Democratic presidential candidate South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks to voters on November 26, 2019 in Denison, Iowa. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Feb 08, 2020
At a town hall in Nashua, New Hampshire Sunday, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew criticism from progressives and economists when he told the audience he would prioritize reducing the deficit if he wins the presidency in November.
"It's not fashionable in progressive circles to talk too much about the debt," Buttigieg said. "I think the time has come for my party to get a lot more comfortable owning this issue."
In embracing the frequent Republican talking point, Buttigieg was "not-so-subtly letting his billionaire donors know he'll cut Social Security and Medicaid," tweeted actor Rob Delaney, a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Medicare for All proponent.
Republicans frequently portray large deficits as a Democratic phenomenon and blame the party for spending too much taxpayer money on social welfare programs, but as Sahil Kapur of NBC Newspointed out, the national debt has risen under Republican presidents who cut taxes for corporations and raised military spending, while it fell under the two most recent Democratic presidents.
"It's 'not fashionable in progressive circles' because progressives are rejecting the bogus arguments about debt and deficits that have been used to undermine the progressive agenda for decades," Stephanie Kelton, an economics professor at Stony Brook University and adviser to Sanders, toldNBC.
On social media, other critics accused Buttigieg of "economic illiteracy" and of attempting to "curry favor with wealthy Wall Street types."
\u201cButtigieg is the austerity candidate https://t.co/5Fwf1sR9HH\u201d— ryan cooper (@ryan cooper) 1581271588
\u201cThis is substantively disqualifying and politically insulting to Democrats\u2014and any left of center person. And, as Buttigieg is not a stupid person, it seems utterly cynical too, but not \u201csmart cynical\u201d (FDR was cynical about the CIO) but *dumb* cynical!\u201d— Richard Yeselson (@Richard Yeselson) 1581283826
\u201cI honestly can\u2019t think of a worse platform for Democrats to run on. \n\nIt also betrays a deep economic illiteracy given how low interest rates are.\u201d— Matt O'Brien (@Matt O'Brien) 1581290019
\u201cLove how Buttigieg frames his billionaire donor suck up position on \u201cdeficits\u201d (e.g. opening up space to gut Medicare and social security) as edgy truth telling\u201d— Adam H. Johnson (@Adam H. Johnson) 1581272889
\u201cGive the Buttigieg campaign credit: They know exactly what the mega wealthy sociopaths who bankroll campaigns and report the news on TV want to hear https://t.co/hWEKHvQK8t\u201d— Andrew Perez (@Andrew Perez) 1581291777
\u201cIt would be great if a reporter would ask Buttigieg whether he is completely ignorant of the debates over deficit among progressives for the last dozen years or whether he is just saying this to curry favor with wealthy Wall Street types.\u201d— Dean Baker (@Dean Baker) 1581290074
"Concern for 'deficits' is a rightwing watchword," tweeted Adam Johnson of The Appeal. "It signals a candidate is willing to open up space for privatizing and gutting Medicare and Social Security."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
At a town hall in Nashua, New Hampshire Sunday, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew criticism from progressives and economists when he told the audience he would prioritize reducing the deficit if he wins the presidency in November.
"It's not fashionable in progressive circles to talk too much about the debt," Buttigieg said. "I think the time has come for my party to get a lot more comfortable owning this issue."
In embracing the frequent Republican talking point, Buttigieg was "not-so-subtly letting his billionaire donors know he'll cut Social Security and Medicaid," tweeted actor Rob Delaney, a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Medicare for All proponent.
Republicans frequently portray large deficits as a Democratic phenomenon and blame the party for spending too much taxpayer money on social welfare programs, but as Sahil Kapur of NBC Newspointed out, the national debt has risen under Republican presidents who cut taxes for corporations and raised military spending, while it fell under the two most recent Democratic presidents.
"It's 'not fashionable in progressive circles' because progressives are rejecting the bogus arguments about debt and deficits that have been used to undermine the progressive agenda for decades," Stephanie Kelton, an economics professor at Stony Brook University and adviser to Sanders, toldNBC.
On social media, other critics accused Buttigieg of "economic illiteracy" and of attempting to "curry favor with wealthy Wall Street types."
