HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » the lies of David W, Corn

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 02:57 AM

the lies of David W, Corn

Way, way back in 2004 or so, I donated $50 to the DNC to get an autographed copy of David Corn's book "The Lies of George W. Bush."

He wrote, for example, "By now it was old hat. If Bush was pushing a tax plan, he would describe it as deliverance for the middle class." page 244

Kinda funny too, now that I look at it. Corn's autograph looks like - DLC----

So now here is Corn now praising lies from a President and claiming that the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and also the accursed payroll tax cut are

wait for it

"deliverance for the middle class"

He writes http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/obama-fiscal-cliff-budget-deal-bush-tax-cuts?page=2


So Obama went after a deal. And what Biden cooked up with McConnell was pretty good for the White House. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers for two years and would reduce estate taxes for the wealthy (a move many Democrats couldn't stand), but it also included a payroll tax cut, a child tax credit, additional unemployment insurance, renewable energy grants, and other stimulative measures. A White House chart noted that Obama had won $238 billion of stimulus in return for yielding on $114 billion in high-income tax cuts.


So, the accursed payroll tax cut is good for progressives. Some sort of victory for working people, or wait - the middle class.

The accursed payroll tax cut gave $13.55 billion in benefits to the bottom 40%, and $15.79 billion in benefits to the RICHEST 5%. And it gives a whopping $36.2 billion to the next 15%, making a grand total of $52 billion for the top 20% and less than a third of that for the bottom 40%.

But politicians like Bush, and now Obama, always want to include that 80-95th percentile group as part of the "middle class". That way, they can claim that tax cuts which give as much to the top 5% as they do to the middle 20% are really "middle class tax cuts".

Thank goodness there are progressive journalists like David Corn who won't let them get away with such lies.

Oh wait, now that a D (LCer) is in the White House, Corn is all too happy to catapault the propaganda.

I have to wonder if he, himself, is in the 90-95th percentile. Makes a cushy litttle living with his keyboard. Unlike myself, still at the 42nd percentile making a living with my back. Does his household make more than $88,000 a year? I strongly suspect it does. That unlike myself and Mr. Debs, he cannot say "If there is a lower class, I am in it ..."

Here's another lie - "yielding $114 billion in high income tax cuts".

Well, that seems to leave out the $80 billion in estate tax cuts, and also the $32 billion (over two years) going to the top 5% with the accursed payroll tax cut. But CTJ also says that the Obama "compromise" gave $108 billion PER YEAR to the top 1%. So that looks to me like $216 billion right there in "high income tax cuts". Unlike David W. Corn though, I also consider the rest of the top 5% (or as I call them, the top 4%) to also be "high income". They got $55.5 billion in tax cuts per year, for a total of $111 billion.

Not to mention the rest of the top 20% which is higher income than 80% of us make. They got $214 billion in tax cuts for the two years.

That compares pretty favorably to the $164 billion that the bottom 60% got.

So there's $621 billion in tax cuts going to the top 20%.

Corn describes this as "a good deal". Which it certainly was for him and his fellow members of the top 20%.

Not such a good deal for me. In 2011, my wage income was $15,814.01. And Obama's "good deal" replaced the "making work pay" credit with the accursed payroll tax cut. So unlike members of the top 20%, my taxes went up! (Granted, by a mere $83.72, but it's pretty tanjed aggravating that taxes for people like me would even go up a nickel as part of a "good deal" which gave average tax cuts of $77,000 to the top 1%. One small tax increase for a little man, one giant windfall for a plutocrat.)

Corn also mentions "additional unemployment benefits". Which I also call bullsh*t on. Unemployment benefits were extended by this same Congress on 6 Nov 2009, and on 22 July 2010. So why should we believe that agreeing to an extension of the Bush tax cuts was the ONLY way to get another extension of unemployment benefits? It sure was convenient though that the July extension expired at just about the same time as the Bush tax cuts. Like somebody planned it that way, so they'd have a bone to throw to the masses at the same time they gave another windfall to their donors.

And it appears I was wrong as well. The chart that Corn links to, is one that, first of all, describes the accursed payroll tax cut as a stimulus (which it is - Reagan style http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160) but also dishonestly hides $57 billion in estate tax cuts http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138.

Maybe Obama could not win those fights, but I still say he could have at least fought them. Could have at least tried. Don't try to tell me that a horrible deal was really a good one, and do NOT expect me to accept a bad deal now without some sort of fight. Especially when, once again, we hold the trump card. The tax cuts will expire - even if we do nothing.

By which I mean a fight FOR me, not a fight AGAINST me, as Obama began trashing the left after they complained about his surrender in 2010. He wasn't willing to fight the Republicans but he sure was willing to fight the left. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/12/love_obamas_smack_at_the_sanct.html

131 replies, 15716 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 131 replies Author Time Post
Reply the lies of David W, Corn (Original post)
hfojvt Nov 2012 OP
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #1
ProSense Nov 2012 #4
yortsed snacilbuper Nov 2012 #5
patrice Nov 2012 #26
Quantess Nov 2012 #37
patrice Nov 2012 #45
BeyondGeography Nov 2012 #32
hfojvt Nov 2012 #93
BeyondGeography Nov 2012 #104
hfojvt Nov 2012 #116
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #9
ProSense Nov 2012 #13
patrice Nov 2012 #29
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #10
ProSense Nov 2012 #14
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #17
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #19
hfojvt Nov 2012 #25
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #28
Doremus Nov 2012 #48
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #50
hfojvt Nov 2012 #64
patrice Nov 2012 #36
hfojvt Nov 2012 #65
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #12
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #18
LeftyLucy22 Nov 2012 #44
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #96
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #101
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #103
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #106
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #107
hfojvt Nov 2012 #123
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #126
hfojvt Nov 2012 #127
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #128
hfojvt Nov 2012 #130
fasttense Nov 2012 #2
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #34
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #49
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #56
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #57
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #79
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #81
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #97
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #99
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #100
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #80
hfojvt Nov 2012 #82
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #84
hfojvt Nov 2012 #88
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #113
hfojvt Nov 2012 #115
ProSense Nov 2012 #3
hfojvt Nov 2012 #20
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #30
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #6
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #31
patrice Nov 2012 #39
Quantess Nov 2012 #41
KoKo Nov 2012 #7
woo me with science Nov 2012 #8
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #11
hfojvt Nov 2012 #21
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #22
hfojvt Nov 2012 #24
Ikonoklast Nov 2012 #98
hfojvt Nov 2012 #124
leftstreet Nov 2012 #15
lapislzi Nov 2012 #16
hfojvt Nov 2012 #23
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #40
patrice Nov 2012 #43
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #51
hfojvt Nov 2012 #61
uponit7771 Nov 2012 #74
Floyd_Gondolli Nov 2012 #58
lapislzi Nov 2012 #108
Floyd_Gondolli Nov 2012 #118
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #131
Cary Nov 2012 #27
hfojvt Nov 2012 #59
Cary Nov 2012 #78
hfojvt Nov 2012 #83
Cary Nov 2012 #87
hfojvt Nov 2012 #89
Cary Nov 2012 #91
hfojvt Nov 2012 #94
Cary Nov 2012 #102
chillfactor Nov 2012 #33
hfojvt Nov 2012 #60
bornskeptic Nov 2012 #77
hfojvt Nov 2012 #85
liberalmuse Nov 2012 #35
hfojvt Nov 2012 #67
FSogol Nov 2012 #38
patrice Nov 2012 #42
Cary Nov 2012 #53
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #55
hfojvt Nov 2012 #68
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #46
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #47
hfojvt Nov 2012 #70
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #86
hfojvt Nov 2012 #90
Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #110
Floyd_Gondolli Nov 2012 #52
hfojvt Nov 2012 #63
Floyd_Gondolli Nov 2012 #117
RagAss Nov 2012 #54
hfojvt Nov 2012 #62
pnwmom Nov 2012 #66
hfojvt Nov 2012 #69
pnwmom Nov 2012 #71
hfojvt Nov 2012 #72
pnwmom Nov 2012 #73
hfojvt Nov 2012 #75
pnwmom Nov 2012 #114
treestar Nov 2012 #122
ann--- Nov 2012 #76
hfojvt Nov 2012 #92
ProSense Nov 2012 #105
hfojvt Nov 2012 #111
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #109
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #95
hfojvt Nov 2012 #112
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #119
JPZenger Nov 2012 #120
hfojvt Nov 2012 #125
treestar Nov 2012 #121
dionysus Nov 2012 #129

Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:09 AM

1. True, but be ready to be trashed by those who will want you to give him more time, to know that

 

he's a five dimensional chess player, that he doesn't have a magic wand, that it's all the Republicans' fault, that he doesn't have enough votes, that you are a "purist," that your loyalty to the Democratic Party is questionable, ...

Have I hit all the high points. If I've overlooked any, there's no doubt that others can think of more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:31 AM

4. This post is anti-Obama gibberish.

It has nothing to do with Corn.

"he's a five dimensional chess player"

Yeah, he fucking won the election...despite the bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:15 AM

5. The jets hate President Obama!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yortsed snacilbuper (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:56 PM

26. LOL!!! Love your screen-name! It's so FUN to say!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:05 PM

37. Have you tried reading it backwards yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:18 PM

45. Yes! & It's TRUE. & Very clever to have noticed how funny it is backwards.

I would have used it frontwards and would have been BORING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yortsed snacilbuper (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:03 PM

32. Jet fan appears to be in a bad mood

Reavis and Butthead aren't working out this year. Damn you, Corn!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:19 PM

93. someday I may have to admit

that my Jet metaphor is beyond the intellectual abilities of some DUers http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/122

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #93)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:51 PM

104. Nah

When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:57 PM

116. thanks for that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:01 AM

9. Such languge. Rahm, is that you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:10 AM

13. Fuck Rahm, and your response is lame. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:59 PM

29. They're letters. & Within limits, too much sturm un drang about them is way more about POWER

acquisition & its consequent struggles than it is about more authentic issues or anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:04 AM

10. Five dimensional checkmate






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:11 AM

14. Exactly! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:30 AM

17. "Checkmate"? Is that equivalent to "Grand Bargain"? Or TPP? We won't have to wait long to find out.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:04 PM

19. Meh

Your antics are now mostly just amusing. Elect a state senator or assembly person first. You'dhave more leverage if your position was backed by even modest results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:43 PM

25. checkmate against the majority of Americans

it looks to me like we are gonna win that battle and lose the war.

How much of the Bush tax cuts will be extended? 78% like Obama wants? (With $163 billion going to the richest 20% and only $14 billion going to the poorest 20% http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321) Or will it be 85%? 90%?

I guess even the last deal, of extending 102% of the Bush tax cuts will be some sort of victory. Yet another "good" deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:59 PM

28. You do realize that ...

this battle, for those "earning" less than $250K, is not how much the 1% will get; but rather, how much we don't have to pay. Right?

On January 2nd, everyone's taxes go up without a deal, or if the House doesn't pass the Senate Bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:50 PM

48. Let 'em.

I'd rather pay 4% more than letting the plutocrats run over us again.

If push comes to shove, let the cuts expire. Then perhaps they'll realize we're serious for once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doremus (Reply #48)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:33 PM

50. I'm glad you're in the position ...

to absorb a loss that other cannot ... just to make a political point.

And, I'm not going to re-hash how strategically wrong-headed that position is ... I've posted it time and time again; posts that have yet to be refuted.

Here's your shot:

The strategy, IMO, should be for House and Senate Democrats to demand that boehner put the Senate Bill to a vote in the House. If it passes ... Cool, then we have 2 years to change the tax code. Plus, we foreclose on the gop's ability to deflect blame by pointing to Candidate Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on those "earning" $250K or less.

If it fails, or if boehner refuses to put it to a vote, then we have two years of asking why the gop refused to protect the middle and working classes, when they had the chance ... and we take back the House in 2014.


Have at it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:59 AM

64. gosh. no. I was completely unaware of that

perhaps you don't realize that WE, the bottom 80%, could get tax cuts at least as large as the Bush tax cuts WITHOUT giving $80 billion in tax cuts to the top 5%.

Here are some proposals a Democratic President could offer. IF we actually had a Democratic President. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:05 PM

36. Perhaps that has something to do with where you're standing, perspective. Look around you &

ask yourself questions about whether you need/want authentically new/different relationships. Maybe you're hanging out with slave mentalities, not enough people who are actually working/fighting for individual empowerment & change . . .?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:12 AM

65. so you think

I should buy and read the latest book by Joel Osteen?

Individual empowerment? What the hell? I should join the Republican Party?

I guess if I did that though, I sure would be cool with Obama's Reaganomics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:09 AM

12. How about ignoring the fact that the payroll tax cut idea came from the left? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:31 AM

18. Sorry. I thought that when there are bad ideas, "It's all the Republicans' fault."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:15 PM

44. +10000000000000000000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:27 PM

96. There are those who blame all problems on Obama and give the Republicans

a pass in their rants. They pretend that Republicans don't exist. They dismiss anyone who points out that Republicans have done nothing but obstruct for four years -- first by filibustering in the Senate, then by simply not passing legislation in the House once they had a majority there.

It seems they still haven't gotten a clue even after the last year of campaigning, where the GOP record of obstruction was hung out for all to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:45 PM

101. Only one Senator engaged in an ACTUAL filibuster during the last four years: Bernie Sanders.

 



None are so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #101)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:48 PM

103. Republicans have been filibustering and obstructing by any and all means possible

for four years.

But we can't blame Republicans. We have to attack Obama! Because he can do no right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #103)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:54 PM

106. Why are you saying that Obama can do no right? Do you need a link to "The List"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #106)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:59 PM

107. Obama can do no right in some people's minds.

And yes, I know saying anything positive about Obama here is verboten to some. We can only criticize.

Lists of Obama's accomplishments are to be mocked; lists of his perceived failings are to be praised, +10000000!!1'd, and recced off to the Greatest Page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #96)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:57 AM

123. but in some ways, Republicans SHOULD get a pass

They fought for their side - the haves and the have mores. That's what they do.

It is NOT their fault that Obama chose not to fight for our side. That he surrendered without a fight. That was his choice. He, himself, stood up and gave a speech where he said, essentially "some people want me to fight, but I am not going to ..." and then gave what I consider to be a list of lame excuses.

They also did not make him lie about his "deal".

Obama was the one who claimed that the accursed payroll tax cut was some sort of progressive victory, an economic stimulus. I still say it is a Reagenesque economic stimulus. Obama was the one who claimed that his deal only gave $114 billion in tax cuts to the rich, when even the amount to the top 1% was much bigger than that. Republicans are not to blame for that. Obama should not get a pass for that, just because Republicans are so awful. They are not responsible for his lies - he is.

Unless you would care to explain two things. First, how his number is accurate and second how my number (from CTJ) is bogus. Until that happens, my opinion is that a) Obama is spouting misinformation and b) Corn is buying it and passing it on.

We were outraged when Bush pulled crap like that, or we pretended to be. Why should we tolerate it from Obama just because he is supposed to be on our team?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #123)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:54 AM

126. No, they should NOT get a pass.

I'm glad you say you're willing to give Republicans a pass in order to attack Obama. Thanks, because now I know exactly where you stand. Me? I don't give them a pass and I don't make excuses for them. Obama deals with reality, not some fantasy land where Republicans don't exist and if only he shouts a little louder or stomps his feet a little harder, all the obstruction will just disappear. Because that's what some really believe.

He's told by these people to "use the bully pulpit!" Yet when he does, these people cry, "Oh, it's just a speech! Actions not words!" When he accomplishes something great, or does something that really helps the American people, these same people are either silent or find some reason to complain about it not being "good enough". The DADT repeal was met by some of these people not with cheers for a major victory, but with either silence or even more complaints -- that DOMA and other bad laws are still on the books so it doesn't really matter. It is telling when any mention of President Obama's accomplishments is derided and mocked by these people, but any mention of his perceived failings is lauded and cheered.

It's telling when RUMORS that Obama will be doing something "good" are met with instant suspicision and "Let's wait and see" posts, while RUMORS that he will be doing something "bad" are lapped up without a thought and hysterical outrage ensues without any concerete facts.

But those people -- the people who attack Obama from the "left", who yell and scream about him being "corporatist"/"DLCer"/whatever the current buzzword is, represent a very small sliver of the Democratic party, and even only a tiny fraction of the party's liberal base, over 90% of whom like the job he's doing.

President Obama has been working his ass off for US -- the poor, the working class, the PEOPLE -- for the last four years. If the last year of campaigning didn't wake people to that fact, then I suspect nothing will. For the last year we've seen Obama's accomplishments laid out for all to see and hear, and we've also seen it made very clear what the Republicans have and haven't done, and what they intend to do over the next 2-4 years.

It has been made crystal clear where both parties stand. I stand with Obama and the liberal base of the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #126)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:58 PM

127. oh bull

Obama has been working his ass off for US.

Give me a break.

He CHOSE to NOT fight. How is that working his ass off? He was supposed to be our champion, yet he waved the white flag and made a "deal" instead of fighting.

I would have had more respect for him if he fought and lost, than I do for his refusal to even fight.

And that he spews a bunch of bullshit about how good his deal is?

That just adds insult to injury.

That most Democrats support him is puzzling to me. But in many ways it shows the power of mass media.

Those who support him from the left are in three groups

1. they are unaware of the lies and betrayals
2. they believe the lies about the betrayals
3. they make excuses for the lies and lack of effort

And you are wrong about DADT. Obama got praised to the skies when DADT ended, AND, I also believe that ending DADT quieted a lot of his liberal critics here. For the last year, this site has been almost ALL rah rah Obama, and fuck Rmoney.

Obama is rich and famous. You know who is not rich and famous? Me. You know who VOLUNTEERS 100+ hours a year for we the people to serve on the water board? Me. You know who spends his own money to run for office and donates money to others who are running for office? Me. You know who has spent most of his 30+ years of working life in the bottom 20%? Me again.

I am working my tail off, my heart out, and I would love nothing better than to get some help from people like Obama, people like Tammy Baldwin who keeps writing me asking for more money (as did Elizabeth Warren, and Sheldon (from Ohio, whose first name escapes me, okay it is Sherrod Brown, not Sheldon) and the DSCC and the Obama campaign.) I would love to see some effort from those people.

You know, the people who rallied around Lieberman when we, the people, wanted to defeat him in a primary.

Yeah sure, those people, even Lieberman, are working their asses off for us. Even Leonard Boswell is working his ass off for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #127)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:17 PM

128. "Obama has been working his ass off for US" -- you got it, buddy.

Oh sure, I could tell you exactly how. But I'm sure that would be met with some dismissive sneer about how it isn't good enough. Because for people like you, it's never good enough. You're waiting for some savior to swoop in and magically make things all better, instead of dealing with reality. You'd rather bash Obama and Democrats than hold Republicans accountable for their obstruction and lies. It's quite telling. I have a newsflash for you: 60 million people in this country voted for Mitt fucking Romney. 60 million. So you can pretend all you want that Obama can do whatever he wants if only he would, what, shout louder? Stomp his feet harder? Sorry, but in the real world not everyone is a liberal/progressive/Democrat. That's the sad reality. So, you either work with what you've got and make as much progress as you possibly can, OR you put ideological purity above all else and fail over and over. Thankfully, President Obama is in the former camp.

It's amazing. You really believe that you alone are sincere in your beliefs. You cannot fathom that anyone could possibly think differently than you do. Only YOU arrived at your conclusions by looking at facts and using logic. Everyone else must be brainwashed or an idiot. It's precisely when Democrats adopt attitudes like yours and stick our noses up at anyone who dares disagree that we lose. Count me out. It is sickening that you would rather lose everything and screw over millions of people simply to maintain ideological purity, than to make some progress and continue to fight. Progress doesn't happen by stamping feet and attacking our own instead of the real enemies.

Oh, and yes Obama was "praised to skies" when he ended by DADT. But NOT by the people who attack everything he does for not being good enough. They were simply silent, moving on to the next outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #128)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:35 PM

130. but I AM looking at facts

Obama said his deal only gave $114 billion in high income tax cuts.

How many people even know he said that (or care)?

I did calculations from trusted sources. You know, the same sources I trusted when they were blasting the Bush tax cuts, to show that $114 billion is a load of crap. From my OP

"Well, that seems to leave out the $80 billion in estate tax cuts, and also the $32 billion (over two years) going to the top 5% with the accursed payroll tax cut. But CTJ also says that the Obama "compromise" gave $108 billion PER YEAR to the top 1%. So that looks to me like $216 billion right there in "high income tax cuts". Unlike David W. Corn though, I also consider the rest of the top 5% (or as I call them, the top 4%) to also be "high income". They got $55.5 billion in tax cuts per year, for a total of $111 billion."

How many people are aware of that truth, that Obama lied about his deal?

Now, what is your own point of view about this?

1. Is Obama wrong, or am I wrong?
2. If Obama is wrong, is it okay for him to spread misinformation? Is he doing so for the good of we, the poor?

Same with the accursed payroll tax cut. Obama calls it a benefit to the middle class, a benefit to progressives.

I say that it heavily favors the rich.

Am I wrong about that? In what respect?

If I am right, how many people are aware of the facts? If they are aware of the facts, then why aren't more people upset at Obama for pushing a tax cut that favors the rich?

I do not berate people for being unaware, but I do believe that many people are unaware. That's why I expend effort trying to bring the facts to light.

Do you expect me to believe that I am wrong just because I find myself at odds with Obama and Obama supporters?

I never said that other people were not sincere in their beliefs. They sincerely believe both Obama's excuses and Obama's lies.

Just like many people believed Bush before him. The fact of the matter is that you CAN fool many people much of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:53 AM

2. If you look at it in reverse, it was an absolutely amazing feet.

Here these bush tax give aways to the uber rich were going to go away and Democrats had to do absolutely NOTHING for them to go the way of the dinosaur.

But out of the jaws of victory, a Democratic Lame Duck congress and Obama were able to give the uber wealth yet more tax give aways and a reduction (yet again) in the Paris Hilton estate tax. All the while the Democrats lost ground on unemployment benefits and upped the poor's taxes all during the 2nd Great Depression. It's just amazing. It's almost as if the Democrats were really RepubliCONS in sheep's clothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:04 PM

34. Actually, Obama had to raise taxes on those under 250k to do what you claim is "nothing".

Obama promised not to raise taxes on those making under 250k. If he let all of the Bush taxes expire in 2010, he would have broken that promise.

So your claim he needed to do "nothing" is false.

If Obama broke THAT promise, he'd have never been re-elected. Google the phrase "read my lips, no new taxes".

The Dems in congress were afraid to have this fight, and so Obama delayed his promise to end the top end tax cuts so that he could keep his promise for those under 350k.

Shortly, Obama will end the top end cuts. Either through a deal or by letting them expire.

Oh, and the unemployed got extra benefits in Obama's deal. They did not lose them. I thought those RW arguements died when Romney lost ... guess not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #34)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:17 PM

49. He promised "no new taxes" on those making under 250k? And he kept that promise? Did you notice that

 

when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act,
"In a 5-4 ruling, the court said a part of the law that requires everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine – the so-called “individual mandate” -- is constitutional because it amounts to a tax, which Congress has authority to levy."

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/supreme-court-rules-on-affordable-care-act

Did you also know that the Obama Administration also argued that the "individual mandate" was constitutional because it is a tax and the Federal government has the Constitutional power to levy such taxes?

In the brief filed in the Supreme Court, for example, the Obama Administration argued
"First, the Act builds upon the pre-existing nationwide system of employer-based health insurance that is the principal private mechanism for health care financing. 42 U.S.C.A. § 18091(a)(2)(D). As with previous measures designed to encourage employer-based insurance, Congress used the federal tax laws to help achieve its goal, establishing tax incentives for small businesses to purchase health insurance for their employees ...
...
"III. Plaintiffs Fail to Address Congress’s Authority to Enact the Minimum Coverage Provision as an Exercise of its Taxing Power.
...
"In 'passing on the constitutionality of a tax law,' a court is 'concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it.' Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 363 (1941). As the government’s district court briefs explain in detail, the minimum coverage provision is in the Tax Code, and it operates as a tax."

http://www.justice.gov/healthcare/docs/baldwin-v-sebelius-brief-for-appellees.pdf


In your world, this is not a tax?

Sure, but only if you disregard the Obama Administration's argument before the Supreme Court that that it is a tax. And only if you disregard the Supreme Court's opinion in which it agreed with the Obama Administration that it is a tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #49)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:46 PM

56. Bullsh!t Argument Alert ...

I'm sorry ... Rightwing Argument Alert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #56)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:31 PM

57. You can't handle the truth.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:02 AM

79. Rightwing Talking Points are not ...

anything resembling the "truth!"

So please share us/me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #79)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:07 AM

81. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #79)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:32 PM

97. The words in the Obama Administration's brief speak for themselves and are not RW talking points.

 

In the brief filed in the Supreme Court, for example, the Obama Administration argued

The Obama Administration argued before the Supreme Court that the "individual mandate" is constitutional because it is a tax. The Obama Administration argued that the Federal government has the Constitutional power to levy such taxes.

"First, the Act builds upon the pre-existing nationwide system of employer-based health insurance that is the principal private mechanism for health care financing. 42 U.S.C.A. § 18091(a)(2)(D). As with previous measures designed to encourage employer-based insurance, Congress used the federal tax laws to help achieve its goal, establishing tax incentives for small businesses to purchase health insurance for their employees ...
...
"III. Plaintiffs Fail to Address Congress’s Authority to Enact the Minimum Coverage Provision as an Exercise of its Taxing Power.
...
"In 'passing on the constitutionality of a tax law,' a court is 'concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it.' Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 363 (1941). As the government’s district court briefs explain in detail, the minimum coverage provision is in the Tax Code, and it operates as a tax."

http://www.justice.gov/healthcare/docs/baldwin-v-sebelius-brief-for-appellees.pdf

I can give you an explanation. I cannot give you understanding.

The Obama Administration said that it is a tax. The Supreme Court said that it is a tax.

Why do you believe that the you are smarter than the Obama Administration and the Supreme Court?

Disregarding facts is a right-wing tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #79)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:35 PM

99. The truth is that the Obama Administration said that the individual mandate is constitutional

 

because it is a tax.

The truth is that the Obama Administration did not present RW talking points when it argued in its brief before the Supreme Court:
"First, the Act builds upon the pre-existing nationwide system of employer-based health insurance that is the principal private mechanism for health care financing. 42 U.S.C.A. § 18091(a)(2)(D). As with previous measures designed to encourage employer-based insurance, Congress used the federal tax laws to help achieve its goal, establishing tax incentives for small businesses to purchase health insurance for their employees ...
...
"III. Plaintiffs Fail to Address Congress’s Authority to Enact the Minimum Coverage Provision as an Exercise of its Taxing Power.
...
"In 'passing on the constitutionality of a tax law,' a court is 'concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it.' Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 363 (1941). As the government’s district court briefs explain in detail, the minimum coverage provision is in the Tax Code, and it operates as a tax."

http://www.justice.gov/healthcare/docs/baldwin-v-sebelius-brief-for-appellees.pdf


Disregarding facts is a right-wing tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #99)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:36 PM

100. Okay n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:07 AM

80. That's the best you can come up with?

Most people already purchase insurance, and those who can't afford to do so will get subsidies. The only people screaming about it being a tax are Republicans.

You are going to have to try harder.

If Obama let the tax cuts for the middle class expire, he'd have been toast. Period.

Now he can let them expire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:33 AM

82. several things are wrong with that

Number one, is that it would be Congress raising the taxes, and specifically REPUBLICANS in Congress doing so - NOT Obama. He would have the bully pulpit to tell people so.

Number two, he never should have made that promise. Leave the anti-tax zealotry where it belongs, in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

Number three. Bush's base is comprised of many anti-taz zealots. Presumably, Obama's is not. Many people, like myself, voted for him with the hope that taxes would go up for people making less than $250,000. That that bullsh*t limit which was way too damned high, would be negotiated down by a Democratic Congress.

Number four. Things change. The economy crashed. The deficit exploded to a trillion dollars. A wise man would ADAPT to such changes. Would explain to the public why such changes required a change of policies. That because of the "deficit crisis" agreed to by so many politicians, that, yes Virginia, taxes need to go up even on "gasp" households making $170,000 a year. And considering that the vast majority of this country makes less than $90,000 a year, we probably would feel that such households could afford it.

Number five, what rightwing arguments are you talking about? The argument that the extension of the Bush tax cuts was a bad deal? That's not rightwing. That's just factual. That the extension of 78% of the Bush tax cuts is a bad deal? Again, just factual.
Unless, you think that progressives SHOULD support tax cuts that favor the rich. Just for fun, I will say it again. The extension of 78% of the Bush tax cuts (Obama's plan) gives $80 billion in tax cuts to the TOP 5%. If gives only $14 billion to the poorest 20%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #82)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:55 AM

84. Let's take those in order.

1) Obama would have been blamed. If you followed the media coverage before the deal was made, the media was already calling it a potential "read my lips" moment for Obama. They were gearing up for it. And it would have worked.

2) Who cares. He made that promise specifically because the GOP was painting him, with media help as one who would tax the hell out of everyone. You seem to think that all tax breaks are the same, or that they all have the same impact, they don't.

3) The majority is not you. Most Americans were for allowing the tax cuts on the top end to go up, but not if it also meant their own taxes would go up. The polling on this was very clear at the time. Most of the 98% under 250k did not support an increase of their own taxes just to get the taxes on the higher end to go up. Just a fact.

4) The impact on tax cuts on the economy is not uniform at different income levels. A tax cut for the lower income brackets puts money into the economy because they tend to spend it. A tax cut for the rich has no stimulative effect because that money does not get spent. This is also why extending unemployment benefits helps the economy.

5) Once again, you seem to think that all tax cuts are created equal. Now, I'll say it again. Very soon, the tax rates on the high end will go up. Its going to happen. As for how much of the cut goes to different income levels, you'll have to explain to me how you can cut the taxes of the poorest enough for their cuts to exceed the the cuts on the higher end. In other words, if you select an income level low enough, the people you are talking about already pay very little (in absolute numbers like you used) in taxes. I mean, if I make 20k a year, exactly how much of a tax break can you give me in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #84)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:32 AM

88. you, sir, are out of order

the whole trial is out of order!!!

1. Given the cult following of his supporters, the blame would not stick. After all, he betrayed his own supporters by extending the Bush tax cuts and his own supporters do not seem to care.

2. Actually no, the last thing I believe is that all tax breaks are the same. One of my main complaints with Obama is that he keeps promoting tax breaks - that benefit the wealthy. You know, like keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts. You know, like the accursed payroll tax cut. Both of those hugely benefit the wealthy. Now, the making work pay credit, which he originally campaigned on - that did not. But Obama quickly abandoned it in favor of tax breaks which were bigger for his donor base - the haves and the have mores.

3. The majority IS me. Or rather, people like me. 80% of us are in the bottom 80%. Thus if taxes go up on JUST the top 20%, then Obama might lose some support. Particularly among the 90th percentile and higher. But THEY certainly are not the majority and a majority of them, didn't support Obama anyway. It's a radical concept, I know, but maybe policies should NOT favor the top 20% at the expense of the rest of us. Such a change certainly would be "change" I can believe in.

4. which is precisely why the making work pay credit was a much better stimulus than the accursed payroll tax cut. Too bad Obama abandoned the former and embraced the latter, eh? At least I think so.

5. Once again, no. You think that taxes are gonna go up on rich people, but if you look at it another way, that is not true. First, let all the Bush tax cuts expire. NOW, look at the Obama proposal, and re-instate 78% of the Bush tax cuts (i.e. for all income below $250,000). What happens under that proposal? The top 1% gets $40 billion in tax cuts. The top 4% gets another $40 billion. The top 20% gets a total of $163 billion - over 50% of the total tax cut goes to the top quintile. I see the 78% Bush tax cut NOT as a tax increase on the rich, but actually as a tax CUT, and one that strongly favors the rich. Just because it will be passed before the Bush tax cuts expire, does not make it any less so. It's a crappy proposal, one not worthy of the Democratic Party. At least not worthy of a Democratic Party that represents the bottom 80% over the top 20%. A Democratic Party which no longer exists - if it ever did.

As for tax breaks that would benefit you and me WITHOUT being a windfall to the rich, there are many such proposals (which, for some strange reason, are not part of the conversation. Somebody pushed them off the table and so many people think they, or proposals like them, do not exist). I suggested four of them here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #88)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:45 PM

113. Again ... in order.

1) Wow, that's a right wing talking point if I ever heard one ... "cult of followers" ... kind of like Sean Hannity screaming about Obama being the Messiah.

2) Ahhh ... so you are mad that the cut off is 250k. The first 250k gets a break, the rest doesn't. But you are bugged that it goes to 250k. You'd pick a lower number. Politically, that won't work. True or not, most Americans think that a small business owner makes that much, and they also think that they might someday make that much. Also, the political reality is that the Bush tax cuts exist. They have certain aspects. We can pretend that's not true, or deal with reality.

3) No, you are not the majority. LOTS of people in that bottom 80% did not want their taxes to go up if the taxes on the wealthy went up too. Again, the polls were CLEAR on this. You would have been fine if your taxes went up some. Most average people were not.

4) Again, political reality rears its ugly head. Obama put money in the pocket of working people. He did so using one of the few mechanisms he had available. You would have preferred he use another method, one that in the current political environement, was not going to happen.

5) Back to item 2 again. You are quibbling over the cut off. Even if you move that down, the rich still get some if it, no?
And as for your 4 points, as you correctly note in that thread, none of that can pass.

Oh ... and Obama may still let them all expire.

Finally ... you seem very unhappy with Obama. I'm wondering when you will start a Progressive Prez 2016 group here on DU.

Like it or not, Obama will be President for the next 4 years. So you might want to start planning ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #113)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:55 PM

115. so, according to you, Bush was one of the greatest Democratic Presidents ever.

after all, look at point 4. You say "Obama put money in the pocket of working people."

Well, how did he do that?

By keeping the Bush tax cuts.

Therefore, logically we should have supported the Bush tax cuts since they, too, "put money in the pocket of working people". And, of course, they are not at all progressive, but under the political reality, they were the best we could pass.

Uhm, political reality sorta depends on the national conversation. Somebody could perhaps influence that if he used his bully pulpit to promote policies that would help working people without being a windfall to the rich.

Instead, that friend of the rich, keeps saying things like "let's keep most of the Bush tax cuts" and "people who make $240,000 a year are middle class."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:26 AM

3. This is a disgusting attack on Corn.

So, the accursed payroll tax cut is good for progressives. Some sort of victory for working people, or wait - the middle class.

The accursed payroll tax cut gave $13.55 billion in benefits to the bottom 40%, and $15.79 billion in benefits to the RICHEST 5%. And it gives a whopping $36.2 billion to the next 15%, making a grand total of $52 billion for the top 20% and less than a third of that for the bottom 40%.

But politicians like Bush, and now Obama, always want to include that 80-95th percentile group as part of the "middle class". That way, they can claim that tax cuts which give as much to the top 5% as they do to the middle 20% are really "middle class tax cuts".

"politicians like Bush, and now Obama"?

WTF?

Stop accusing everyone of being DLC for supporting the payroll tax cut, which John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich also voted for in 2012. Are they DLC?

House Passes Payroll Tax Cut Extension

The House of Representatives on Friday passed the payroll tax cut extension and unemployment benefits package 293-132.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/house-passes-payroll-tax-cut-extension

Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll072.xml

Senate Passes Payroll Tax Cut Deal

Shortly after the House passed the payroll tax cut compromise, the Senate followed suit, passing the measure by a 60-36 vote. The measure now heads to President Obama.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/senate-passes-payroll-tax-cut-deal


Senate roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00022

The 2010 tax deal included a lot of good things, including extending unemployment benefits, the EITC and expanding Medicaid for six months, which ended in June 2011.

Extra Medicaid payments to states end this month
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/16/985830/-Extra-Medicaid-payments-to-states-end-this-month

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:07 PM

20. I thought Corn's piece was a disgusting attack on progressives

and by extension on the working people of America.

Politicians like Bush, and now Obama.

Well, is he doing what I said, or isn't he? He keeps claiming he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts "for the middle class" and he apparently, just like Rmoney, defines the middle class as "couples making $250,000 or less".

Back in the primary, there was a difference between Obama and Hillary. Hillary was claiming people making $97,000 a year were middle class, and Obama jumped on her. He said "6% is not the middle class, it's the upper class".

Hmm, $97,000 a year is well below $200,000. Suddenlly, Obama is defining the middle class upwards - just like Hillary.



I call that a betrayal of the highest order.

As for the accursed payroll tax cut. I explained very simply why I think it sucks. It sucks because it gives $15.8 billion in benefits to the top 5% and only $13.6 billion in benefits to the bottom 40%. It gives $52 billion to the TOP 20%.

I call $52 billion for the top and $13.6 billion for the bottom 40% a bad deal, an increase in inequality.

That remains true no matter who voted for it.

And I covered the extension of unemployment benefits. They were extended twice already. I am supposed to believe that the only way they could be extended was also by giving huge tax breaks to the rich?

And extra medicaid payments? Well a good deal, in my eyes, would be more extra medicaid payments for two years and tax cuts for the rich for six months. Flip that around and it does not look nearly as good. $30 billion in extra medicaid payments vs. $621 billion in tax cuts for the top 20%.

Heck of a deal, Brownie. Heck of a deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:01 PM

30. Prosense ...

This isn't an attack on Corn, so much as a chickensh!t attack on President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:48 AM

6. Corn spoke while on The Cape once.

 


I went to the function.

I asked him a question about the polarization of the media.

H dismissed it saying that, 'the media follows the $$'. That didn't explain the polarization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:03 PM

31. Yes, it did. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:08 PM

39. ??????? Why not? Seems pretty clear to me. What don't I get? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:12 PM

41. "The media follows the money" explains a whole lot

in a short sentence. I would say that's a concise and true answer. He could have explained himself more, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:15 AM

7. David Corn is always a mixed bag.

I believe he once was a Progressive ...perhaps even populist when he started out...but like all of them they compromised to keep their jobs as print and news magazines began to die out in the internet age.. Shrinkage of newspapers and magazines means they compromise themselves to fit who pays them and if the Third Way or DLC rules then that's what the more Dem leaning of our reporters will fit themselves with in their reporting.

Compromising themselves away because they have to earn a living, too. Indie Media has to beg for money constantly. Who can make a decent living reporting for the few Progressive online news sources?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:22 AM

8. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:08 AM

11. Nouriel Roubini: What America Needs is a Payroll Tax Cut

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091605846.html

But, the circular firing squad purist leftists never tire in their efforts to trash people who get stuff done.

David Corn gave us the 47% tape and helped bring down Mitt Romney. What the hell has the OP ever accomplished?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:15 PM

21. well, getting "stuff" done

is not nearly as important as getting GOOD stuff done. Getting bad stuff done does not impress me much.

And I have no idea who Roubini is? Is he a progressive hero like Nader? Or is he some rightwinger espousing rightwing ideas as being good for America?

Looks like the latter to me.

And I am more than happy to shoot at traitorous progressives who get rightwing "stuff" done.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/93

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/86

They see Democrats and Republicans fighting each other instead of fighting for the American people"

Except that is how elected Democrats fight for the American people - BY FIGHTING AGAINST REPUBLICAN POLICIES. Republican policies which are harmful to the American people.

For example, from my Journal #19
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...

When Joe Lieberman complains that "partisanship prevents things from getting done" I said "IT SHOULD"


When you look at the things Republicans want to do

* eliminate civil rights in the name of security
* goto war at the slightest hint of possible provocation
* gut social services
* give massive tax breaks to rich people
* allow corporations free rein to pollute, swindle and exploit
* lie about their goals, motives and actions
* etc.,etc., ad nauseum - see the Wage Slave Journal's "scorecard of evil"

That is exactly why some 56 million Americans try to elect Democrats - to stop that bullsh*t from "getting done". Lieberman didn't want to do his job. Connecticut Democrats had three words for you last night - "YOU ARE FIRED!"


Joe Lieberman says that "We can count on John and Sarah to fight for you, the American people" and yet one of his key proposals is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Tax cuts which primarily benefit the top 10% - not ALL the American people. 70% of the benefits of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts goto people making over $500,000. 80% of the benefits of eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which McCain proposes to do, 80% of the benefits of that goto the richest 10%.

Lieberman also says, like W said of himself, that "even if you disagree with him, he will tell you where he stands."

So, back to those tax cuts. In 2001, McCain voted against them. Now he is for them. Which time was he taking a principled stand? In 2001, when he opposed Bush, or in 2008, when he caved in to the Republican base - "the haves and the have mores"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:20 PM

22. You have no idea who Roubini is and think he's a rightwinger?

That speaks volumes, none of it flattering.

But, I guess people who think that George W Bush's political benefactor is a 'progressive hero' . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #22)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:30 PM

24. oh, excuuuuse me

what a shame that I know more about policy than I do about people.

Whoever Roubini is, his article was a load of crap. America needs corporate tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

Sure, that's not rightwing. Ooookay. Whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:35 PM

98. That was a real 'tell'. It invalidates whatever wandering point the OP was trying to make.

Must be a low bar set for 'genius' these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #98)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:05 AM

124. somebody once said

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Yet, omigosh, I am a fool for not knowing who certain people are.

I probably should pay more attention to the icons, eh?

Must be a real low bar set for iconoclast these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:13 AM

15. DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:21 AM

16. As my father would say...you have to take the bitter with the better.

The political landscape is what it is. We can't wish it away with dreams of ideological purity. I would say ideological purity went the way of the dodo, but that would be wrong, because we human beings cannot exist in a state of ideological purity.

We have to deal with the fact that not only were these tax cuts very popular across the board, but that Republicans are putting stuff on the table that is really going to hurt working people: mortgage deductions, extended unemployment...all of which will vanish if the very real issue of those tax cuts is not addressed. Many of us who could see down the road opposed those tax cuts from the get-go. But now they are fact, and they are history, and we, who live in the real world, have to deal with them as such.

This wasn't the landscape when those tax cuts were proposed, but it was in 2010, and it is now. The Republicans pressed their advantage when they could, and they won that political ground. Now, you can blame Obama for not fighting hard enough, and you'd be right. But that political ground will not be won back any time soon, given the composition of the House. It's over. It's a fight for another day, and another, friendlier Congress (if that ever comes to pass).

I sincerely hope Obama will cut the best deal he can with these people. I think he owns enough political capital to push them...but how far is an open ended question.

Trashing the President, and David Corn, is not particularly constructive. Let's work with what we have, and not with what we wish we had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:26 PM

23. I would say, as a working man

Obama and Corn have two choices

they can fight on MY side

or

they can get my steel toed boot up their a$$.


I consider the latter to be very constructive. It's a strong incentive for people to fight on my side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:09 PM

40. I so tire of reading this ...

"He better do what" some random guy, with apparently no concept of political reality, posts on a internet bulletin board.

YOU WANT TO AFFECT CHANGE THE CHANGE YOU WANT ... RUN FOR AN OFFICE, GET ELECTED; THEN INTRODUCE YOUR MAGICAL LEGISLATION THAT WILL WOO BOTH DEMOCRATS AND THE OBSTRUCTIONIST GOP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #40)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:14 PM

43. +1google!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #40)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:37 PM

51. Thank You!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:50 AM

61. yeah,the funny part is

I thought I was helping to make the change I wanted by helping to defeat Hillary in the primary.

The political reality that I continue to see, is that we have a Democratic President who refuses to represent the bottom 80%.

I make no apologies for trying to rally the bottom 80%.

I say that "he better tell the truth" or I will call him out for his lies.

That goes for both Corn and Obama.

You have a strange concept of American Democracy. Where citizens and voters must shut up unless they can be elected to office.

I responded to somebody who said it was not productive for me to attack Obama and Corn. Well, if they don't want to be attacked by me, then they can start telling the truth, start fighting on my side - on our side.

But you seem to feel that since the "political reality" is that the Democratic Party has been bought by the rich, that those of us who are not rich should just shut up and accept that reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:58 AM

74. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:01 PM

58. What a wonderful intellect you have

 

It would fit in well with the tea party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:03 PM

108. Welcome to my ignore list.

Anybody who doesn't agree with your notions of ideological purity is a tea partier; is that it?

Your sarcasm is lame and juvenile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #108)


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #58)

Fri Jul 26, 2013, 05:12 PM

131. Are you trying to be disruptive? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:58 PM

27. Could you find a way to make your point and be more appealing?

Seriously. I am most inclined to agree with you but this post is just ugly. It comes off to me as being incredibly whiney. Honestly when I read this I find myself almost feeling a little sorry that I'm a liberal, and I love being liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:35 AM

59. which part is ugly?

Is it ugly to call lies "lies"?

Is it ugly to demand that journalists stand up for the truth instead of promoting lies?

Is it ugly to point out that famous people probably make more money than the rest of us, and that that might have something to do with whether they fight on our side or not?

As I watch the Obama presidency and the supposed "liberal" reaction to it, I am not even sure what being a liberal means.

It sure does not seem to mean "strong support for progressive income taxes".

Maybe Obama could mention that in his next SOTU - "the era of progressive taxation is over."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:52 AM

78. Gee, I don't know

How about the righteous indignation? That might be it. Or maybe it's the sanctimony? Or perhaps it's the fact that a lot of us are giving a lot of yourselves to make these thongs happen only to be told we are this and that and just not good enough to care and try to help?

I am sure that I missed some of the ugly. I just love it when assholes try to lecture to me and condescend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #78)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:41 AM

83. so it's not ugly to call somebody an a$$hole?

Which part do you consider to be condescending?

When did I ever say that anybody, besides Corn and Obama is "not good enough to care and try to help"?

Do you see my OP as an attack on you because you, like David Corn, are part of the top 20%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #83)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:25 AM

87. Actually I didn't call anyone in particular an asshole

What I said was that I just love when some asshole tries to lecture me and to condescend. Do you like it when some asshole tries to lecture you and condescend to you?

Since I didn't really name you, and only spoke in general terms about something I disliked, I could rightfully take your comment as an admission that you are being an asshole, trying to lecture me and condescend to me. Is that what you intended?

The fact that you used David Corn and President Obama as your targets doesn't mean that I don't understand that you're lecturing me and condescending to me. I am a supporter of Democrats and President Obama. When you insult the efforts of Democrats and President Obama you are very much insulting me and what I'm trying to do.

I favor constructive criticism hfojvt, but there is a certain element here who are most definitely not constructive.

You asked me. I gave you my best answer. That is my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #87)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:39 AM

89. right, sure

first you aren't talking about me, then you are.

What do you consider to be condescending in my original rant? Which part?

And what is Obama trying to do? He's trying to extend 78% of the Bush tax cuts. I do not think that is a worthy goal. I desire a better outcome. I would like a champion to fight for a better outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #89)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:55 AM

91. I've explained it to you.

You don't want to understand hfojvt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #91)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:23 PM

94. just because you don't want to explain

does not mean I don't want to understand

but there certainly are points of view that I do not consider to be valid or reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #94)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:46 PM

102. I don't know you.

Unfortunately I am only human and that means my knowledge is limited. I have to lump you in with a certain element here that simply doesn't like President Obama and goes out of its way to attack him and other Democrats. You are not monolithic, no one is, but you are an identifiable group.

I am fairly certain that members of this group is of the left but not necessarily liberal. You may be to the left of liberals. You may have some other agenda that I am not going to get into here because those discussions open other cans of worms. But you all tend to militant, aggressive, self-righteous, and condescending.

A lot of people here know exactly what I am referring to. Some people, like you personally, claim to not understand. I have to say that I am not going to believe you when you tell me that you don't understand. I have been here before and done this. I don't really want to play this game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:04 PM

33. some "orginal posts" are just to insanely stupid to respond to.....

this is one of them....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:38 AM

60. which part didn't you understand?

What seems insanely stupid to me is for the Democratic Party to embrace Reaganomics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #60)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:55 AM

77. Insanely stupid is accusing President Obama of embracing Reaganomics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bornskeptic (Reply #77)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:01 AM

85. sometimes I have to wonder

What REALLY happened to the boy who said the emperor had no clothes?

What is really insanely stupid is Obama's embrace of Reaganomics.

What are the principles of Reaganomics?

1. that tax cuts are good. - check out Obama's first state of the union, where he brags about cutting taxes. Witness his stubborn insistence that all income below $250,000 should keep their Bush tax cuts.

2. that tax cuts should mainly help the wealthy (although nobody should ever admit that, just call them "middle class tax cuts") - Obama supports keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts. That plan gives $163 billion to the top 20% and only $14 billion to the bottom 20% http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

3. that tax cuts create jobs and stimulate the economy - remember Obama's big "jobs plan"? What was it? A big, big part of it, the only part he actually fought for, was (drumroll -----) payroll tax cuts. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160

4. that tax increases (but also deficits) will kill the economy -Obama seems to be spreading the hype about both the fiscal cliff and the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:04 PM

35. What are you doing to help President Obama fight for you?

Outside of posting on DU, how are you helping President Obama fight for you? Are you calling and writing your Congresspersons? Have you thought about starting an org with others who feel like you do? He's one man, and millions of Americans are clamoring for him to wave his hand and fulfill their agenda's. Not to mention the millions of Americans whose hatred of him is so fierce they simply make shit up. I'd say you were on the cusp - it's a fine line. He needs help. Granted, he should be held up to scrutiny and each and every one of us should be utilizing the tools the Obama administration has provided us to let him know how we feel, but honestly, how many people are doing that, and how many people are sitting at their computers complaining in a forum where it does little to good?

I think I'm not out of line saying that David Corn has done more to further the progressive agenda up to this point that you have. Your calling him a liar is beyond the pale. Again, WHAT. HAVE. YOU. DONE. to help yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmuse (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:30 AM

67. Why is it beyond the pale to call Corn a liar

if he, is in fact, lying?

The cave in 2010 was a pile of excrement. For Corn to paint it as an ice cream sandwich is just beyond the pale.

You think calling and writing my Republican Congresspeople is gonna do a damned bit of good? Puh-leaze.

You think sending him an email is gonna do some good?

In fact, I already did that. After he caved back in 2010, I unsubscribed from his email list and told him why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:08 PM

38. LOL, the 1st post in the attempt to suppress liberal voting in the 2014 mid term elections.

Major fail.

Get used to it DU, they'll be a lot more of this crap coming down the intertubes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:12 PM

42. They work to defeat themselves & then wonder why we don't trust them. In a word, Fascism, wearing

other labels.

It's sad, because I actually do agree with some of their principles. It's just that there is a sub-cohort that is trying to OWN that stuff NO MATTER WHAT IT DOES TO *A*N*Y*O*N*E* else, even "their own".

I propose an assessment, the first step of which is to ask these people, some of whom are above: #1. Are you employed? & #2. Do you have "health" "care"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:02 PM

53. I hadn't figured on that but now that you mention it...

Thanks FSogol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:40 PM

55. Yep ...

While Democrats need every single vote we can muster ... at the risk of hurting someone's feelings, everytime I see one of these "President Obama/the Democrats better or else ..." posts, I get a vision of a 4th grader stomping his feet and holding his breath because he got the G.I. Joe WITHOUT the Kung Fu Grip and life-like beard, when he specifically asked for one with both.

I, also, get that yawny feeling and seriously question whether President Obama/the Democrats ever really had their vote, in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:46 AM

68. I guess I deserve that

After all, I spent two years attempting to defend Obama against the left on DU

for example

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/127

and

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/131

and

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/121

"How do progressives get disillusioned? They come to DU where they can read about how bad the Obama administration is.

Did I say bad? That's not nearly a strong enough term. The Obama administration is not just bad, according to many threads and front page articles on DU. The Obama administration is corrupt, sold out, just like the Bush administration. Worse than worthless, because instead of accomplishing nothing, they accomplish giant giveaways to the corporations. Plus, they lie all the time."


*****

But, at this point there is no need for discouragement. My point is that Obama betrayed us in 2010. For Corn to lie and pretend that Obama did not betray us, is just an invitation for Obama to betray us again.

For myself, I feel that anger at that first betrayal should be a motivation to demand that we not get fooled again.

Maybe if we keep our guard up, Obama won't be able to sucker punch us again. Instead many here seem to be leading with our chins and saying to Obama "hit me baby one more time".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:20 PM

46. interesting read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:28 PM

47. Careful, your sour grapes are showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:12 AM

70. it's true

I wanted to elect somebody who would fight against the Bush tax cuts, instead of extend them.

I guess though, that I am supposed to be prepared to cheer another surrender. That when a grand bargain is made which extends 85% of the Bush tax cuts and makes cuts to medicaid and medicare that we will be told (again) that Obama got a "good deal".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #70)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:07 AM

86. You neglect to mention that UE benefits were extended as part of that deal as well.

Guess what? The people who didn't get their UE cut off abruptly, probably care less than I do, who you "wanted to elect". Get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #86)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:51 AM

90. as I mentioned in my OP

UE benefits were extended twice already. I don't believe Obama needed to give away the whole show in order to get that again.

That just seems like a Bush tactic. Throw a nickel, or $20 billion to the bottom in order to justify $641 billion to the top.

Who the fuck thinks that is a fair trade? A "good deal". Just dickheads like Corn who were part of the group that got the $641 billion. The deal was much better for him than it was for me, or for the unemployed.

Oh, and I happen to only personally know two people who collected UE. One was my lazy co-worker. Working the same part time job that I had, always happy to get free money that he didn't have to work for. Another was my supervisor's wife. Married, of course, to my supervisor, who besides getting paid to make my life hell, also got military retirement and benefits.

But I hear you. I am just a serf, a member of the canaille who doesn't count. Doesn't matter, I should get over it. I should quit griping and cheer for our wonderful leader who cares even less about me than you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #90)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:14 PM

110. I don't think it's possible he could "care less about you than I do". Not even remotely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:37 PM

52. The Jets suck

 

they really, really suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:54 AM

63. but when you are a Jet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:07 AM

117. Like Fireman Ed

 

What a pathetic lot Jets fans are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:04 PM

54. Sorry...but I really have to go along with the fact that THE JETS SUCK !!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RagAss (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:53 AM

62. the Jets do suck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:15 AM

66. I thought Corn wrote a pretty good article.

Unfortunately, Obama is operating in a world where he has no choice but to deal with Repubs. And, in that context, I agree with Corn that he did better than most people realize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #66)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:03 AM

69. I think he did worse than most people realize

He didn't have to cave in to them. He held the trump card, the Bush tax cuts were gonna expire. Republicans absolutely did not want to see that happen.

Obama had an option to fight. To stand up and say "this is what Democrats stand for."

Instead he stood up and said "Republicans are right."

Republicans have always said

1. tax cuts create jobs
2. tax cuts for the rich are really middle class tax cuts
3. tax cuts are always good
4. tax increases are always bad

In waving the white flag, Obama basically said "I agree with Republicans about that."

It was kinda funny during the campaign when Romney got blasted for saying that the middle class is "people making $250,000 or less". Funny because he was getting slammed for agreeing with what Obama has been saying for four years.

Not funny though, because we apparently turn around and accept it from Obama. If it was wrong when Romney said it then it should be just as wrong, or more so, when Obama says it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #69)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:28 AM

71. I think it was critical that he get the extension on unemployment benefits.

Both to help those people -- who otherwise would have been screwed -- and to act as a further stimulus to the economy. Which worked, by the way. We would be much worse off today without it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #71)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:49 AM

72. as I mentioned in my OP

Unemployment benefits were extended by this same Congress on 6 Nov 2009, and on 22 July 2010. So why should we believe that agreeing to an extension of the Bush tax cuts was the ONLY way to get another extension of unemployment benefits?


Why should I believe that the only way to get another extension of unemployment benefits was by caving on the Bush tax cuts?

Funny how two other extensions were passed without any such incentive, isn't it?

And much worse off? Even Obama claimed very little stimulus from the unemployment extension. It was about $22 billion of his supposed $200 billion in stimulus. The vast majority of his claimed stimulus was the accursed payroll tax cut - a Republican trickle-down stimulus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #72)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:52 AM

73. How do you know the other extensions were passed with no incentive? We've never

gotten extensions passed without giving up something and/or having 60 votes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05krugman.html

http://www.risesmart.com/blog/can-unemployment-benefit-extensions-go-on-forever

Relief for the millions of Americans out of work could be on the way on today, after more than a month of maneuvering in Congress. Federal extensions for unemployment insurance expired on June 2, and have been shot down in three votes since then by Republican lawmakers who say more extensions for the jobless will add to the federal deficit. During that time, an estimated 1.3 million Americans have run out of benefits, out of some 14.6 million unemployed.

The new authorization for extensions is expected to pass today, as it will be taken after the swearing in of Democrat Carte Goodwin, who’ll replace the late West Virginian Sen. Robert Byrd and give the party the 60 votes they need to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:40 AM

75. point taken

but giving up $641 billion in tax cuts to get $20 billion in unemployment extension still seems like a very bad trade to me.

And when that article said 60 votes, I do not believe the Democrats had 60, because we lost that IIRC with the victory of Scott Brown. Cloture was reached with two votes from Maine Senators - Republicans at the time.

Presumably they could have been extended again without giving away everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #75)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:00 PM

114. Those two Maine Senators lined up with us at great cost to them in their party.

Olympia Snowe indicated that that kind of conflict was why she was leaving office -- she was sick of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #66)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:15 PM

122. Yes. This is not 2010.

There is No excuse now for the bashing from the left. They can't even claim that Obama has the House like they could 2009-2011. If it was illogical to help elect a Repuke House in 2010 as "punishment" to the Dems for not being progressive enough, it is not just plan clear, that anyone who wants a more Repuke house for 2014 is just a right wing troll. How is the current House going to pass anything progressive and in fact not pull to the right? And those who wanted to punish the Dems in 2010 can look in the mirror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:56 AM

76. What is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #76)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:16 PM

92. pretty simple actually

1. the Obama surrender of 2010 was a horrible betrayal - by Obama
2. for David Corn to paint it as a victory is also a horrible betrayal - by Corn
3. if we accept these betrayals, we will just get betrayed again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #92)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:51 PM

105. It's a silly point.

The Medicaid expansion expired six months later. It was not renewed by Congress.

The deal included extended unemployment benefits. Without a doubt, Republicans would have allowed them to expire or at the very least trim them significantly, holding them hostage for something else.

Obama is smarter than his critics who believe they know all the details about what he and other members of Congress are thinking. It's arm-chair quarterbacking in hindsight.

As for the Corn piece (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021883996) that sparked this nonsense, he is likely correct.

Van Hollen takes Medicare age increase and Social Security off the table
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021891741

Sanders Applauds White House for Taking Social Security Off the Table in Deficit Talks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014319000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #105)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:30 PM

111. all I know is that I donated and voted for a Democratic President

based on the idea that he would change things. That he would at the very, very least eliminate the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250,000. I thought they should be eliminated for incomes over $80,000 but was pragmatically sorta willing to settle for $250,000.

But then Obama did not even FIGHT for that? When all he had to do was NOTHING and they would expire automatically?

And I am supposed to believe that $30 billion in unemployment extensions (which had previously been achieved without huge sacrifices) and a little bit of medicaid expansion is worth another $641 billion in tax cuts for the rich? Tax cuts which are likely to be extended AGAIN?

Yeah, the medicaid expansion expired, That sorta makes my point. 6 months of medicaid expansion for TWO YEARS of tax cuts for the rich is NOT a good deal. They got two years and we got six months. Hurrah for the deal maker! He's so awesome.

As for armchair quarterbacking in hindsight. No, way, way back in February of 2010, I was insisting that the Bush tax cuts should expire for the wealthy. That we should make our case to the people against tax cuts for the wealthy.

Instead, Obama keeps embracing them.

For some reason, I still feel betrayed, even if some sheep are going willingly to slaughter, I still feel betrayed.

No amount of you calling me silly and calling the traitor a genius is gonna make me feel any less betrayed. $641 billion in tax cuts for the rich is a failure. And as I said at the time, quoting Biden, the real failure was that Obama refused to even fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #92)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:11 PM

109. Very logical.

 

Of course for some others, logic is greatly overrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:23 PM

95. There are times we really need unrec for the same old rehashed BS.

Well, I'll "unrec" in spirit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #95)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:31 PM

112. I'm with you there

I would have liked to unrec the David Corn thread.

He was the jacka$$hole who rubbed salt in an old wound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #112)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:49 AM

119. I kinda liked him & did n't know he was FIRED from the Nation...

 

Stephanie Miller talked about Corns article & my understanding was Obama did a good job.

I have not read the whole thing but this one maybe will need printed & some aspirin, at any rate I am not sure what to believe, but I agree with you about fighting the Dems now & making sure they understand a double cross will be paid back w/ something worse than 2010.

I am more of the Cenk TYT combat type of person than Chris Mathews defender/apologist.

As i said I have not done all my homework but after a quick look here: http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2012/09/media-lies-of-david-corn.html

It was enuff to give me a sour feeling about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:57 AM

120. Thank you for your concern. Your comments will be carefully considered.

I've always liked David Corn.

Let us also remember that you need to make $90,000 a year or more in family income to survive in many high cost of living and high tax rate metro areas, which are home to many Democrats.

One of the Republican strategies in the past was to try to remove the deductibility on federal income taxes of state and local taxes. They were trying to screw over the residents of New York State, California and other blue states with high tax rates. They wanted to tax their taxes. In comparison, many red states have low tax rates because they have crappy public schools - anyone with the financial ability pays tuition for private schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPZenger (Reply #120)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:24 AM

125. many people are surviving in those metro areas

on much lower incomes.

For example, the poverty rate in Washington DC is over 20%. This in spite of it's high median income. Many more people are perhaps near poverty. Most of those people survive, at least for a while.

Deducting state income taxes happens to be a huge benefit to the rich.

In 2009, 7024 filers with AGI greater than $10,000,000 deducted their state income taxes. Their total deductions were $15.4 billion for an average deduction of $2.19 million.

As for red states with low tax rates. Well, you might check this out http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/159

In California, the top 1% pays 9.8% in state taxes. The federal deduction saves them 2.3% making their total effective tax rate 7.4%. Compare that to a red state like Louisiana where Bobby Jindal brags about his tax cuts (to the rich). In Louisiana, the poorest 20% pay a tax rate of 10.4%. In Alabama, the poorest 20% pay a tax rate of 10.2%. In Utah, the poorest 20% pay 9.3%.

Yeah, those low tax red states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:10 PM

121. You seem to disagree on some fiscal issues

with others on how best to deal with them.

Obama can afford to ignore the left and right this time. At least the president will do what he thinks best and we know he does care about the poor and middle class, unlike Republicans. You can disagree about methods (and probably aren't as informed as he is) but not with intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:32 PM

129. shall i fetch a fresh pamper from the hamper?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread