HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » We the people have alread...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:12 AM

 

We the people have already lost.

In the swirl of proposals, counterproposals, and other such noise coming out of the fiscal cliff debate is a contention that is trying to be foisted upon as the conventional wisdom, namely that no matter what else happens, whatever cuts are put through, if we can only force the 'Pugs to agree to eliminating the tax cuts for the rich, it will all be a victory both for the Democratic party and by extension the American people.

This simply is a bullshit lie, the smoke that goes along with mirrors. This is because of what is being put up as the balance in this deal to eliminate those tax cuts, namely massive spending cuts, cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or elsewhere, anywhere, except for defense cuts. That's the big reason that the fiscal cliff is inspiring so much fear among Washington, actual cuts to our military budget, and if we've learned anything over the past forty years, cutting the military budget is the biggest sin, the largest heresy that any Congressman or President can commit.

So once again we are looking at cutting more and more of our social safety net, cutting more of the spending the government does on human services. This is where we, all of us, lose.

First of all, there simply isn't that much more to cut. Medicaid is already on life support from being bled and bled again over the years. Medicare and Social Security are already struggling to keep up with the needs of those who rely on them because they have no other resources. And if we cut other human services budget, well, that means less public spending, which means a significant part of our economy shrinks, which in these fragile economic times, can throw us back into a full blown recession. Does that sound like any sort of victory to you?

In classic Keynesian economics, the government is the spender of last resort. When private spending contracts, public spending must increase in order to keep some sort of economic stability in this country. What is being proposed in these fiscal cliff negotiations is shrinking that public spending, a path that has already been trod by Greece and Spain, and look at what is going on there.

A victory for the Democratic party is not a victory for we the people, not if that victory comes at the expense of further pauperizing the populace. Yet this is exactly the deal that is being put on the table. It is much like a game of three card monte, keep your eye on raising the taxes for the rich, never mind that the social safety net is being cut, pay no attention to that slashing of public spending.

There can be no victory in this mess if we the people have to be further pauperized in the process. Public spending on the social safety net and on human services has been cannibalized time and again over the years and decades, to the point where there simply isn't anymore to cut, at least not without causing real harm. The one budget item that is sacred, that has always been sacred, is military spending. It now comprises over fifty percent of our total budget. Yet it once again there is a stampede to preserve this sacred cow no matter the cost, no matter damage and suffering that you and I will endure as a result.

In reality what needs to be done is this, raise the tax rates on all of us. The plain, simple fact is that we do need revenue, much more revenue than the rich can realistically be parted with at this point. So put us all back on the Clinton tax rates, after all, we seemed to do alright even when we were paying higher taxes.

Second, raise capital gains taxes on the rich and well off. Another tax that is at historic lows, and a way of insuring that those rich trust fun babies who don't work also pay their far share.

Third, cut the military budget, preferably in half, but I would be happy with twenty five percent. Take this money and apply it to public spending on human services, for once in my life give this country a true peace dividend. It will prime the economic pump and lead us back into a period of economic recovery, perhaps even prosperity. Lord knows, our country needs some spending, as our infrastructure, our education system all slip into the depths. This would actually benefit us in both the short and long term, providing much needed well paying jobs immediately, and setting the stage for further growth in the future with a modern infrastructure designed to compete in the twenty first century.

This isn't rocket science, this is classic Keynesian economics combined with plain, simple economic common sense. Does our debt problem need to be addressed, certainly, but not at the expense of crashing the economy and doing further harm to the American people. Yet this is exactly where these fiscal cliff negotiations are leading us, yet we are being told that slashing public spending and raising the tax rates on the rich is somehow a victory. Well, the rich can easily afford those new taxes, and probably avoid most of them, but we the people simply cannot afford those cuts. While the Democrats will celebrate a massive victory by forcing up the rates on the rich, we the people will pay for that pyrrhic victory with ongoing poverty and misery.

A talking point victory for the Democratic party simply is not a victory for the American people, not if those people come out worse than before. That is exactly where this political narrative is pushing us however, and it is time for we the people to fight back. Frankly, I'm in agreement with Howard Dean, let's go over the fiscal cliff. Yes, we will all be paying higher tax rates, but we need to, and military spending will get its first meaningful cuts in decades.

Better yet, let's put the people, not the party at the forefront, and work on a real, meaningful victory for the people, not a party.

177 replies, 22261 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 177 replies Author Time Post
Reply We the people have already lost. (Original post)
MadHound Dec 2012 OP
graham4anything Dec 2012 #1
MadHound Dec 2012 #4
graham4anything Dec 2012 #6
MadHound Dec 2012 #11
graham4anything Dec 2012 #13
gateley Dec 2012 #91
reeds2012 Dec 2012 #72
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #90
graham4anything Dec 2012 #96
Katashi_itto Dec 2012 #159
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #58
maindawg Dec 2012 #81
graham4anything Dec 2012 #87
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #107
MadHound Dec 2012 #112
graham4anything Dec 2012 #113
MadHound Dec 2012 #117
graham4anything Dec 2012 #119
MadHound Dec 2012 #121
graham4anything Dec 2012 #125
MadHound Dec 2012 #130
Hissyspit Dec 2012 #154
graham4anything Dec 2012 #157
Dark n Stormy Knight Dec 2012 #158
Mel Dec 2012 #32
tavalon Dec 2012 #37
Mel Dec 2012 #41
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #124
We People Dec 2012 #77
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #126
jpak Dec 2012 #76
Hissyspit Dec 2012 #169
janx Dec 2012 #174
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #7
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #102
Cleita Dec 2012 #25
villager Dec 2012 #47
Nay Dec 2012 #84
dotymed Dec 2012 #168
Cleita Dec 2012 #170
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #26
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #86
graham4anything Dec 2012 #120
MadHound Dec 2012 #123
graham4anything Dec 2012 #128
MadHound Dec 2012 #131
graham4anything Dec 2012 #133
MadHound Dec 2012 #134
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #132
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #106
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #156
merrily Dec 2012 #165
Selatius Dec 2012 #2
John2 Dec 2012 #68
heaven05 Dec 2012 #78
dreampunk Dec 2012 #82
ProSense Dec 2012 #3
sheshe2 Dec 2012 #20
Octafish Dec 2012 #5
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #12
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #62
bluethruandthru Dec 2012 #8
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #9
leftstreet Dec 2012 #17
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #28
leftstreet Dec 2012 #34
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #42
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #64
rudycantfail Dec 2012 #30
yewnix Dec 2012 #173
yourout Dec 2012 #176
jpak Dec 2012 #10
leftstreet Dec 2012 #14
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #33
jpak Dec 2012 #38
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #39
jpak Dec 2012 #50
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #175
bigtree Dec 2012 #15
babylonsister Dec 2012 #21
freshwest Dec 2012 #151
heaven05 Dec 2012 #31
bigtree Dec 2012 #43
heaven05 Dec 2012 #53
bigtree Dec 2012 #59
heaven05 Dec 2012 #74
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #129
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #57
plethoro Dec 2012 #16
heaven05 Dec 2012 #24
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #18
Oilwellian Dec 2012 #118
ProSense Dec 2012 #19
LineReply I
heaven05 Dec 2012 #22
JEB Dec 2012 #23
ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #27
Cleita Dec 2012 #29
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2012 #36
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #35
plethoro Dec 2012 #40
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #51
plethoro Dec 2012 #60
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #66
plethoro Dec 2012 #70
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #73
heaven05 Dec 2012 #75
John2 Dec 2012 #85
riverbendviewgal Dec 2012 #44
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #45
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #92
99Forever Dec 2012 #46
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #48
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #94
SHRED Dec 2012 #49
rudycantfail Dec 2012 #55
SHRED Dec 2012 #63
Zorra Dec 2012 #52
Oilwellian Dec 2012 #127
still_one Dec 2012 #54
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #67
still_one Dec 2012 #115
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #147
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #56
Rocky888 Dec 2012 #61
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #138
Gregorian Dec 2012 #65
raccoon Dec 2012 #98
Flatulo Dec 2012 #114
Demeter Dec 2012 #69
go west young man Dec 2012 #71
We People Dec 2012 #93
woo me with science Dec 2012 #103
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #116
sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #79
ReRe Dec 2012 #80
great white snark Dec 2012 #83
femrap Dec 2012 #88
bvar22 Dec 2012 #89
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #104
jmowreader Dec 2012 #95
pacalo Dec 2012 #97
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #101
pacalo Dec 2012 #105
bvar22 Dec 2012 #108
woo me with science Dec 2012 #99
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #100
LWolf Dec 2012 #109
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #110
WillyT Dec 2012 #111
Iggy Dec 2012 #122
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #136
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #139
Iggy Dec 2012 #145
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #148
Iggy Dec 2012 #161
Iggy Dec 2012 #144
ProSense Dec 2012 #146
Bonobo Dec 2012 #135
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #137
woo me with science Dec 2012 #140
graham4anything Dec 2012 #141
woo me with science Dec 2012 #142
graham4anything Dec 2012 #143
emsimon33 Dec 2012 #149
decayincl Dec 2012 #150
zentrum Dec 2012 #152
Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2012 #153
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #155
tomp Dec 2012 #160
eomer Dec 2012 #162
arely staircase Dec 2012 #163
Laelth Dec 2012 #164
merrily Dec 2012 #166
olegramps Dec 2012 #167
woo me with science Dec 2012 #171
kiranon Dec 2012 #172
Fedaykin Dec 2012 #177