\u201cButtigieg is the austerity candidate https://t.co/5Fwf1sR9HH\u201d— ryan cooper (@ryan cooper) 1581271588
\u201cThis is substantively disqualifying and politically insulting to Democrats\u2014and any left of center person. And, as Buttigieg is not a stupid person, it seems utterly cynical too, but not \u201csmart cynical\u201d (FDR was cynical about the CIO) but *dumb* cynical!\u201d— Richard Yeselson (@Richard Yeselson) 1581283826
\u201cI honestly can\u2019t think of a worse platform for Democrats to run on. \n\nIt also betrays a deep economic illiteracy given how low interest rates are.\u201d— Matt O'Brien (@Matt O'Brien) 1581290019
\u201cLove how Buttigieg frames his billionaire donor suck up position on \u201cdeficits\u201d (e.g. opening up space to gut Medicare and social security) as edgy truth telling\u201d— Adam H. Johnson (@Adam H. Johnson) 1581272889
\u201cGive the Buttigieg campaign credit: They know exactly what the mega wealthy sociopaths who bankroll campaigns and report the news on TV want to hear https://t.co/hWEKHvQK8t\u201d— Andrew Perez (@Andrew Perez) 1581291777
\u201cIt would be great if a reporter would ask Buttigieg whether he is completely ignorant of the debates over deficit among progressives for the last dozen years or whether he is just saying this to curry favor with wealthy Wall Street types.\u201d— Dean Baker (@Dean Baker) 1581290074
"Concern for 'deficits' is a rightwing watchword," tweeted Adam Johnson of The Appeal. "It signals a candidate is willing to open up space for privatizing and gutting Medicare and Social Security."
At a town hall in Nashua, New Hampshire Sunday, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew criticism from progressives and economists when he told the audience he would prioritize reducing the deficit if he wins the presidency in November.
"It's not fashionable in progressive circles to talk too much about the debt," Buttigieg said. "I think the time has come for my party to get a lot more comfortable owning this issue."
In embracing the frequent Republican talking point, Buttigieg was "not-so-subtly letting his billionaire donors know he'll cut Social Security and Medicaid," tweeted actor Rob Delaney, a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Medicare for All proponent.
Republicans frequently portray large deficits as a Democratic phenomenon and blame the party for spending too much taxpayer money on social welfare programs, but as Sahil Kapur of NBC Newspointed out, the national debt has risen under Republican presidents who cut taxes for corporations and raised military spending, while it fell under the two most recent Democratic presidents.
"It's 'not fashionable in progressive circles' because progressives are rejecting the bogus arguments about debt and deficits that have been used to undermine the progressive agenda for decades," Stephanie Kelton, an economics professor at Stony Brook University and adviser to Sanders, toldNBC.
On social media, other critics accused Buttigieg of "economic illiteracy" and of attempting to "curry favor with wealthy Wall Street types."
\u201cButtigieg is the austerity candidate https://t.co/5Fwf1sR9HH\u201d— ryan cooper (@ryan cooper) 1581271588
\u201cThis is substantively disqualifying and politically insulting to Democrats\u2014and any left of center person. And, as Buttigieg is not a stupid person, it seems utterly cynical too, but not \u201csmart cynical\u201d (FDR was cynical about the CIO) but *dumb* cynical!\u201d— Richard Yeselson (@Richard Yeselson) 1581283826
\u201cI honestly can\u2019t think of a worse platform for Democrats to run on. \n\nIt also betrays a deep economic illiteracy given how low interest rates are.\u201d— Matt O'Brien (@Matt O'Brien) 1581290019
\u201cLove how Buttigieg frames his billionaire donor suck up position on \u201cdeficits\u201d (e.g. opening up space to gut Medicare and social security) as edgy truth telling\u201d— Adam H. Johnson (@Adam H. Johnson) 1581272889
\u201cGive the Buttigieg campaign credit: They know exactly what the mega wealthy sociopaths who bankroll campaigns and report the news on TV want to hear https://t.co/hWEKHvQK8t\u201d— Andrew Perez (@Andrew Perez) 1581291777
\u201cIt would be great if a reporter would ask Buttigieg whether he is completely ignorant of the debates over deficit among progressives for the last dozen years or whether he is just saying this to curry favor with wealthy Wall Street types.\u201d— Dean Baker (@Dean Baker) 1581290074
"Concern for 'deficits' is a rightwing watchword," tweeted Adam Johnson of The Appeal. "It signals a candidate is willing to open up space for privatizing and gutting Medicare and Social Security."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.