• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Progressive Caucus Budget

Shooshmoo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
12,296
Reaction score
2,042
Location
Right here
Has there been any discussion of this budget on this board? For some reason Ryan's plan is getting all of the attention (in part because it's pretty terrible), but the CPC plan balances the budget by 2021 (10 years earlier than Ryan's plan).

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

The CPC proposal:

• Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021
• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program
• Protects the social safety net
• Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly)

What the proposal accomplishes:

• Primary budget balance by 2014.
• Budget surplus by 2021.
• Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.1% by 2021, down 16.5 percentage points from
a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
• Reduces deficits by $5.6 trillion over 2012-21, relative to this adjusted baseline.
• Outlays equal to 22.2% of GDP and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/debt_proposals

"Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people."

More:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/the-progressive-budget-alternative/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...americas-only-honest-budget-proposal-20110428


This seems like the most rational, fiscally responsible, and effective budget plan. Tell me why it isn't.
 
Has there been any discussion of this budget on this board? For some reason Ryan's plan is getting all of the attention (in part because it's pretty terrible), but the CPC plan balances the budget by 2021 (10 years earlier than Ryan's plan).

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

The CPC proposal:

• Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021
• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program
• Protects the social safety net
• Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly)

What the proposal accomplishes:

• Primary budget balance by 2014.
• Budget surplus by 2021.
• Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.1% by 2021, down 16.5 percentage points from
a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
• Reduces deficits by $5.6 trillion over 2012-21, relative to this adjusted baseline.
• Outlays equal to 22.2% of GDP and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/debt_proposals

"Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people."

More:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/the-progressive-budget-alternative/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...americas-only-honest-budget-proposal-20110428


This seems like the most rational, fiscally responsible, and effective budget plan. Tell me why it isn't.

Any reviews by publications other than Jason Blair's employer and a music rag? I'll look at anything that has been peer reviewed by legitimate think tanks. What does the Tax Foundation say about it?
 
Taxing capital gains as regular income is an absolute non-starter. I have no problem with taxing dividends as regualr income.
 
Any reviews by publications other than Jason Blair's employer and a music rag? I'll look at anything that has been peer reviewed by legitimate think tanks. What does the Tax Foundation say about it?

I'm sure you can look up what the conservative tax foundation has to say on the matter -- I've provided you enough to get started.
 
wait wait wait- raising taxes on the wealthy and ending foreign wars to get our fiscal house in order????

no fucking shit, Sherlock.
 
Don't forget eliminating some wasteful defense spending -- yes, it's a blatantly obvious solution, yet completely ignored.
 
^ my post was directed at the posters who have doggedly resisted those measures yet called themselves "fiscally responsible" for the last 5 or 6 years since I started posting here.
 
Last edited:
The only proper approach is not a ritualistic slaughtering of each other's sacred cows as the pendulum swings.

Across the board cuts (not decreases in growth, but actual dimunitions in allocation) of 5% for everything. If you don't think everything could absorb a 5% reduction, you're a fool.

Across the board increases in taxes for everyone who has a stake in the government.

Everybody plays evenly. That's the only fair way.
 
The only proper approach is not a ritualistic slaughtering of each other's sacred cows as the pendulum swings.

Across the board cuts (not decreases in growth, but actual dimunitions in allocation) of 5% for everything. If you don't think everything could absorb a 5% reduction, you're a fool.

Across the board increases in taxes for everyone who has a stake in the government.

Everybody plays evenly. That's the only fair way.

notice how jhmd immediately jumps into defensive mode when he reads this. He peppers his post with terms like "proper" "play evenly" and "fair."

What a fucking joke.

check out the wealth gap and how it has been trending for some time now and get back to me about "fairness" and "playing evenly" jhmd. You don't even try to hide it - you actually believe the shit you say
 
Last edited:
Across the board cuts are the typically stupid, cynical and lazy concepts of the right. There are many programs that are underfunded. There are others that taking 5% will negatively impact thje economy. There are others that can and should be cut more.
 
Claims that the war in Afghanistan makes us less safe without explaining how. I'd love to hear some rationale supporting the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan as that seems like a horrid idea to me as we are making slow but steady progress with the Afghan security force. And who knows what it will look like in one year so I don't see how you can set an arbitrary timetable for funding cuts.

Basically this sounds like one gigantic tax plan on the rich. I am in favor of higher taxes for the rich, but this is ridiculous. Eliminate social security maximum taxes, increase rates up to 49% on ALL income including capital gains, reduce deductions, etc.

The worst part about this plan is that it doesn't talk about the effect on GDP. It seems to assume that you can raise taxes and cut spending in a vacuum and GDP will stay flat or incrase a couple of points a year. The fact is that tax hikes have a multiplier effect on GDP. If you raise taxes by $1 Billion, you are going to cut GDP by at least $1 Billion and any research I am familiar with says it is more. I believe Christina Rohmer (Obama's former Chief Economic Adviser) said it was a 3x multiplier so it would be $3 Billion. This budget would CRUSH GDP and unemployment is correlated to GDP. This budget doesn't analyze at all the effect on GDP, unemployment, or tax receipts. It seems to imply that everything cruises along in a vacuum and that tax hikes and spending cuts have no effect which is a pipe dream.
 
Osama is dead. All that is left is the Taliban. They are not our problem. If the Afghan people do not stand up against the Taliban on their own, then they are basically agreeing to their return to power. We have to get out of the nation building mode and rebuild ours.
 
Across the board cuts are the typically stupid, cynical and lazy concepts of the right. There are many programs that are underfunded. There are others that taking 5% will negatively impact thje economy. There are others that can and should be cut more.

Agreed. But there are many programs that can be combined. The management of salmon is one. If they are in the ocean, its one agency if in salt water, another.
 
As should procurement, there's no reason to have different groups to buy the same things. The military alone could save billions.
 
Back
Top