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:14 AM

1. See Lincoln the Movie. Compromise is how the USA was founded and has worked since

 

Like in Lincoln the movie, give the other side something to take home with them, and get more than you asked for in the first place

Without the other side, much of the past accomplished forward movement wouldn't have happened.
10% of something is better than 100% of nothing
100% of nothing is still nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:23 AM

4. Please don't insult my intelligence by telling me to see a movie in order to learn anything,

 

Please don't patronize me and assume that I don't know the role that compromise plays in any negotiation.

Please don't imply that I'm either somehow stupid, naive, or inexperienced. I'm none of those, being well above normal intelligence, and having experienced politics from inside of the bubble, far more than the vast majority of people.

What I am trying to tell you, and others, is that we don't have to be locked into this devil's deal of trading cuts in human services and cuts in our social safety net in exchange for raising the tax rates on the rich. We don't, and frankly if that's all we have to offer, we shouldn't. About the only thing that truly needs to be done before the end of the year is fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax patch, that's it. Other than that, we can go right over that fiscal cliff, and it would be better for us if we did so, at least if the devil's deal is our only alternative.

Again, a victory for the Democratic party in this case is not a victory for the American people. 'Scuse me if I think that a win for the people is more important than a win for the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:37 AM

6. Noone was talking to you. I was responding to anyone reading in.

 

as there is yet to be an agreement, there is nothing on or off the table that the public knows about

The great thing about the pre-24/7/365 media is everything was behind closed doors as America was built on and done for centruries.

It let the people in office work it out and not have to answer to their bosses.

In essence, transparency makes patronage even MORE worse a problem than it was behind closed doors when they could broker a deal

we are the losers for this so called transparency when one and one meant Grover wasn't in the room. On tv he is.

My answers to posts are almost always broad, and not person specific.
After all, changing the person who wrote a specific piece is 90% of the time next to impossible.
Having the other viewpoint to the dear reader, is to someone who's mind is not made up.

(wish our media had Rachel/Ed on the same time, same station with Rush/Sean each allowed their own fully said viewpoint so that each listener has both sides.
And let the people decide.

Again, if you let the other side think they won something, then its easier to ram through more of what we want but leaving them happy enough to agree to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:55 AM

11. Well excuuuuuuuse me for daring to think that your post, a reply to mine, is actually meant for me

 

Gee, why didn't I see the signs that your post was "broad and not person specific" After all, it isn't like it had my name on it or anything. Oh, wait, it did.

As far as transparency being a bad thing, let me refer you to the Nixon era. I think your contention that transparency in government, where our leaders aren't answerable to we, their bosses, is an absurdly bad argument on the face of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:04 AM

13. there is no way to answer a post except to hit respond to post

 

There is a happy compromise between what you are using against transparency to what I am saying. Somewhere in the middle would be best.

Especially in the senate.

When rightwing hack Peggy Noonan laments that Ronnie & Tip did things, she always forgets to mention that was done private, no cameras, usually drinking and hammered out then announced

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:13 PM

91. New Rule? When NOT responding to OP preface response TO EVERYONE BUT THE OP:

I didn't think it was necessary, but apparently it is. I can understand him/her initially assuming it was a direct response, but after you explained s/he could have let it drop.

(I'm jonesing for a cigarette and jumping in where I'm not wanted somehow makes me feel better. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:34 PM

72. Are we to understand your comment here

as arguing that the government sees us as their bosses? lol

How much was Bush consulting us on going to Iraq? How about in 2006 when the midterms were a referendum on Bush and his selfish wars for resources, and he still did whatever he wanted? Were we his bosses then?

And not to let President Obama off the hook, but he has often gone against what many in his base want. You should understand, based on your post. The government doesn't give a SHIT about us, as George Carlin reminded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:11 PM

90. He's been trying to shill this film for over a week. Just another "my team right or wrong"

 

advocate trying to convince people that shit sandwiches are really good for you, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #90)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:40 PM

96. The absolute 100% or don't agree is working real well for us- WHEN THE REPUBS DO IT!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 05:37 AM

159. Wow, someone is twitchy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:55 AM

58. Did you even read the OP before responding?

 

Did you even realize that you were responding to the OP author?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:55 PM

81. behind closed doors?

really, thats a better way to do business? in secret? I dont think you understand the role of the media in a free society. The importance of an informed electorate, as a matter of fact that is why the thugs are through. Keep clinging to the old days where deals were hatched in smoke filled rooms by crusty old white cowardly men. Those days are over, the people have spoken. , we should have done this two years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maindawg (Reply #81)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:06 PM

87. I don't think you understand how America has worked 1776-present

 

the senate was not meant for 24/7/365 media

no matter how much one think otherwise, it is totally impossible

this new version of transparency some want is anarchy
purity=absolutism=anarchy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #87)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:37 PM

107. A New Constitution would be fun

I'd like to see the convention on TV. Even though I haven't smoked weed in 10 years, I would be really, really, really high every day of it. I would quit my job and buy a year's worth of Cheetos. Twould be glorious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #87)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:07 PM

112. From a strictly political science view,

 

That is the most bizarre political equation I've ever seen. I think you need to go back and review what those terms mean, both by themselves and in combination with each other. Absolutism, as a political philosophy, is about directly opposite of the political philosophy of anarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #112)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:14 PM

113. the tea party is a great example of both absoulutism and anarchy as one

 

they do things as a plan
(like make a mockery out of normal things by yelling you lie and by making politics so undesireable that what they are doing is having NO system in place

NO system in place==Anarchy in the 1st degree

and to a person, all the extremists in the republican/tea/libertarian and any other 3rd party want just that

to tear down the system aka anarchy

anarchy=shooting Gabby Giffords and the judge, and that kind meek doctor in Kansas,
the Oklahoma City incident by another rightwing extremists who hated the government and would fit right in with the tea party libertarians today

and attempting to stop people from voting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #113)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:38 PM

117. No, it isn't,

 

Here, let me do the short hand version for you.

Definition of absolutism: 1 a : a political theory that absolute power should be vested in one or more rulers
b : government by an absolute ruler or authority : despotism ]

Definition of anarchy: 1 a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government ]

The tea party believes in a smaller government, though they are very much pro military, pro law and order(functions of government). They have a very authoritarian streak running through their philosophy, thus I suspect that, much like Nazis in the Weimar Republic, they would welcome a dictator in order to force their views upon eveyrbody.

Anarchy on the other hand, is the complete absence of government, very much the opposite of a political philosophy that seeks absolute power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #117)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:46 PM

119. You are using #5 of 5 of the meanings. I am using #1,2,3,4

 

adjective
1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
the tea party feels they are #1
they want their politics #2
they consider anything else #3
and the classic libertarian tea party view is #4
and you are using #5


btw, just because I can be at times lazy, doesn't mean I won't do the grunt work to prove something if I have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #119)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:53 PM

121. Two questions,

 

Which are you defining with these five meanings of yours, absolutism, or anarchy?

And could you link to this definition of yours?

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #121)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:00 PM

125. Both

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolute

I am adding the ism to absolute absoluteism or absolutism
You just read it for the way you wanted to see it

(also a play on word on the Vodka)

The tea party fits both of them.

