HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Howard Dean is on This We...

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:37 AM

 

Howard Dean is on This Week (ABC) is a deficit hawk

he is saying cutting the deficit is more important than other considerations.

Will DU abandon Dean now?

42 replies, 1723 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Howard Dean is on This Week (ABC) is a deficit hawk (Original post)
banned from Kos Dec 2012 OP
djean111 Dec 2012 #1
Enrique Dec 2012 #2
quinnox Dec 2012 #3
R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #4
Hoyt Dec 2012 #5
dogman Dec 2012 #28
Hoyt Dec 2012 #29
dogman Dec 2012 #32
Hoyt Dec 2012 #35
hfojvt Dec 2012 #40
LSK Dec 2012 #6
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #16
former9thward Dec 2012 #20
Terry_M Dec 2012 #7
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #8
Cirque du So-What Dec 2012 #9
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #10
leftstreet Dec 2012 #11
FarPoint Dec 2012 #14
leftstreet Dec 2012 #18
FarPoint Dec 2012 #24
stlsaxman Dec 2012 #21
FarPoint Dec 2012 #23
FarPoint Dec 2012 #25
stlsaxman Dec 2012 #42
Guy Whitey Corngood Dec 2012 #12
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #19
Guy Whitey Corngood Dec 2012 #22
LSK Dec 2012 #13
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #17
PennsylvaniaMatt Dec 2012 #15
pa28 Dec 2012 #26
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #27
ellisonz Dec 2012 #30
fadedrose Dec 2012 #31
ellisonz Dec 2012 #33
fadedrose Dec 2012 #41
kentuck Dec 2012 #34
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #37
kentuck Dec 2012 #39
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #36
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #38

Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:43 AM

1. My impression of DU is that it does nothing as a whole, or in lockstep,

except working to get Democrats elected.
So, some in DU may abandon Dean, others may be more pragmatic.
So no real answer to that question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:43 AM

2. your premise is false

Dean has always described himself as a fiscal conservative, and when he ran for president he often pointed to his record of balancing the budget in VT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:44 AM

3. nice stirring the pot

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:46 AM

4. Did he define "other considerations?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:50 AM

5. I think Dean has an understanding that our economy and fiscal policies are in trouble.


For the foreseeable future, we are going facing tough times and some really tough choices will need to be made.

Like most of us, Dean supports raising taxes on wealth, cutting military budget, etc. But he knows that is not nearly enough and that almost every one of us is going to "feel some pain." I tend to agree, although reluctantly. And some of us will scream without understanding the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:12 PM

28. Unfortunately many have "felt some pain".

That is what the thrust of the argument is about, shared pain. If the hole can't be filled by taxing the 2%, taxing the 98% will kill the economy. Unfortunately the 2% can buy protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:37 PM

29. You can't fill the hole that exists now by taxing the 2%, or even taking everything they have.


Do a little research. I wish we could, but life as we've known it has changed dramatically.

The sooner we all accept it, the sooner we can help our leaders minimize the pain during the coming transformation.

Taxing 2% is a good start though, but not enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:14 PM

32. Taxing the 98% would have an opposite effect.

I would rather go over the cliff than surrender any more to the GOP. The poor and middle class will suffer either way. Let's see the wealthy shoulder some of the burden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:23 PM

35. Wealthy won't suffer much. Poor and middle class, a bunch.

Even Dean admits it will throw us into another recession (although he thinks we might come out better in the long-run).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:50 PM

40. we can certainly balance the budget that way

total AGI of the top 1% in 2008 was $1.69 trillion. They paid $392 billion in tax.

So taking the rest of their money would bring in $1.3 trillion - more than enough to balance the budget.

Elimnate the whole debt? Why the hell should we do that? We have carried significant national debt for over 160 years (since the civil war took us over $1 billion) and we are one of the richest countries on the planet.

But generally I agree with you, because here is the income breakdown

top 1% - 1.69 trillion
top 4% - $1.24 trillion
next 5% - $0.93 trillion
next 40% - $3.5 trillion
bottom 50% - $1.07 trillion

The top 49% have total income of $5.67 trillion, with 38% of that total going to the top 9%. (note I use a phrase like top 9% to mean "the top 10% not including the top 1%).

To call 80% of the richest 10% "middle class" and to insist that they keep large tax cuts is to me both foolish and counter-productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:51 AM

6. yes and no, he is a deficit hawk because he says go over the cliff

I just saw him on This Week about 5 min ago. He said we should go over the cliff. He said in 6 months the markets will be just fine because we are finally doing something for real about our deficits.

You are WRONG because going over the cliff means big tax increases on the RICH and cutting the bloated Defense budget. Going over the cliff means NO CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LSK (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:45 PM

16. I'm not sure where "You are WRONG" came from

The OP didn't comment on what going over the cliff means. So why are they 'WRONG'?

Plus, what it also means is cutting off unemployment benefit to about 2 million people, an expected dip back into recession, and unemployment going up by 1%. "The markets" aren't the problem; unemployment, and people struggling on it, are. The 'cliff' is also tax increases on the non-rich who do have jobs. If you're going to advocate it, you should talk about the problems it brings, as well as the things you (and I) like such as tax increases on the rich and defense cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LSK (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:13 PM

20. You are wrong about medicare.

Going over the cliff will be a reduction of about 29% of payments to doctors. That will result in even fewer doctors accepting medicare patients. So that IS a cut to Medicare. Also Unemployment will end for about 2,000,000 people on December 31st.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:51 AM

7. Who disagrees with him?

I think everyone is saying it's the most important thing. There's just a disagreement on HOW.
9$ out of every 100$ you send to the federal government today is going to paying interest on the debt... And it's getting worse...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:52 AM

8. Quote?

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:53 AM

9. Is there *one* national figure whom DUers have not thrown under the bus at one time or another?

By this evening, the kewl kids will have deemed Howard Dean unworthy, no longer passing their stringent purity test, and a certain self-appointed rebel leader will use it as a springboard to denounce the Democratic party in general and Barack Obama in particular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:53 AM

10. He is a deficit hawk in that

he believes taxes should go up as a start, which is why he favors going over the cliff.

