only when a Democrat is in office.

Nothing new there, sadly.



-Laelth

Cheney's pretending he's a "neo-bagger" in order to get his tea bagger daughter elected. It's all bullshit politics. He's campaigning against his own existence. Too bad we don't get a vote on that one...

Andrew Sullivan also did a great segment about Cheney as being one of the worst leaders this nation has ever had, and how Cheney fundamentally changed the U.S. for the worse with his torture policy.

And, no matter what polite American society says, the guy should've been held accountable for his actions while in office, including operating a propaganda office to lie this nation into a war that his administration refused to fund.

well, they did tell us all to go shopping, so I guess that counts for sound policy in tea bagger land.

Glad to hear some have taken him to task on his hypocrisy on deficits. Now if we could stop looking forward & prosecute these war criminals. Oh, but then, we might have to take a look at the current administration, too, then.

he is definitely making the rounds

While I agree that the National Debt shouldn't be our main priority - I also think there is value in addressing it in an appropriate way - and that way would be to repeal the bulk of the Bush Tax Cuts, reinstate Capital Gains taxes and the like - increase the revenue. I say this because I think Clinton was right on this particular issue; balancing the budget does produce economic gains.

Our immediate approach though should be to spend money, particularly on infrastructure projects (improvements and repairs) that we desperately need done.

Bryant

You'll get no argument from me regarding the need for spending on infrastructure projects. Of course, the Republicans in the House are unlikely to support that kind of spending. They will also refuse to consider repealing the Bush tax cuts and a reinstatement of the capital gains taxes we had prior to Clinton. Personally, I'd like to see a return of the rule we used to have that taxed capital gains at a lower rate for securities that are held for five years or more. No way the Republicans in the House will go for that, either.

That said, it makes no sense (to me) for us to concede to the right-wing framing on this issue. Our debt is not a big problem. It just isn't. Why, then, should we concede to the right that the debt is an issue that needs immediate attention? That is a very bad strategy, as far as I am concerned. There are more pressing issues that demand our national attention.

As an aside, I do not believe that Clinton proved, in any way, that debt reduction produces economic gain. I don't recall ever hearing him say that, and I don't think his policies proved that.



-Laelth

Why else would Dick Durbin be spreading right wing lies that the program is about to go broke? Why else would the president continue to mention CCPI? They have borrowed from the fund & they don't want to pay it back.

I sent these stats to my three & asked them, "If SS is in such dire straights, maybe the Federal govt should pay back what they've borrowed from it, instead of asking seniors to take cuts."

And, honestly, I have no clue why Durbin is making statements like the ones you have noted. I will, however, point you to a post regarding the President's behavior that I found enlightening.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3904484



-Laelth

I'd like to add this to the conversation

because their policies, opinions, and goals are all so obviously selfish, anti-democratic, or just plain wrong. I think that's why they saw the need and importance of framing, because their ideas can't stand on their own. On the other side, progressive ideas make sense so I think a lot on "our side" thought that was enough.

in much of the Republican's framing. When I hear a Democrat using a particular Republican choice of words, I cringe.

A zealous and committed political party with a mantra marked by brevity & clarity, chanted over and over again.

That party is arrayed against the Democrats who have increasingly moved to the right out of manifest fear of the FR, and who have chosen their own brand of corporate spinsorship.

(That is the inevitable misspelling you get with hand-helds, but I decided to leave it after the 4th repeated error.)

Good "framing" is not nearly as effective as completely shutting out any dissent

Where's that New Deal for the 21st Century?