HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Robert Reich: Why is the ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:54 AM

Robert Reich: Why is the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers Helping the Republicans?


Why is the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers Helping the Republicans?
Monday, November 26, 2012


Why is the White House trying to scare average people about the consequences of the “fiscal cliff?”

If the President’s strategy is to hold his ground and demand from Republicans tax increases on the wealthy, presumably his strongest bargaining position would be to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule come January – causing taxes to rise automatically, especially on the wealthy.

So you’d think part of that strategy would be reassure the rest of the public that the fiscal cliff isn’t so bad or so steep, and that at the start of January Democrats will introduce in Congress a middle-class tax cut whose effect is to prevent taxes from rising for most people (thereby forcing Republicans to vote for a tax cut for the middle class or hold it hostage to a tax cut for the wealthy as well).

But today (Monday) the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers issued a report today warning that if Congress allows the Bush tax cuts to expire January 1 and the Alternative Minimum Tax to kick in, the middle class will face sharply-rising taxes. ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://robertreich.org/post/36593702879



57 replies, 5218 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 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply Robert Reich: Why is the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers Helping the Republicans? (Original post)
marmar Nov 2012 OP
Lasher Nov 2012 #1
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #19
Lasher Nov 2012 #28
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #35
Lasher Nov 2012 #42
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #55
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #32
bvar22 Nov 2012 #36
Lasher Nov 2012 #37
auto1969 Nov 2012 #34
Lasher Nov 2012 #44
auto1969 Nov 2012 #45
Lasher Nov 2012 #46
auto1969 Nov 2012 #47
Lasher Nov 2012 #53
auto1969 Nov 2012 #57
auto1969 Nov 2012 #48
librechik Nov 2012 #2
Tansy_Gold Nov 2012 #51
ProSense Nov 2012 #3
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #6
woo me with science Nov 2012 #8
LondonReign2 Nov 2012 #10
ProSense Nov 2012 #15
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #40
ProSense Nov 2012 #13
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #14
ProSense Nov 2012 #16
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #20
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #18
ProSense Nov 2012 #21
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #23
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #24
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #25
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #26
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #27
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #38
NashvilleLefty Nov 2012 #43
Octafish Nov 2012 #4
woo me with science Nov 2012 #5
Melinda Nov 2012 #7
woo me with science Nov 2012 #52
forestpath Nov 2012 #9
woo me with science Nov 2012 #11
Octafish Nov 2012 #31
woo me with science Nov 2012 #49
jsr Nov 2012 #12
Liberalynn Nov 2012 #17
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #22
agent46 Nov 2012 #29
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #30
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #33
bvar22 Nov 2012 #39
woo me with science Nov 2012 #41
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #56
woo me with science Nov 2012 #50
woo me with science Nov 2012 #54

Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:01 AM

1. Because Obama is a neoliberal

Let's face it, he is no New Deal Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:11 AM

19. A couple of years ago

I had an argument with a man who said that Obama was "a marxist, a socialist, an anarchist and a fascist". This man, needless to say, was a libertarian. I believe that libertarianism requires ignorance of history, economics and politics; and libertarians such as him reinforce this belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:26 AM

28. Guess he didn't understand what an anarchist is.

&q=90&w=479&zc=1

A lot of people don't understand what neoliberalism is either.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:34 PM

35. Thank you.

Except a lot of the people who claim to be libertarians and love Ron Paul are not that at all.

They just don't like the Federal Reserve and war.

I agree with them on those two issues: I too think the Federal Reserve needs to be reformed -- completely reformed, and I don't think we should be involved in so many wars.

But, what a lot of the people (like one of my neighbors specifically) don't understand is that libertarianism and Ron Paul really want anarchy, chaos, bedlam. They don't want to admit that people can't just all do what they want all the time without any coordination at all. Life just doesn't work that way. A country like that would mean trouble especially for children.

Think of all the things we would do without if we did not pay taxes. Would you really want to have to pay a maintenance or entrance fee to some private person every time you took your child to the playground for a baseball game or to the slides?

Libertarianism is just anarchy. So true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #35)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:29 PM

42. I don't feel qualified to opine about the Federal Reserve.

Last edited Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I need to learn more about that, and am receptive to instruction.

The rest of this makes perfect sense to me, JD.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:49 AM

55. I know a man who calls for abolishing the Federal Reserve

But when I ask him, "And replace it with what?", he cannot make a meaningful answer. Somebody has to set monetary policy in the U.S., and I feel happier with having the government do it than with having commercial banks do it.

One thing that a lot of libertarians fail to realize is that bodies such as the Federal Reserve, the Securities Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug administration and so on were set up to deal with real problems. Simply abolishing them means that the tasks they perform will no longer be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:50 AM

32. A "neoliberal"? I'm not sure that he ever described himself as a liberal, neoliberal or otherwise.

 

Although his former Chief of Staff used the phrase "fucking retarded" when referring to liberals without any adverse consequences, somehow I doubt that he ever used that phrase towards Obama. If Rahm publicly expressed his thinking that liberals are "fucking retarded," wouldn't his thinking include neoliberals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:32 PM

36. NO.

A NeoLiberal is not even close to a Liberal.

A NeoLiberal is a 3rd Way, DLC, Blue Dog, "New Democrat" conservative, Anti-LABOR, Free Trading, de-regulating, trickle down "Democrat" in name only hiding behind an manufactured marketing label, "NeoLiberal".

NeoLiberal = Reagan Democrat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:36 PM

37. The word neoliberal (new liberal) describes economic liberalism.

It can be confusing because of the way the word liberal has evolved in the US, which is usually meant to describe social liberals.

For more on neoliberalism, hit the link I supplied just upthread.

Edit: I don't believe Obama has ever called himself a neoliberal except by his actions - such as supporting more free trade agreements. But he has called himself a New Democrat, which is pretty much the same thing.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/obama_last_of_the_new_democrats/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:10 PM

34. For AMT it is an issue

I work at a CPA firm and have prepared taxes for over 15 years. Yes, I agree we need to raise taxes on the rich and letting the Bush tax cuts expire does help in a small way BUT for the AMT (alternative minimum tax) patch that is going to expire, it's going to hit some of the middle class unfairly and needs to be addressed. The AMT was developed years ago to go after people with excessive income and impose additional taxes but unfortunately it never worked the way it should and the AMT patch was introduced. The AMT patch cannot expire or it will tax the middle class. That's why you can't just asshat your way through with your Obama put downs and understand there is more that just tax cuts for the wealthy that are going to expire. I could go in to much more detail if you'd like but there are additional credits that affect the middle class that need to be addressed as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auto1969 (Reply #34)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:32 PM

44. What would be the result of the AMT patch expiration?

Last edited Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Can you describe this in simple terms? I don't want to continue asshatting my way through my Obama putdowns, so I would be grateful if you could enlighten me in this respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #44)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:20 PM

45. I just don't appreciate the Obama thumping before anything has happened or been voted on


This link explains the history of AMT as well as its shortcomings and what will happen if we let the AMT patch expire.

http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2012/11/14/fiscal-cliff-fallout-how-the-amt-would-hit-taxpayers

Edited: having trouble with link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auto1969 (Reply #45)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:47 PM

46. A link to a vague article from a rightwing website.

I was hoping for something better from you. Who are these families who would be affected? What are their income levels? Your source doesn't bother to say. If you are unable to express your own conviction, can't you at least provide a relevant excerpt? Do you even know, Mr or Ms CPA firm employee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #46)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:55 PM

47. Wow, even though it's from a "rightwing" website, its the truth

So sorry that since I'm at work, I looked for a quick way to explain to you but since I'm going home soon, I'll make sure and take it directly from the IRS website or is that too "rightleaning" for you as well. So glad to put in the extra time for your sake.

This is exactly why I never became a DU member. I have been reading and exploring DU since the 1st Bush term but never joined. Biggest reason, as soon as the election's over, we turn on one another and the sniping begins. So much for thinking about donating and why I even bothered to join for the supposed camaraderie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auto1969 (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:22 AM

53. When you give criticism you should be prepared to deal with it yourself.

You set the tone when you said, "you can't just asshat your way through with your Obama put downs." When you sling mud, don't whine if some of it ends up on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:25 PM

57. Just as u should do ur homework before posting as well

Instant criticism of Obama on a grand scale without all the facts over a broad range of subjects - u r just as if not more so guilty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #46)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:50 PM

48. Here are two links from (I hope good enough for you) reputable sources


http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/NR/exeres/56E511D3-139A-4420-AB00-99A03E993175.htm?WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/amt/patches.cfm

Links provided at the end of the article by the tax policy center go into additional detail.

If it's still not good enough for you, don't care, I'm done. Good luck with your tax preparation for 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:05 AM

2. AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHHHH!!!!

this makes me even angrier than when Martha Raddatz said Social Security is in serious trouble during the debate..

DON"T JOIN IN W THE LIES FGS!!!!!

Obama needs to clean house and get rid of ALL the neocons he dragged into his administration for the sake of bipartisanship in 2009 Seriously, Barry get a clue!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:12 AM

3. Why exactly shouldn't

the WH frame it this way?

From the report:

While the President is committed to working with Congress to reach compromises on areas of disagreement, there is no reason to delay acting where everyone agrees: extending tax cuts for the middle-class. There is no reason to hold the middle-class hostage while we debate tax cuts for the highest income earners.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/consumer_report_embargo.pdf

This is to point out the irresponsibility of Republicans.

As Krugman notes, there is a consequece, but the President should hold his ground.

<...>

So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

In saying this, I don’t mean to minimize the very real economic dangers posed by the so-called fiscal cliff that is looming at the end of this year if the two parties can’t reach a deal. Both the Bush-era tax cuts and the Obama administration’s payroll tax cut are set to expire, even as automatic spending cuts in defense and elsewhere kick in thanks to the deal struck after the 2011 confrontation over the debt ceiling. And the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts looks easily large enough to push America back into recession.

Nobody wants to see that happen. Yet it may happen all the same, and Mr. Obama has to be willing to let it happen if necessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html

Americans will blame Republicans if no deal is made.

Currently, Democrats are putting up a united front:

Patty Murray: If GOP Refuses All Tax Hikes, We’ll Let Them Go Up And Start Over
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021791837

SPINE! President Obama Will Let ALL the Bush Tax Cuts Expire......if he doesn't get what he wants.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021775710

I'm not going to do that!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021786489

Pelosi and Reid Have OBAMA's BACK: No Social Security Cuts & Taxes MUST Be RAISED On The RICH
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021843971

Democratic Senator Introduces Bill To Lift Social Security’s Tax Cap, Extend Solvency For Decades
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021834952

Do Not Cut Social Security

September 20, 2012

A major bloc of 29 senators took a strong stand today against any cuts to Social Security as part of a deficit reduction deal. "We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package," the senators said in a letter circulated by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Senate Defending Social Security Caucus. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, the Senate's No. 3 leader, signed the letter. So did Sens. Mark Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse and Al Franken, who joined Sanders at a Capitol news conference.

Social Security has not contributed to the deficit or to the national debt, the senators said. The program that benefits more than 50 million retirees, widows, widowers, orphans and disabled Americans has a $2.7 trillion surplus and, according to actuaries, will be able to pay every benefit owed to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years.

"Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing," the letter said. "Even though Social Security operates in a fiscally responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and seem convinced that Social Security hands out lavish welfare checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned their benefits by working and paying into the system," the letter added.

Social Security has not contributed to deficits because it has a dedicated funding stream. Workers and employers each pay half of a 12.4 percent payroll tax on the first $110,100 of a worker's wages. The tax rate for employees was reduced to 4.2 percent in 2011 and 2012, but is scheduled to return to 6.2 percent in January.

To read the letter, click here »

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=066FB085-5798-4E6C-ABA2-85549D84DFA6


Other signatories:

Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.)

This doesn't include Elizabeth Warren and other new Senators.

A mandate on ending tax cuts for the rich
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021792535

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:32 AM

6. A "spontaneous reply" in less than 7 minutes

How con$cientiou$.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:36 AM

8. Indeed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:42 AM

10. You'd have had to squint real hard

during the election to miss the 4 or 5 like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:07 AM

15. I wonder what

you and the other "4 or 5 like" you would think of Reich's propsal to eliminate taxes on incomes up to $50,000 and reduce it on incomes up to $250,000?

<...>

The most direct way to get more money into their pockets is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (a wage subsidy) all the way up through people earning $50,000, and reduce their income taxes to zero. Taxes on incomes between $50,000 and $90,000 should be cut to 10 percent; between $90,000 and $150,000 to 20 percent; between $150,000 and $250,000 to 30 percent.

And exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes.

Make up the revenues by increasing taxes on incomes between $250,000 to $500,000 to 40 percent; between $500,000 and $5 million, to 50 percent; between $5 million and $15 million, to 60 percent; and anything over $15 million, to 70 percent.

And raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to payroll taxes to $500,000.

<...>

http://robertreich.org/post/3277360050

I like this proposal. It does more to combat inequity than the President's proposal, which it to simply continue the tax cuts for those under $250,000. Reich raises taxes on higher incomes to 1960s levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:55 PM

40. Oh its You.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:54 AM

13. I'm good at

find information and posting it. Krugman's blog is easy to find, and so was the report Reich linked to.

Seven minutes was too long, but apparently it would have taken you a lot longer.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:00 AM

14. What would have taken me longer

is the step where I carefully consider if something is worthy of defense. A step you seem to bypass religiously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:09 AM

16. Yeah,

"What would have taken me longer is the step where I carefully consider if something is worthy of defense. A step you seem to bypass religiously."