It's like socialism and communism-neither has ever been actually done, not REAL pure socialism or communism, because if it were, they would have no dictator, as the leader would just be one of the community. So no governemnt leader can be either in a real meaning of the word.

or

it's like music in a record store
you have 20 different sections
yet it all is still music be it classical,opera, classic rock, rap, country, r&b bluegrass adult contemporary, religious, Christmas or holiday, etc.
One is the other and the other is one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #125)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:13 PM

130. First of all, please don't make assumptions about what I am doing, OK, thanks.

 

I'm not reading it the way I want it, I am treating it for what it is, a real, live political philosophy, one that is taught in poli sci classes and practiced in the real world.

Words mean things, and I gave you the link to the political definition of absolutism. I didn't simply take the word "absolute" and add a suffix. To do so changes the meaning of that word. I gave you the actual meaning of a political philosophy. To try and define that political philosophy by using the definition of completely different word and concept is simply not a valid way to describe that political philosophy. Again, words actually do mean things.

Again, I would suggest that you educate yourself. You can find plenty of good articles and books about political science and political theories and philosophies both on the web and in your local library. I suggest you avail yourself of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:23 AM

154. Looks like you were talking to Madhound to me.

And as for the rest of your post. Yuck. "Both sides." Um, wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #154)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 05:14 AM

157. there are only two sides. Never a third shall be,unless the repubs leave the ballpark like the Whigs

 

270 cannot be divided into three (may we NEVER get rid of the electoral vote now that we have that clinched).

See:2016, Hillary will win maybe 538 electoral votes if the dems care to put money into all the states.(and maybe Puerto Rico too). especially if 100% amnesty/citizenship quickly.
No to any change in the electoral vote system at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #154)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 05:18 AM

158. Right. If not responding to the OP and not responding to anyone else in the thread,

then don't post in the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:20 AM

32. you got it

a win for the people! I am sick of their 'fiscal cliff' crap. let's pull back the curtain and call it what it is Shock Doctrine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:26 AM

37. Thank you

I felt like I was the only person who was shouting at the morons every time they used "fiscal Cliff" that it was really "Shock Doctrine".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:34 AM

41. oh no

I am right there with you even if you can't hear me and I don't think we are alone either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:59 PM

124. Nope y'all are NOT alone......

Some of us have read the book and have seen it coming for a while now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:45 PM

77. I totally agree with you, Tavalon and keep wondering, "Has nobody explained this to Obama yet?"

I know he can't announce that, but he and all his advisors should realize it and not buy into it.

Ever since I found out that Project for the New American Century was a major cause of the Iraq invasion and then found out about The Shock Doctrine/Disaster Capitalism, it's been baffling to me that major leaders of our party seem to be totally unaware of either thing going on, especially the latter.

They still need the COURAGE to stand up for the AVERAGE CITIZEN. Without us, our country and the economy itself is merely a shell of its former self; and we will lose whatever is left of our once-great democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We People (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:01 PM

126. I feel sure that they know about it..........

They just don't want to acknowledge it because they use it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:44 PM

76. See the movie

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:04 PM

169. Why?

Is it an absolutely truthful document of what actually happened?

Or is Spielberg's version?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #169)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:52 PM

174. Granted, it is a film.

But a good one. It's based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:42 AM

7. The Civil War was a result of failed attempts at foul compromise.

In general, you confuse the process of negotiations with the word for the outcome. The negotiations are where the deal is made, the compromise is the deal made. You will never, ever get more than you asked for in the first place in a compromise, that is what makes it a compromise. Getting more than you orinially wanted is called 'winning the negotitations'. And that is not only the goal of negotitions, it should remain the goal, because to offer capitulation when you should be making demands is to be derelict in the duty to negotiate. It is not negotiation to say 'we already know what the opponents want and we already put that in the deal'. That's not negotition, that is dictation to the opponents. It is neccessary to make them come take what they want, and to go take what we want as well.
To end with a compromise, the negotiations must be honest and true, each side taking strong stands for their own goals. Trying to do the other side's work for them is not only unworkable, it insults the other side, who will just up their game and ask for more.
Many career fields function under negotiated contratual deals. Finding compromise via negotiations is not at all unique to DC. It is in fact the currency of most business, certainly of my business. Millions of Americans know how to hash out a deal with difficult opponents who must be molded into a partnership for a time. When I look at how the DC crowd carries on, I am grateful that my business knows how to actually negotiate and actually make a deal which is acceptable to all parties, lacking in 'punishments' for one side or the other, laden with benefits for both sides and all others.
Only a great deal which makes both sides content is a good compromise. To reach a good compromise, negotiations must be made until both sides are content.
And at times, this process fails to deliver results. As it did in Lincoln's time, some 'compromises' are just bad deals which could never work for neither side is content. The idea that a good deal makes both sides unhappy is the opposite of the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:38 PM

102. Puts on HAZMAT suit

And I would argue that Lincoln was wrong. We should have let the South secede. The cultural differences between the two regions are too great and still exist today. I've lived in the deep south and the far north and I can tell you - its like living in two different countries.

The only logical reason he had to keep them with us was to make us stronger in the face of the great powers of the day - namely GB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:14 AM

25. Compromise is how this country works according to you and a movie and I don't disagree.

However, compromise hasn't been done in decades. What has happened is capitulation, a different animal altogether and it's ruining our country and the world. Really, look at the meaning of the two words and tell me that what is being done is compromise and I will call out foul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:39 AM

47. +1

n//t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:59 PM

84. What Cleita said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:19 AM

168. Cleita, I would go so far as to use a different "C" word.

Collusion.
Over the last few decades both major parties have been corporate controlled.
Arguments are framed for Americans to choose their side (and we ARE a left leaning, Progressive people) but,IMO, the outcomes are predetermined (by the elite ruling class) and it is (until we change it) all Kabuki theater, performed to divide us and keep our eyes from the real truth. We are slaves to the wealthy. Just like it has been throughout history.
It is time for a new paradigm. We have almost four years to get our political act together (if we want to do this peacefully) and field candidates for the people, not the party. The party should follow the peoples lead not the other way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #168)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:08 PM

170. Yes, collusion too. Very good to remind me. Thanks.

As for your last suggestion we will have to demand campaign reform especially where the money is concerned. I favor state financed campaigns. Otherwise we will never get the candidates we want no matter how much money we raise. The corporations will always be able to outspend us. Look at what they did to Howard Dean? He was as close as we were able to get to a populist candidate who was mostly grass roots financed and he was doing well, when the media suddenly discredited him, and we had multi-millionaire John Kerry thrust in front of us instead. That day I almost agreed with Ralph Nadar's assertion that both parties were the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:14 AM

26. You attitude is a good example of why we are where we are today. We been settling for 10% until

we have next to nothing. It's time to compromise for 90% or go down fighting. I am sick, sick of giving in to the Repuke terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:02 PM

86. How's compromise been working for you for the last 20 years?



Thanks for the bromide though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #86)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:51 PM

120. LBJ is the greatest and worked well to get all those social acts/civil rights/voting rights acts

 

Had it been only democrats, none of it would have passed thanks to the racist wing of the democratic party (ala George Wallace) of the democratic party who of course wanted nothing to do with it.

(being that they were racists. George Wallace was another vile ugly person

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:56 PM

123. Yeah, the greatest, except for all that killing of innocents in Vietnam,

 

You know, escalating a war that your assassinated predecessor was trying to wind down is really not the move of a great person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #123)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:07 PM

128. JFK authorized Bobby to wiretap Dr. Martin Luther King. and renewed it.

 

moving forward means don't look back

it's pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #128)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:15 PM

131. And what does that have to do with LBJ escalating a war under false premises,

 

And thereby killing millions of innocents for no good reason other than feeding the empire and the MIC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #131)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:43 PM

133. Thomas Jefferson said all were equal while keeping slaves

 

An unmanned drone would be the answer to any future war.
Cut and snip off the problem with minimal collateral in quick time any place, any time.

but those things didn't exist back then or in WW2 either.

Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the worst liars and hypocrites of all time
He laugingly wrote "all are equal" except for anyone not like him.

Those that hate LBJ must love Nixon Bush Bush Reagan and Ford.
Because not having LBJ in office in 1968 led to the others.And i am sure anyone here doesn't like those

I don't care much about military issue.

the social ones are the important ones as military issues remain constant no matter who is in office, so as the old canard says

Change what you can
Accept what you cannot
and know the difference

no amount of whining makes it any different. I have learned acceptance.

Eisenhower started it, Kennedy added to it, and no one knows what would have happened.

As Elizabeth Warren says U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren left the door open yesterday to military action against Iran in the face of that country's growing nuclear threat--bolstering her national security credentials:

"Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that's our job, so being tough on terrorism is enormously important," said Warren yesterday at a campaign stop in Gloucester.
Source: Hillary Chabot in Boston Herald , Oct 14, 2011
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Elizabeth_Warren_Homeland_Security.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #133)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:47 PM

134. Well, now that I've seen what a poor grasp you have of both history and reality,

 

I see that it is futile to continue in any sort of true discourse with you. Your lack of historical knowledge combined with your outrageous assumption makes it obvious that your contribution to this and probably future discussions is irrelevant. Have a nice evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:24 PM

132. LBJ staked his presidency on the War On Poverty and the VRA

He most assuredly did not compromise on those things. He got what he wanted. He brought reticents into the WH and told them what they were going to do. Exactly the opposite of the current president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:28 PM

106. And that's what we want. We want the REPUBLICANS to compromise for a change. .

Democrats have compromised and compromised away most of the programs that are the very cornerstone of the Democratic Party platform.

Now, link to all the compromises made by Republicans.

Take the movie to the Republicans. You seem confused as to what compromise means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:29 AM

156. no, actually, war is how the US was founded & maintained, the very opposite of compromise.

 

'lincoln' appears to have been made to push the 'compromise is good' message both parties love so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:11 AM

165. In the movie, Lincoln was going for permanent emancipation.

And, according to the movie, he did things that he thought were of at least questionable legality and constitutionality in order to achieve his goal.

Obama, on the other hand, has sought so-called entitlement reform since before his 2009 inauguration.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:18 AM

2. If there is a deep spending cut, we may be looking at another major recession.

Obama is fully aware of this, and he'll hopefully try to avoid it, but the options are limited.

He lacks control of the House and insufficient numbers in the Senate to have any flexibility on the issue except confrontation.

The Republicans will not negotiate unless tax cuts for the rich are preserved in their entirety. For any negotiation to be useful, both parties have to enter into it on a good faith basis, but these Repubs are negotiating without any of that.

In the absence of good faith, the only reasonable outcome is for the talks to break down. The least destructive option becomes simply letting the tax cuts expire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:26 PM

68. Well, I'm

 

with the OP. I'm not looking for a compromise with the GOP or the top percent. I guess it is the same philosophy as the Tea Party in the other direction. If they don't capitulate bluntly, go off this so called Cliff. That means I'm willing to suffer if I'm not already suffering.

This is my point, the top two percent excluding a few like Mr Buffet is lying. The reason I know they are lying, is because of their profits, that I see. The reason I know they are lying is because of their warmongering and profiteering. They advertise the suffering of people in poor countries and then they rob these countries of natural resources. Example of this,J.P. Morgan getting rights with the new authorities in Afghanistan, for rights to mine mineral Deposits. And there was rummors about oil contracts in that so called consulate in Benghazi. Who is benefiting from Ghadaffi's source of wealth? Think about it. Libya was rich with oil. Now who do you think would profit from those contractual agreements as long as the U.S. has influence? Think about it very hard.

Now the explorations are being advocated by the Obama administration to enter Nigeria. Oh by the way, how about the real number of civilian deaths in Iraq, that Britain and the U.S. are not telling us about. This includes coercion and torture, which violated the Geneva Conventions. Do you think families of that two percent have a stake in those profits? The U.S. Government reminds me of the Roman Empire. So the people who are not benefiting from this Empire, are the ones responsible for this ficticious debt?

You have a country with the most powerful military in history and influence over 130 countries, claiming they are going broke. And they want more miltary excursions under the pretense of security. Tell me where you can document this in the World's entire history, with the likes of empires by Alexander the Great, Roman Empire,Persian Empire and British Empire, such Empires have gone broke after controling resources of other nations? This Empire serves that two percents' families. And I'll say, Susan Rice has gotten very wealthy since she has been in the U.S. Government with all those foreign investments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:49 PM

78. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #68)


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:22 AM

3. No, we really

In reality what needs to be done is this, raise the tax rates on all of us. The plain, simple fact is that we do need revenue, much more revenue than the rich can realistically be parted with at this point. So put us all back on the Clinton tax rates, after all, we seemed to do alright even when we were paying higher taxes.
Second, raise capital gains taxes on the rich and well off. Another tax that is at historic lows, and a way of insuring that those rich trust fun babies who don't work also pay their far share.

... haven't lost. Let's look at Boehner's three choices:

1) Accept the President's proposal with "dividends to be taxed as ordinary income" and the "estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million."

2) Pass the Senate bill, "which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent," but excludes Obama's dividend proposal.

3) Go over the cliff when "the estate tax is scheduled to rise to 55 percent beginning with inheritances exceeding $1 million."

In each case, the tax cuts for the rich end.

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021948493

Another thing, while rates for the 99 percent remain in effect, the rates for the top one percent go up beyond simply ending the Bush tax cuts.

In particular, the Obama administration’s call for higher revenue through increased taxes on high incomes — which actually goes considerably beyond just letting the Bush tax cuts for the top end expire — gets treated with an unmistakable sneer in much political discussion, as if it were a trivial thing, more about staking out a populist position than it is about getting real on red ink.

Krugman: What Defines A Serious Deficit Proposal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021914963

In fact, the rates are 2 percent to 3 percent higher:






Under Clinton, the top 1 percent paid 33.4 percent; under Bush it paid 29.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 35.3 percent, less than two points than under Clinton.

Meanwhile, under Clinton, the top 0.1 percent paid 36.9 percent; under Bush it paid 32.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 39.7 percent. By contrast, every other group would be paying lower rates under Obama’s proposals than under Clinton. (A table detailing these numbers is right here.)

It’s true that the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent would be paying more. But the significance of those hikes shrivel dramatically when you consider how much better these folks have fared over time than everyone else has. The highest end hikes shrivel in the context of the towering size of their after-tax incomes — and the degree to which they dwarf those of everyone else, something that has increased dramatically in recent years.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:10 AM

20. Well Said!

You make a wold of sense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:36 AM

5. I keep hoping to see Democrats stand up for Democratic principles...

...yet, instead of Keynes and the New Deal, New Frontier snd Great Society, we get Laffer and Trickle Down and Voodoo Reaganomics. It's like every one in Washington was raised on Reagan, but it's not: Economists like James Galbraith and William K. Black were dumped in favor of the likes of Henry Paulson and Tim Geithner, champions of private property and concentrated wealth.

Thank you for another excellent post, MadHound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:03 AM

12. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:03 PM

62. "instead ... we get ... Trickle Down and Voodoo Reaganomics." What's worse, we are now in the

 

process of making wealthy internationalists (who may not even be in this country) even richer.

Job-shifting "free-trade" agreements will make more wealth for the internationalists, but they can never make enough wealth for the trickle-down theory to work and bring back the American middle-class.

At least under Reagan, his trickle-down and voodoo Reaganomics was apparently limited to making the rich and super-rich in this country even wealthier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:45 AM

8. We (Democrats) need to take an initial position that is so extreme that any movement

on our part toward the middle would be seen as a concession. This is exactly what the repugs do. Our starting position on this "fiscal cliff" crap should be that we want tax rates on the one percent to be at Eisenhower Era levels... 91 percent - NOT Clinton Era levels...36 percent.

Then, we magnanimously agree to come down to say 60 percent. Quite a concession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluethruandthru (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:52 AM

9. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluethruandthru (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:08 AM

17. +1 Start with 'Confiscate The Assets of the Rich'

see what kind of movement you get from the other side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:17 AM

28. Nationalize some industries that are vital for our defense. Like the defense industry and oil. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:21 AM

34. ...add banks, healthcare, energy

etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:34 AM

42. Yup! nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:06 PM

64. That would work for me.

 

Tax all estates in excess of $5 million at 100%. But allow offsets if the decedent used assets to create jobs in this country during a five-year period before his death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluethruandthru (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:18 AM

30. Exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluethruandthru (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:40 PM

173. Excellent!

See this is excellent. At least someone has it right for a change! A small tax hike on the rich or anyone for that matter isn't going to do anything. If we want to continue the mass spending we need to support it somehow. Look, if I make $200 a week but I spend $400 that isn't sustainable.. eventually I'll have to file bankruptcy. So regardless even if the tax hike means I make $250 a week.. I'm still $150 down from breaking even.
Either
a) you tax everyone an insane amount in the attempt to start cutting the debt
b) you cut spending

no one wants option b, so lets just tax everyone to hell and then lets hope everyone keeps their businesses open so that we can keep collecting the taxes baby!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yewnix (Reply #173)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:23 AM

176. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your short stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:54 AM

10. More anti-Democratic Party shit stirring

Obama won.

Get over it.

Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:04 AM

14. The Democratic Party is doing a fine job of that on its own

The pro-corporate, privatizing, free-trading, war spending, services-cutting Party is stirring the shit among its members

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:21 AM

33. And what arguments are you bringing to the table? Real Democrats realize that shit stirring is good.

It's what we are all about. If you want blind allegiance go to the other party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:29 AM

38. Obama won - get over it

That is my argument.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:34 AM

39. I get it. Pres Obama won so you can go back to watching American Idol. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:43 AM

50. Obama hate fail

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:10 AM

175. Intelligence fail. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:05 AM

15. I keep looking for a legitimate proposal - one that isn't rumor or speculation

. . . it's easy to agree with all you've said -- one thing missing; the actual WH proposal that includes ANY of the objectionable issues you've raised.

This is just tilting at windmills. It's a curious and dubious platform for the criticisms you've made toward the party. Strange stuff. No more credible than any of the other reports about WH proposals which aren't part of what's been publicly offered by the administration. Is it too much to ask that we stick to debating actual proposals which have been finalized and made public? This strawman stuff can go anywhere. You've taken the rumors and speculation and compounded all of it into a neat little package to rail against. It's just not a credible basis for arguing the future of the myriad of issues underlying the budget talks.


Madhound: "once again we are looking at cutting more and more of our social safety net"

link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:10 AM

21. I am really flippin' tired of the negativity from this poster.

Why does he insist on bringing everyone down without a legitimate reason? There's plenty of time for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:30 PM

151. It's easier than doing the work, babylonsister. Talk is cheap. Cynicism is cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:18 AM

31. but, but??!!!

We've been burned by our side before. Madhounds argument is not "tilting at windmills' with the precedent(s) that are reality for all who care about the direction of this country at the hands of sometimes dubious leadership. Please, join up with what's really going on here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:34 AM

43. I don't feel 'burned' by our side

The president has made a correct stance, at least publicly, on this fiscal standoff. There is NOTHING that President Obama has said or done that comes close to cutting the 'social safety net,' for example.

Writing an op making making demands on the party based on such strident speculation is a fool's errand. Subscribing to it is equal folly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:44 AM

53. a lot

of you cannot understand the word precedent, I can. The errands being run here are by you and folly is your distraction from precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:59 AM

59. as for 'precedent' show me where this President has made cuts to the social safety net

where's that budget proposal? where's that bill?

The 'distraction' here is from what's actually publicly proposed and supported by Pres. Obama.

Your use of the word 'precedent' here is just another facet of speculation. There's nothing here for anyone looking for actual proposals or initiatives made by the President or on his behalf. Just foolishness about some extreme the op imagines the administration will agree to. I'd look more to Pelosi and Reid as indicators about what might be in a future proposal. Nothing they've said or done resembles the speculation put forward in the op, either. Foolishness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:36 PM

74. longer view

is needed here. You just don't get my meaning and I must say, with you I can understand. loooonger view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:10 PM

129. Didn't he appoint Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to a committee????????

I could have SWORN he appointed them co-chairmen of a committee to discuss and recommend deficit reduction solutions. BOTH of them are backers of neo-liberal economics and austerity.

The problem with waiting for specific proposals is that, by the time we get specific proposals, the deal is already done and we can't even argue against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:51 AM

57. You don't own a Time Machine as the OP does.

He already has (invented) seen the future, and as always, it's the wrong future.

Dystopians always get sent to a future of their own invention.

The rest of us get to live in a different reality, you know, the one that actually exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:06 AM

16. That was excellent, MadHound.........

 

Everything you said is gospel, the suggestion of going to see a movie to somehow ameliorate the situation notwithstanding. The trouble is, although very few have hit on the problem as well as you, it is simply another restatement of the problem. Until we get to the point where talk and deciphering that which we already know is finished--and we ACT!--they will keep destroying us and we will keep falling from the cliff. Having said that, MadHound, I am in no way diminishing what you have explained. What I am saying is when you have met the enemy head-on and he is standing in front of you with his finger on the trigger, you don't stand there marveling at the intricacies of his weapons. You lock and load yourself OR you lose the ability to even do that--

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:13 AM

24. +1000

lock and load!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:09 AM

18. President Obama won't give up anything that hurts a lot of people...

 

And I'm sticking by that until the final proposal is made, voted on, and signed by the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:38 PM

118. And by then...

It will be too late. That's why we're screaming now. And there are many of us. A large wave WILL fall on the Democratic Party if they allow its globalist leaders to steal OUR Social Security surplus.

Perhaps you can answer this burning question I now have since seeing the video I'm posting below. Alan Simpson is caught leaving a Debt Commission meeting, and I want you to pay close attention to the man Obama selected to chair a commission that would recommend any cuts to our social safety net. Listen to the way he talks down to the young man interviewing him, and consider how he refers to social security recipients as "lesser people."

I want one of you Obama loyalists to explain why, of all the possible people who were far more qualified to lead the Debt Commission, why did Obama choose this animal to chair it? And don't even get me started on Mr. Erskin "Paul Ryan Is Amazing!!!" Bowles.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:09 AM

19. Can we get

some advocacy here:

Why Aren't We Talking About EXPANDING Social Security and Medicare?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021950679

This is a lot better than simply advocating a return to the Clinton tax structure, which Obama's proposal does and more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1950520

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:11 AM

22. I

see nothing wrong with this argument, especially his/her last line. Putting we the people first sounds suspiciously like it might be the right thing to do, for once. Defense budgets the size of ours at the cost? OBSCENE! Do the right thing democratic leadership. I know some of you read this site, so know this well, we will not get screwed without you paying the cost at the ballot box. Madhound, I have to agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:12 AM

23. We need to be expanding Medicare to cover all our citizens

Medicare for all would bring a lot of healthy people and their money into the system. Talk about your economic stimulus. Business would have a lighter burden and individuals would mostly spend the extra money they didn't have to pay the private blood sucking insurance companies. If they want to cut something, try the lard ass Defense Dept. with all their corrupt contractors (war profiteers). Anybody who votes to shortchange old and sick people so the richest Americans can horde another sliver of cash can FOAD. Off the cliff!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:16 AM

27. It's Also A Political Trap

Since GDP is calculated by adding consumption, transfer payments, government direct spending and adjusted for export balance (negative number today), any cuts in TP or GS will cause the economy to shrink, by definition.

The Republicans will then use that to howl at the moon that Obama has been the only president since Hoover to oversee a contraction in the economy.

Better to go over the cliff, except i don't by the metaphor. It's not a cliff. Going over a cliff always end up in things becoming a total wreck. I don't believe any econometric interpretation that "cliff" has that level of danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:17 AM

29. I agree with you 100%. We, the people, are being sold down the river

with false emergencies and crisis's that take away the very things we need to survive and that make our nation as a whole a better place to live even for those who want to take away our human rights. I couldn't recommend this more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:22 AM

36. It's the American way since Trickie Dick and the false 'Gas Shortage '

Thomas Jefferson warned of that obsolete word , ' Monied ' interests that would try to infiltrate the government with their agents .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:21 AM

35. Until The People Civilly Disobey In Mass Numbers Nothing Will Change

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:34 AM

40. I am no longer sanguine that will work either...

 

but it would be a departure point if done with resolve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:44 AM

51. No guarantees, but........

it is one thing that has worked in the past. It's got to involve strikes though. The one thing that gets the attention of capitalists the quickest is fucking with their profits.

Any way you look at it though, it's gonna hurt. The trick is to make it hurt the capitalists more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:59 AM

60. Okay, I agree with that. It has to be a message so

 

strongly delivered that the capitalists are taken back that it is actually Democrats doing it. It has to be palpable. I can be ready in 20 minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:21 PM

66. Well that's the question isn't it........

There MIGHT be enough PEOPLE to make the capitalists hurt provided they're motivated, but I'm not sure there's enough political class Democrats to do so. At least not enough of the Democratic leadership to do so.

One thing to remember is that the Dems are a bourgeois political party that are in lockstep in support of the capitalist system. Which puts them in a weird position RE: strikes and the class struggle. Regarding the class struggle, the BEST Dems want to be on BOTH sides. A large minority (majority?) of the leadership who call themselves Democrats, do everything in their power to support the capitalists OVER the will of the people. That's why you see situation like the political class taking positions on issues at total odds with what the people support on ISSUES. The recent marijuana dust up is just the latest example.

At one point it could be argued that it was possible to be on both sides of the class struggle. As a Marxist, I never thought so, but some could argue that at times in the past when the economy boomed. Not so much anymore. The crux comes when capitalism falls into crisis as it did in '07/'08. Then the situation gets pushed by the financial elites to the point where they want it ALL. ALL of your money, ALL of your labor on THEIR terms, and what's worse, they want ALL OF YOUR LOYALTY to a system that enslaves you.

In short, I don't see a large majority of the Democratic leadership taking the side of the people against the system. Ergo, the people are on their own in this fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #66)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:29 PM

70. Great reply. We have met the enemy and it is

 

us as well as the other guy, depending which day and challenge it is. We are on our own. Some will follow; some will do so energetically. But will it be enough to accomplish anything? I have great doubts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:35 PM

73. Thanx and as I said above.......

there are no guarantees, but we've got to try, IMO. It is the only thing that has ever worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:42 PM

75. well

look at the egyptian people. looks like they are changing things with mass numbers of people saying, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Great movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #75)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:59 PM

85. I agree

 

with this also. The real power always lies with the masses when they get tired of getting screwed by the few. And that is what it has come to. The masses don't have to compromise with the few if you push them around enough. That means people like the Koch brothers have no power, if they go too far. Everything they got, can be taken away, the same way they got it, if you get my drift. and we can surely bring down the debt with it too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:36 AM

44. i think emphasis

On Medicare and Medicare fraud should never stop being in the news, AARP , all democratic gatherings. One example is the Canadian doctor who was CEO of his own company in Texas. He is in jail now for $325 million fraud. This should be shouted along with the other Medicare frauds. Fraud is not emphasized enough. Cut this out and there is much savings. DO NOT GIVE UP!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:36 AM

45. Fortunately, Obama will veto any cuts to the safey net.....won't he?

Or, will he sell out.er..triangulate..compromise...sacrifice...and then claim victory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:17 PM

92. I'll bet serious money on or.

 

But we have to remember it is much more than the President. We have a party that is run by a tiny number of thieves that will not allow any ideas that might actually change the course of this nation to be heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:37 AM

46. We...

... are truly fucked, of that we can be sure. There is no one in Washington DC that both has the integrity and enough political power to prevent the coming tragedy. The coming shitstorm will rip this nation to shreds and the scum will find out that their gated communities and private armies are no protection. It doesn't have to go that route, but there's little evidence to suggest it won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:41 AM

48. One thing to remember. NO agreement........

is better than a BAD agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:17 PM

94. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:42 AM

49. The Corporate State controls the framing


This is why the mainstream information feed from TV and radio is all about austerity.

They don't dare talk about Keynesian Economics very much or that interest rates being at historic lows would be an opportune time for our government to borrow and spend, transfer military spending to infrastructure, and a whole host of ideas besides cutting us and protecting them.

--

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:48 AM

55. +1

 

Great post. Not that it hasn't been done before but I'd like to see this point as an OP from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rudycantfail (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:06 PM

63. I'll give it it's own thread...thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:44 AM

52. Great post, MH, but I have a suggestion about raising taxes.

"In reality what needs to be done is this, raise the tax rates on all of us. The plain, simple fact is that we do need revenue, much more revenue than the rich can realistically be parted with at this point. So put us all back on the Clinton tax rates, after all, we seemed to do alright even when we were paying higher taxes."

I agree, but I think the best way to go about this would be to jack taxes up on the wealthy immediately, and give folks who are struggling at least a year to prepare for a tax increase. There's a lot of working folks teetering on the edge of total disaster right now.

We all know that there are a lot of people struggling just to keep a roof over their heads, and every penny is important for them. Wages have stagnated or gone down for them, while the cost of living has skyrocketed. The wealthy can absorb a tax increase without worrying about starving to death, unless they frivolously overspent their excess.

But a lot of folks are living day to day, and they're scared, and they really can't afford any more outlay of cash at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:03 PM

127. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:47 AM

54. I had no illusion. The only thing I felt fairly certain about was the Supreme Court. Everything

else is precarious based on past experience


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:22 PM

67. With respect to the Supreme Court, what are you fairly certain about?

 

What, for example, is your view regarding the appointment of Kagan?

Is she a liberal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:25 PM

115. better than the federalist society judges. also judges who support right to

Privavy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #115)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:04 PM

147. She's better than the RW Federalist Society judges? Does she want to be? Or be the same?

 

Here's some information from Commone Dreams:

"During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of 'enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right. Now in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, early this month, the Obama administration lost an illegal wiretapping case. One of the lawyers in the case who won, Jon Eisenberg, said the Obama administration is as bad or worse than the Bush administration when it comes to issues like state secrets and wiretapping.

"Kagan is apparently being backed by several people who are indebted to her from her time at Harvard. (Professors Laurence) Tribe, (Charles) Ogletree and (Alan) Dershowitz all had plagiarism scandals while Kagan headed up the law school -- and she in effect bailed them all out. Tribe and Ogletree were teachers/mentors to Obama and still advise him today, Tribe recently taking a job in the Department of Justice along with Kagan. She was named dean at Harvard by Larry Summers, who helped deregulate much of Wall Street in the Clinton administration and organize much of its bailout under Obama.

"Kagan has said 'I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society. Many members of the Federalist Society say that Brown v. Board of Education (which struck down 'separate but equal') was decided wrongly.

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/13-13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:50 AM

56. We don't need new ideas or solutions, we only need history books.

We know what works because it has worked in the past, Keynesian economics. The economy is 90% psychological. If the private sector isn't going to step up until they "feel" secure & confident then it is up to the Govt to inject confidence for the people & for business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:00 PM

61. It was only and always about cutting our earned benefits! Slight of hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rocky888 (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:02 PM

138. And that became apparent the minute the anti-SS gang were appointed to the

Deficit Commission. Bowles, Simpson et al, with only one that I recall, progressive and her suggestions were totally ignored, the only ones that made sense and did not lie about SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:12 PM

65. With the GLARING monster bill that we give the military, nothing else needs saying.

I agree just on this one point alone.

Not only is the military bill HUGE, but it's counterproductive. We literally get nothing for it. Even worse, the carbon footprint is the biggest on the planet.

There actually is an elephant in the room. If we don't address this, then we are truly insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:52 PM

98. Great post. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:20 PM

114. All that military stuff ends up in a landfill eventually, just like all the junk we buy from China.

We should be spending like crazy on renewable energy - wind, solar, geothermal.

But I guess that makes way too much sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:28 PM

69. Only If We Give Up, Have We Lost

And I am 100% stubborn Polack. I don't know the meaning of the word QUIT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:31 PM

71. Best post on here since the election in my opinion.

As an ex marine myself I am of the opinion that our military spending is literally "killing" people at home at this point. Defense has become an oxymoronic word as the amount of money going to our military and the lack of money going to the social safety net is causing havoc across the country. And by havoc I mean lack of education that leads to derelict lives that lead to innocent people being murdered. Lack of money for health care programs that lead to innocent American children dying. Lack of funds for seniors to pay their rising utility bills and inevitable health care costs that eventually leads to their early demise. All these issues could be fixed and so many more if, as you wrote, we would just slash the massive military budget.

We on the left have capitulated for too long. This is a chance to be strong and show the spine that has been missing all along. I say we drive right off the fiscal cliff and get rid of these useless money sucking Republicans once and for all.

I would also like to point out to those not aware that the so called "Fiscal Cliff" was started being hyped massively the night of the election. This was no coincidence on the media's part. By now we all know the MSM does the MIC's and big business's bidding. It's a no brainer the whole shell game has always been about getting rid of the social safety net. It's the same game the evil powers that be have been playing all along. I seriously wish Obama would show them all up this time and be strong for us. But once again I feel the let down coming on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to go west young man (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:17 PM

93. Some eerie parallels between the immediate appearance of the "Fiscal Cliff" and the "Patriot Act"

being rolled out within days of 9/11. It was about curbing or taking away certain citizens' rights (like protesting government policy). Now the pressure to give up more of what belongs to us/what we've earned is like being expected to hand over our wallets to robbers (Robber Barons).

Someone upthread mentioned The Shock Doctrine. IMHO it was invented to replace out-and-out violence against the populace to force them to surrender whatever they have left to the powerful and to accept it willingly. In the U.S. they have learned to do it incrementally so as not to be as noticeable.

I don't understand how any leaders who call themselves Democrats don't know at least as much about these kinds of things as we do. They should be over any naive understanding about the character of the Republicans. Are modern-day Dems that naive & uninformed, or just corrupt to a lesser degree than our Opposition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We People (Reply #93)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:42 PM

103. They are not naive.

Not in the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to go west young man (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:28 PM

116. Excellent post. The good part of all this is that the people are no longer as naive

as they used to be. Fewer are fooled by the fear tactics. How to translate that into stopping them, is another matter. This I could not agree with more:

We on the left have capitulated for too long. This is a chance to be strong and show the spine that has been missing all along. I say we drive right off the fiscal cliff and get rid of these useless money sucking Republicans once and for all.


Exactly, and we are still being admonished for speaking out, but fortunately those voices grow dimmer and dimmer as the population awakens to the whole, nasty scheme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:53 PM

79. I have reached

pretty much the same conclusion as the author, and it most certainly isn't that complicated. The purpose is always to save capitalism with the usual heads I win tails you loose politics that essentially makes corporatism a national socialist enterprise on the backs of the common people, who cover its losses and receive less and less of its profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:54 PM

80. MadHound, you're right....

K&R

....me and my sister and you could go up there and clean this effing mess up. It's NOT rocket science. I second everything you said. This whole so-called fiscal cliff business is nothing but kabuki theater, and a grand one at that.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Let us all join hands and go over the cliff together. I would rather pay $2,200 more in taxes than allow any of them to lay one finger on that safety net. And we shouldn't have to have our taxes raised. We already paid when we bailed out Wall Street. Those who profited from the Bush tax cuts for ten years are the ones that should feel some serious AUSTERITY. For ten years OR until the unemployment is at 1% and the deficit is in positive territory, whichever comes first.
That's the deal. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:58 PM

83. With so many realistic and optimistic DUers your talents may be wasted here.

Have a nicer day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:06 PM

88. Yes, I see the

 

use of Shock Doctrine. I also see a system of government that is simply rotten to the core. I don't know if it is fixable for We, The People. We are the United States of Multi-national Corporations.

Personally, I like Ike and his tax rates.

But our culture has landed in the sewers. There is no moral compass anymore. Integrity is a quaint concept of the past....along with the Constitution.

I sit here waiting for Mother Nature to hit The Reset Button...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:07 PM

89. DURec!

A "WIN" for the Democratic Party is now framed as a meager increase on the very rich of 3.5%.

3.5% on the Top Bracket?

to 39% ?

A BIG "WIN"?


WOW.
The Democratic Party is now fighting FOR Historically LOW Taxes on the RICH!

Man, "they" are GOOD at Framing the Debate.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #89)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:06 PM

104. Amazing isn't it? And we have yet to learn what they will give up in

return for keeping the wealthy from having to pay their fair share. Which will be taken once again from the working class, the elderly, the poor and the disabled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:22 PM

95. Oh god, don't mention raising taxes on the non-rich here

A few weeks ago I described a plan to increase the 10 percent rate to 12, the 15 percent to 19 and so on and you'd have thought I posted recipes for stewed Irish babies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:52 PM

97. The defense spending & the Bush tax cuts to the ultra-rich are the culprits.

Unless this nation has truly become the Industrial Military Complex that Eisenhower warned us about, common sense dictates that we have no business engaging in preemptive wars & that defense spending should be cut down to sustainable national-security levels.

Obama has ended Bush's war in Iraq; he's working on ending Bush's Afghanistan war; & it was on Obama's watch that Bin Laden's existence was terminated, ending BL's power of persuasion with his terrorist followers. Obama kept his promises.

Obama also promised in this last campaign that he will not put burdens on the backs of the middle class & the most vulnerable. He made it clear that he is going to end Bush's good-ol-boy tax breaks for the top 2%.

He's kept his word to us thus far & all the open game playing that we're hearing/seeing shouldn't be taken to heart unless it comes from Obama himself, imo. He's not going to let us down, but it doesn't hurt to keep the pressure on him. He wants us to do just that, as he said during his campaign. (Perhaps all the speculative news talk is for that very purpose: public outcry gives him the added support he needs to get the job done.)

If anyone doubts Obama himself, keep in mind who he's married to; I think Michelle would be furious if Obama made it more difficult in any way for the lower classes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pacalo (Reply #97)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:36 PM

101. I was kind of looking forward to the fiscal cliff

Because it would mean large-scale cuts in defense spending.

We spend nearly a trillion a year in defense. We outspend the Chinese by 10x. The weapons we develop aren't being purchased by our allies as much anymore.

The only thing we're doing is subsidizing American jobs with American tax dollars and it doesn't take a genius to know that isn't sustainable anymore. We can't even sell our useless defense assets like the 14 carrier battle groups because we would throw the balance of power off - I don't even know if we could find buyers.

Cut it to $250 bill/year. That's saving $750 bill per year. Keep our nuke stockpile in good working order .

Hell, half the reason our debt is so massive in the first place is because Ronnie wanted to outspend the Soviets - and he did it, and now we're paying for it. It destroyed their economy and it has simply taken longer to destroy ours.

I realize this will put a lot of people out of work - but its time - waaaaaay over time to cut defense drastically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #101)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:22 PM

105. The business world's cushy association with Reagan's presidency put a lot of people out of work.

For the first time in my entire life, layoffs were introduced to my area under Reagan's watch. My area is a good gauge for being able to tell the difference between an honest-to-goodness need for massive layoffs & making jobs disappear for the sake of corporate bigwigs pocketing more of the profits. There is a lot of industry around me & they're making money hand over fist. The industry around me provides life's necessities & is a safe bet to continue thriving. Just witnessing the high volume of trains with long lines of box/tank cars & river traffic is evidence enough that the industry here is doing well. However, ever since Reagan's influence, walk-in applications have no longer been welcome. Getting hired is now a difficult process conducted by an outside firm.

I do have empathy for those with military careers who will be affected by the defense cuts, but this type of thing has been going on with the private sector for decades. Thank goodness military personnel have been trained for professions that can be applied if they leave the military.

We have to fix the domestic economy for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #101)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:55 PM

108. The Military "Jobs" Program is money down the toilet.

The Military manufactures NOTHING that is of any use to the American People.
They produce NOTHING that increases the National Wealth.

If that money were spent on InfraStructure, Solar & Wind, national parks, or (better yet) a State-of-the-Art High Speed Rail System built by Americans using ONLY American Made parts....THEN we would have something to show for our money!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:07 PM

99. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:20 PM

100. Jill, is that you? You lost! Get over it!

"While official tallies won’t be certified for weeks, next-day tabulations at Google Election indicate that Jill Stein & Cheri Honkala finished fourth in the Nation with 396,684 votes, or 0.3% of the national total. This is more than twice the total of votes that the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente won in 2008 (161,195), and three times the total of votes that the Green Party’s David Cobb and Pat LaMarche won in 2004 (119,859).


That's embarrassing, and you were the ideal candidate for MH. What happened?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:16 PM

109. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:22 PM

110. We the People have very little representation....

All we have is "I'm better than this cartoon reality RW loon".

US Democracy is a cruel joke. Has been for a LONG time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:07 PM

111. Yep... K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:56 PM

122. But, but... we just reelected Obama!!

 

that means everything will be GREAT for the little people, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #122)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:01 PM

136. Right! His triangulation and appeasement for four years

were just to get re-elected. He will now unleash the LBJ/Wellstone/Sanders within!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #136)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:18 PM

139. We can pressure Congress, they have a future to think of. And we should do so

and not stop talking about this until we win. It worked before the election, the people organizing and letting them know not to count on votes if they continued with their phony Austerity talk. Dems listened and stopped the 'shared sacrifice' nonsense. Now we'll see if that was just fear of losing or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #139)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:38 PM

145. You're Joking, Right??

 

We let the deadbeats get away with NOT prosecuting torture, not impeaching smirky for lying us into war, no single payer health care, not doing anything about the banksters.. what exactly do they have to "fear"??

Not to mention nearly half the senate are millionaires; they don't actually need the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #145)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:11 PM

148. You are right. But I think we were still recovering from the Bush years and people

were reluctant to believe that the Dems would betray them. We waited, we hoped and now we are no longer functioning under the illusion we were back then.

You can see that finally progressive organizations like MoveOn, once willing to be quiet when told to do so, are no longer willing to do so.

This really is the Third Rail of politics and across the country Unions and Progressive Orgs together with SS advocacy groups, have formed a coalition big enough to force the WH to finally meet with them. And even after that, they were not convinced and said so. 'There will be hell to pay' if Dems do not fight to protect these programs. They laid out clearly the 'red line' that if crossed, will result in consequences.

This did not happen four years ago. Progressives were willing to be marginalized for a while, but I don't see that happening anymore.

The message has been clear, if they betray those who put them in office, they can no longer take their votes for granted, as they have in the past. It is a good thing this is happening now, two years before the next election. These groups combined have power and we can join them to find candidates to primary anyone who betrays the people. Maybe I am naive, but I do think things are different now than they were four years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #148)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:30 AM

161. I Hope You're Right

 

But I have my doubt. In 2010 the dems lost at least ten democratic governor seats to repuglicans-- including the hideous scott walker in WI and snyder in MI-- who's also turning out to be anti union.

what was the democratic party's response to this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #136)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:33 PM

144. I Can't Wait.....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #136)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:42 PM

146. I think

LBJ would have been proud of the Medicaid expansion. Of course, exapanding Vietnam was worse than Afghanistan.

I also think Wellstone, who voted for the DOMA, would have been proud of the developments related to marriage equality.

"Unleash" indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:52 PM

135. Who knew...

that when Bush got those rich folk tax breaks passes -the ones that were designed to AUTOMATICALLY STOP WITH NO INTERVENTION NEEDED -who knew that he was providing the Republicans with a negotiating tool that they could use against the very defining features of Demicratic policymaking, namely Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #135)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:02 PM

137. Lots of people knew.

that's why they're rich and we're us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:21 PM

140. You bet we have already lost.

Medicare and Social Security have already been used as hostages to get an austerity deal. We hear a lot of despicable propaganda trying to convince us that we will have been victorious if only these particular cuts are spared. What utter hogwash. We have already been sold out to right-wing lies about what is wrong with our economy and what is necessary to fix it. We are fed a right-wing narrative from Democrats. We get trillions slashed from the budget no matter what. We get murderous austerity, more hungry, homeless, desperate, and dying, more suicides, no matter what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #140)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:39 PM

141. Then people should have fought back harder against Ralph Nader & his lies.

 

being that Al Gore wanted to put it in a lockbox, but Ralph Nader 100% caused 2000.
in NH. everything else irrelevant.

Instead of idolizing Nader, they should have tossed him and not the democrats into the river

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #141)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:41 PM

142. And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Stunning, every day, to watch what we are fed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #142)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:49 PM

143. Now some want to fight China. Instead of embrace new customers and citizens of the world

 

but as Elizabeth Warren said
"Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that's our job, so being tough on terrorism is enormously important," said Warren yesterday at a campaign stop in Gloucester.
Source: Hillary Chabot in Boston Herald , Oct 14, 2011
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Elizabeth_Warren_Homeland_Security.htm


if one doesn't like the war in Afghanastan, or in Iraq or wherever, they should have denounced Ralph Nader and Gore would have won NH and 270 votes without Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:14 PM

149. Well said! Too bad that no one is on the side of the people any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:26 PM

150. most amazing trick I never saw

From another article on DU: "On Monday, Obama is scheduled to give a speech on the fiscal cliff at the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant, as part of his public campaign to build support for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans as he negotiates with congressional Republicans".

We hear and see on DU the stories about possible major cuts to the Big 3 of the Social Safety Net, but Obama, Boehner and the rest of Congress and MSM are talking only about that tax increase for the top 2%. That's what they want us to be focused on.

Could be the old "sleight of hand" trick. We would be wise to keep our eyes on what the other hand is up to.

I hope and pray that I am wrong. But, I'm putting new laces in my marching shoes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:40 PM

152. Tax cuts for the rich won't happen to the real rich

The Obama tax cut will only effect the upper middle class--not the super rich. not the Kochs. Not the Walmart family. Not the Addelson's. Not the Romney's. Not the people who buy the elections and who bribe congress. Not the top CEO's.

The rich don't get the bulk of their wealth in taxable salary. They get it in capital gains and in stock options and these are taxed at 11%. or 15% and this change of rates is not even on the table.

This will only effect ---upper management, plastic surgeons, college deans--that type of person.

It will help a little bit and be a kind of foot in the door to greater tax equity--but it can also operate as a huge coverup for the same old power structure remaining as protected, and off-shore and laughing all the way to the banks they own, as before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:46 PM

153. It seems to me you are assuming things not yet proven.

How do you know what deal is put on the table?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:28 AM

155. +100

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:26 AM

160. both parties are negotiating TOGETHER against US....

....to see what they can get away with foisting upon us on behalf of the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:51 AM

162. Agree completely, but make it the last *fifty* years that that lesson has been learned.

The biggest learning opportunity about going against the MIC was in 1963, so make it fifty rather than forty years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:04 AM

163. what is your source for this latest "they are selling us out" panic?

i have read so many predictions of obama cutting programs on DU that never come true it will make your head spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:29 AM

164. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:27 AM

166. Obama on "entititlements" and deficit reduction 2009-2010; Conyers on Obama, 2011

Obama Pledges Reform of Social Security, Medicare Programs

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009


President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html




Stephanie Condon /
CBS News/ February 16, 2010, 6:00 PM
Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson to Lead Obama's Deficit Commission

President Obama on Thursday will sign an executive order establishing the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (previously known as the deficit commission). He will also announce the commission's co-chairs, according to a senior administration official, CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller reports.

The president will appoint former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson will serve as co-chairs, a senior official confirms to CBS News.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6214125-503544.html



Conyers on Jobs: “We’ve Had It.” Lays Out Obama, Calls for Protest at White House

“ We passed the first bill that allowed the government — in areas of high unemployment — to directly intervene and create jobs. Well, we’ve got the bill in here again and I’ve got nothing from the White House,” — John Conyers

At a press conference held by members of the House Out of Poverty Caucus Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), the second most senior member of the U.S. House, was pointed in his criticism of the White House regarding jobs and cuts to Social Security the President put on the table last week.

“We’ve got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that,” Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. “My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this,” Conyers said strongly.

.......

“I was the first member of Congress to come out for the 44th President. We’ve got to march on him. He’ll be before the Congressional Black Caucus on September 21st.” Conyers said referring to the annual CBC Gala. The President has addressed the gala each year he’s been in office.


http://www.crewof42.com/cbc/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:39 AM

167. MadHound has it right.

I am not even convinced that President Obama will demand that the tax rates on the wealthy return to the Clinton era rates. He has repeatedly said that they must go up, but I have not heard heard said that the will be returned to those earlier rates. I am all for going over the so-called cliff. It would at long last begin to rein in the Military Industrial Complex that is robbing the nation's working class. I would have really supported Obama if he said that the rates on the wealthy must be 50% and have included capital gains as a regular source of income. Regarding capital gains, since many companies have dropped their pensions and award stock options, a certain amount could be excluded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #167)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:18 PM

171. +1 Whatever crumbs are ostentatiously handed to the 99 percent after this debacle,

Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)

whether they take the form of a pathetic token gift (perhaps a mere percent or three in tax increases on the wealthy) or merely the withholding of a particular additional assault (some particular assault on safety nets spared us this time)...

...the people are aware that there is no significant hope or change *anywhere* in this corporate Kabuki.

The thieves still own us, and the system that is impoverishing us and destroying our children's futures continues to metastasize and strengthen itself, protected by Republican and Democrat corporatists alike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:37 PM

172. If Repubs want to save money on Medicare just end the no negotiation

provision on drugs. Don't raise the age or cut benefits. There should be enough savings through negotiating drug prices to save enough. Make the concession on the Democrats side something that comes out of the Republicans hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Reply to this thread