Hey banned from Kos the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to tackling deficits is clear. One opts to raise taxes while the other looks to just make cuts.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:54 AM

11. Why did the party abandon Dean's 50 state strategy?

One wonders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:24 PM

14. This sure would of prevented a lot of GOP damage today.

Just look at the states that are run by a GOP Governor and General Assembly! The voting rights violations, no Obamacare, gerrymandering of Congressional Districts! The list of abuses go on and on...

A Dean... "50 state strategy", would of remedied this catastrophe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:05 PM

18. But then the Democrats would have no one to blame

I see what they did there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:40 PM

24. They didn't get the vote out.

It hurts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:13 PM

21. OT- but, it is "would have" NOT "would of"...

it's commonly mistaken for "would've".

(sorry, superdy-dooperdy pet peeve)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stlsaxman (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:39 PM

23. You certainly are sorry.

Do you wish to be offensive in a passive-aggressive fashion? So be it.

Spelling grammar police make poor DU peers.

I'd hug a republican before I would ever support your attitude.

Have a nice day............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stlsaxman (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:55 PM

25. For your pleasure my friend...

enjoy...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:40 PM

42. pretty good stuff!

glad you have a sense of humor about it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:11 PM

19. Is that an anti-gay slur?

 

In any case you have not offended me - which was your intention.

I agree with Howard Dean (again). He is also friendly to the NRA.

But mind you, income taxes on a low-income working single will go up 50%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:19 PM

22. No. But nice try. If Mrs. Blankfein were running Goldman Sachs I would

have asked you the same question regarding her metaphorical vagina. But I find it interesting that you would percieve it as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:55 AM

13. and another thing, most of DU was a deficit hawk for most of the 2000s

When we were constantly complaining about the Bush tax cuts and the wars. Raising taxes on the rich and cutting defense has long been advocated on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LSK (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:47 PM

17. Being a deficit hawk makes more sense when the economy is growing

and there isn't a worldwide slump in demand. Then, you can afford to decrease the debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:39 PM

15. I see where Dean is coming from

I saw him on MSNBC recently and he was talking about the importance of Washington managing its finances in a responsible way so that we can continue to fund things imperative to the liberal ideology such as health care, funding for schools and infrastructure, etc.

He isn't a "deficit hawk" in the ridiculous Republican sense which is deficit spending is fine if a Republican is President, but if it is a Democrat, it is unacceptable and will result in the demise of America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:07 PM

26. Our budget will nearly be balanced in two years by going over.

I'm fine with that and happen to agree with the doctor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:10 PM

27. Dean is, on the economy, a fool

Everything he has had to say about the "cliff" has been deeply dumb.

I have heard him say, with my own ears, that if the cliff caused a recession it would be okay because we would come out of it stronger because the deficit would be smaller.

Incredible ignorance.

I am glad he is not president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:03 PM

30. Over the Bloody Cliff!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:07 PM

31. I kinda hope so..

This fighting over Bush's tax cuts is ruining the country and its credit rating. You can't make a decent budget and make cuts when the need for more revenue is so great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:14 PM

33. I think that if we go over it...

They will fold on the debt ceiling and that will truly damage the country.

I agree fully with your and Howard's assessments.

Since when was the Democratic Party so wed to preserving the policy legacy of the Bush administration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:00 PM

41. I think that the only damage done will be to those whose taxes will go higher...

and they may not suffer any harm if the economy picks up. And, as a result, more money will be collected, and as a result, we will borrow less and pay less interest, pay down the deficit that they are so worried about, and the countries affected will probably celebrate that the tea party has lost its hold on America...

We are were on our way to becoming an oligarchy, and the sooner it stops the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:20 PM

34. Gov Dean is correct.

But as someone said, it is not something the President would agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:26 PM

37. What actual negative economic effect is the debt having

that would be improved by reducing it today?

What real-world mechanism would improve the long term employment or growth picture if the defecit is reduced today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:37 PM

39. A better question may be?

What will they cut next year and next year because the debt and deficit will keep getting larger under the plans now being discussed. Enormously short- sighted...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:23 PM

36. He's always been a deficit hawk

Which is one of the reasons I supported him in 2004.

Back then, caring about the deficit and the debt wasn't considered a right wing position. I don't understand why it is now. Those who care about maintaining the social safety net should be especially concerned about service on the debt eating up a bigger and bigger portion of the federal budget, leaving less money for anti-poverty programs, investment in infrastructure and education, and other programs progressives care about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:31 PM

38. The reason is that 2012 is not 2004

Back then, caring about the deficit and the debt wasn't considered a right wing position. I don't understand why it is now.


Economic policy only exists in the context of the economy. Debt is neither good nor bad... it depends on context.

Caring about the deficit and debt today, in the context of real global economic conditions, is a destructive position.

The idea should be to avoid destructive policies. As the real economy changes, the identity of which policies are destructive also changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread