Sunday, March 10, 2013

"0" Deficit Dunderhead Duffy's Kitchen Table Salesmanship.

Is anyone asking Republicans why a balance budget, a "0" deficit, is sound government management? Do states carry structural deficits while still balancing their two year budgets? Do companies borrow money that would remain on their books for years? Do entrepreneurs borrow money to start their businesses? Do families borrow and take out 30 year mortgages, car loans?

Borrowing is a fact of life, and a way for many to make money. For Republicans, the draconian drive to "zero out" borrowing and wipe out all deficits is lunacy. So to hear Rep. Sean Duffy's naive parroting of the old "balanced budget" amendment talk is not just pathetic, but penny wise pound foolish.

Remember, Republicans created this massive deficit during the Bush years, spending like drunken sailors, which resulted in the Great Recession. If none of this had occurred, the Clinton surpluses would have started to pay down the national debt, giving us discretionary money to update the tax code and strengthen social safety net programs. Instead, we're left with Paul Ryan's austere Dickensian approach to budgeting.   

Duffy whines Obama's plan never really wipes out the deficit. He deceptively insinuates how Obama might just admit that he might have to raise taxes on the middle class, which is not in the plans. Here's the test for me; if this guy sat down at my kitchen table and gave me this over the top sales pitch, there's no chance I'd buy what this guy was selling. Think about it...would you?

From Upfront with Mike Gousha (goo-shay):

The rebounding economy get a so-so response from Duffy. While Republicans laughed at saving a mere $2 billion a year on eliminating the corporate jet deduction, Duffy goes for all the marbles on spending $27 million on Moroccan pottery classes (I have no idea what he's talking about) and the traveling expenses of the Watermelon Queen of Alabama. You know, big ticket items like that.

He actually had the balls to say:
"...the little infants, those young Americans...their the ones who'll have to pay back the irresponsibility of this generation." 
He must mean our "spending like drunken sailors" Republican congress:

Zero Deficit:  That's what's behind their unwillingness to pay for natural disaster relief for suffering Americans who get to savor freedom and liberty by taking their lumps.

1 comment:

  1. Not a stupid WI 07 (Duffy) constituentMarch 11, 2013 at 12:32 PM

    Would someone PLEASE! PLEASE! ask Duffy and the other republican trained parrots this question.

    What is the difference between "not raising taxes and not wanting to leave our children to pay the debt".


    Letting the infrastructure fall apart around us. Letting bridges fall from under us. Letting roads buckle. Letting our communications infrastructure fall behind limiting high speed internet expansion.

    LEAVING all these repairs for our children to incur the future debt and pay the bills.

    Last time I look any construction costs only increase as the projects are delayed.

    IMO it's pure BS to not see that in either case it's an expense that is going to be LEFT to the next generation to pay off.

    The difference IMO is that we could use the jobs that would be created by letting out infrastructure JOBS now.

    This would add billions in income to families that could then spend those dollars in our communities.