...I'm nothing like you. You're self-righteous and seem to think everyone must agree with you. If anyone doesn't, you spend time wondering how long it took them to post information.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:13 AM

20. No, you bash blindly instead of offering thoughtful defenses.

Boy, the pre-election nature of this site made me forget how deeply stupid this place can be when the rules are relaxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:11 AM

18. What a lame ass, cowardly way to accuse someone of being a paid operative

part of some grand conspiracy concocted between your neurons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:14 AM

21. Oh shit, I missed that.

Oooh, that's a smart one, seven minutes not included!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:14 AM

23. Lol!

(Borrowed from Sid)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:16 AM

24. The substance and wit of your response accurately reflects

the seriousness of your purpose in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:18 AM

25. geek unleashed

Go man, go!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:22 AM

26. I normally don't feed trolls. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:24 AM

27. How do you keep

from starving to death?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:51 PM

38. Oh its You.

Also borrowed from Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:28 PM

43. Would you like to comment on any of the information

provided, or just make unsubstantial implications based on the poster's Google skills?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:15 AM

4. Gee. If I wanted to have Republican policies, I'd have voted for one.

To see the GOP's perspective hold sway in fiscal policy is troubling for this Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:30 AM

5. Oh, no! Who could POSSIBLY have predicted this?!



More validation of Republican garbage by neoDemocrats. Again and again and again...

Had enough yet, America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:33 AM

7. Gosh, you'd think they would find a third way...

Oh wait, they already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Melinda (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:33 AM

52. Indeed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:37 AM

9. The fix is in. That is my only conclusion after seeing David Plouffe last night. It's almost comical

 

how loudly the Republicans are rattling their sabres when the Democrats are so eager to surrender!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:50 AM

11. Yeah, Kabuki's gotta be that way.

It's gotta be dramatic, convincing scripted collusion.

Almost comical, you're right. What stops just short of comedy is the people who will be be hungry, homeless, and dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:50 AM

31. The ''willing suspension of disbelief'' may soon no longer be a production value.

Government doesn't create jobs went buy-partisan the same moment the Koch Bros. wrote a check to the DLC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:51 PM

49. "Buy-partisan," indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:53 AM

12. Shocking indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:10 AM

17. I called the White House

not that they care what I think but hey I voted for the President twice, payed taxes before I became disabled, still pay sales tax, so I am going to throw in my two cents for what it's worth.

Said I agree that the fiscal cliff is largely a creation of the Republicans to keep their tax cuts for the rich.

That the President won in large part due to Democrats including those of us who identify as liberal and progressives, and that he won by a comfortable majority, saying he wanted to revoke the Bush tax cuts and not hurt the poor or the middle class.

I continued by saying that because of this I don't think it is right that now the election is over we have the President's advisor saying on Television now that we liberals and progressives need to suck it up, or some such thing, and accept cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

I said Medicare is already paid for and cuts are unacceptable and unfair.

Wasn't nasty. I said please and thank you. I just spoke my feelings on the issue.

So I completely agree with Robert Reich. I so wish he was part of the administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:14 AM

22. It's called leverage against the Republicans. If there's no deal, make them

pay the price politically and get the blame for everyone's taxes go up.

Reich does some good work, but this is awfully naive and shortsighted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:42 AM

29. Barack Obama

doesn't choose the menu. He's merely managing the White House franchise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:43 AM

30. We Won! We should be leading the discussion, we should be making the decisions

 


This is bullshit. We are not this stupid.

The Republican economic policies have been proven to be wrong.

How hard is it for the media to put a few facts on the TV, to illustrate their nonsense.

This is why we have to do something about the corporate media, They are still leading the nation's discussions. This is bullshit.

Corporate media said Romney won the debates on style, not facts. That is not how the media is supposed to work. Debates are scored on points made with facts. We should not be listening to their opinion on anything, yet they are still creating the crap that Dems follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:04 PM

33. I am far from a political strategist; but ...

If the President’s strategy is to hold his ground and demand from Republicans tax increases on the wealthy, presumably his strongest bargaining position would be to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule come January – causing taxes to rise automatically, especially on the wealthy.


How would violating a 2008 campaign promise not to raise taxes on those "earning" less than $250K, be his strongest bargaining position?

Why wouldn't his strongest bargaining position be to do exactly as he has been doing ... Asking the gop-controlled House to pass the Senate Bill?

Wouldn't that backstop his negotiating position by getting the gop on record refusing to protect the working classes, in case things go south?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:55 PM

39. BOHICA !

Don't you love all the pretty Trial Balloons?


"We can't let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 02:48 PM

41. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:51 AM

56. The "C Programming Language"?

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

That's what K&R means to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:54 PM

50. Kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:05 AM

54. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread