HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Face Facts: Going Over Th...

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:20 AM

Face Facts: Going Over The "Cliff" Would Suck Badly

But it will never get easier in the future. For 30 years working Americans have been savaged by hostage takers, and they only grow stronger and more voracious as we appease them.

Enough!

Time for Churchill, not Chamberlain. Let's start turning this thing around.

67 replies, 4564 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 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply Face Facts: Going Over The "Cliff" Would Suck Badly (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 OP
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #1
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #3
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #5
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #9
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #10
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #19
TiberiusB Dec 2012 #34
Cali_Democrat Dec 2012 #6
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #8
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #14
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #39
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #40
TiberiusB Dec 2012 #55
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #57
TiberiusB Dec 2012 #59
TiberiusB Dec 2012 #44
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #54
ProSense Dec 2012 #16
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #41
TiberiusB Dec 2012 #48
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #50
TiberiusB Dec 2012 #56
bvar22 Dec 2012 #64
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #11
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #17
ann--- Dec 2012 #27
robinlynne Dec 2012 #18
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #51
robinlynne Dec 2012 #62
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #67
Arkana Dec 2012 #29
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #30
leftstreet Dec 2012 #2
Romulox Dec 2012 #4
MineralMan Dec 2012 #7
Skraxx Dec 2012 #20
MineralMan Dec 2012 #21
Skraxx Dec 2012 #25
daleanime Dec 2012 #33
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #23
MineralMan Dec 2012 #24
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #26
MineralMan Dec 2012 #36
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #31
MineralMan Dec 2012 #35
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #43
joshcryer Dec 2012 #12
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #32
fadedrose Dec 2012 #13
xchrom Dec 2012 #15
firehorse Dec 2012 #22
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #38
Coyotl Dec 2012 #47
Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #28
mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #37
pscot Dec 2012 #42
mostlyconfused Dec 2012 #61
Oilwellian Dec 2012 #45
Skittles Jan 2013 #66
Coyotl Dec 2012 #46
brooklynite Dec 2012 #49
phleshdef Dec 2012 #52
TiberiusB Dec 2012 #58
bvar22 Dec 2012 #60
spanone Dec 2012 #53
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #63
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #65

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:24 AM

1. When you starting DU's "Progressive Prez 2016" group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:28 AM

3. We started it in Massachusetts, first

It's called "That difficult woman that Obama fired? We elected her to the Senate".

She'll be working tirelessly to market the FDR Liberal brand, demand will soon be huge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:30 AM

5. Bwahahahahaha!!!! Yea that's it ...

Another "Obama hates Elizabeth Warren" post ... must be why he gave her a prime time speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention ... after which, she went from trailing Scott Brown in the polls, to leading him in the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:40 AM

9. Obama didn't endorse her until less than a month before the election

More 12-dimensional chess, no doubt.

Keeping her away from the convention stage while having the likes of Deval Patrick there would have been a train wreck.

And Warren was generally leading Brown in the polls for many months before the convention. Interesting that you think her ability is insufficient to win on her own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:55 AM

10. Here's how daily Kos reported it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/16/1132412/-Elizabeth-Warren-leads-Scott-Brown-by-6-in-new-poll-50-44#

Interesting that you think Obama fired her.

I suspect you also think Obama opposed Reid putting her on the Senate Banking Committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:17 PM

19. Sen Warren raised more money than any other Senate candidate thanks to the efforts of progressive

groups like moveon, PDA, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:04 PM

34. I missed the "hate" thing...

He didn't say Obama hated her. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but injecting emotional bias into the discussion distracts from what should be the real debate, whether Obama's political strategy on any given matter is really in our best interest.

And no, Warren wasn't trailing Brown in the polls at the time of the convention, though her lead grew significantly shortly afterward (as expected, they don't talk about convention "bumps" for nothing...Romney got one, too, remember).

If there is a relationship to focus on here, it is not Obama and Warren, it is Obama and Geithner, who famously opposed Warren's nomination to the CFPB and who is well known to hold tremendous sway with the President with regards to financial matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:30 AM

6. Obama fired Elizabeth Warren?

Huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:59 AM

14. How could she be "SusanRiced" ... perhaps you mean that Rice was "Warrened"?

I mean if your logic is going to make any sense at all, the time line of events should be in the correct order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:20 PM

39. Good point. She was VanJonesShirleySherroded.

Better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:26 PM

40. Nope, still wrong.

Both of them resigned.

Warren was not appointed to the position that you seem to think she was fired from.

You need to place your manufactured outrage into a different container.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:42 PM

55. Seriously?

This is the angle you are going with, not "hmmm, there's a disturbing pattern here"?

How about, "those people weren't technically fired, but I see what you are saying, that there are too many people, ostensibly left leaning, possibly even liberal/progressive people, getting left in political limbo with weak support from the White House until they withdraw from the nomination process."

Getting caught up endless on a single word, in this case "fired", feels a bit too much like the old "Bush never lied" semantic arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:49 PM

57. You seem very invested in how I respond to Manny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:06 PM

59. Personalities vs issues

Nope, the poster is irrelevant. I am simply invested in actual debate, which many politically charged threads lack, instead falling into polarized arguments that lose track of any substance and get caught up in semantics or some other tangential unrelated issue.

This thread is a perfect example. The discussion should be about the kabuki known as the "Fiscal Cliff". Look at how many posts are about the semantics ("fired", "hates") or about Elizabeth Warren and Obama and the nomination process, or about whether a negative Obama post constitutes whining (unless you run for office) while positive Obama posts somehow constitute meaningful political activism. I'm up for a debate about the broken nomination process, obviously, but even that distraction isn't really being discussed in any meaningful way. It all feels too much like the old song "Cult of Personality", with camps forming around people rather than issues.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:43 PM

44. Deliberately missing the point?

Whether you call it getting "Warrened" or "Riced" is irrelevant when weighed against what their failed nominations may or may not represent.

Susan Rice is the more recent, and therefore, fresher, example of "appointment limbo" which plagues Obama from time to time and seems to always result in the nominee withdrawing (or getting recess appointed... *cough* Richard Cordray *cough* ...that was for all the "Warren couldn't get past Congress" fans...*cough* Reconciliation *cough* ...sorry, that one's just a reflex from the health care debate when many people said the public option couldn't pass without 60 votes).

Focusing on chronology seems like a bit of a distraction, much like drilling down on the word "fired", as some seem to be doing. Why not discuss why Susan Rice seemed to fall into the same trap as Warren? Why recess appoint some people and not others? Is there a possible gender bias at work here? Were these nominees meant to soften opposition for the next candidate and were never really expected to get past the nomination process at all? GOP obstructionism and abuse of the "filibuster" (...which has been magically made to mean "not getting 60 votes," thanks Senate!) is obviously a factor, so what's the solution? Better outreach by the President to the people to build public support? Some sort of reform to the process, and all the problems with getting that through Congress, is clearly necessary, but how to get it done is a daunting task, to say the least.

Who fights and pushes back and tries to cut through the Orwellian sales gibberish, and who smiles and drinks the Kool Aid while using words like "save" and "strengthen," when they mean "slash" and "weaken"? Who embraces the "fiscal cliff" versus who points out that we never lack for money when it comes to banks and war, but when it comes to pennies for the people, our national wallet mysteriously runs dry?

...Or we can debate who's name will become the official shorthand for a failed nomination from the Obama administration.

Whichever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:13 PM

54. Doesn't Warren have a better shot at becoming President in 2016 from a Senate seat

rather than from a politically appointed position??

After all, that's Manny's plan. He's stuck with Obama for the next 4 years ... so he needs to get working on a nominee for 2016.

Warren might be a good choice. And it would be nice to see Manny post a few positive OPs from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:01 PM

16. Here:






Enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:27 PM

41. More proof that Obama hates Elizabteh Warren!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:51 PM

48. Uhh, again, who said that Obama hates her?

As for the videos, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Some people might call that "politics". Warren is and always has been a model of restraint and diplomacy with regards to her demeanor and her relationship with Obama, so none of this should surprise anyone. It's a large part of why so many like her. She just seems genuinely nice and, more importantly, honest in her convictions.

That doesn't make her perfect, however. She notoriously stepped in it with regards to the U.S. possibly going to war with Iran, a position so seemingly out of character that you have to wonder whether it was legitimate or poll tested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:02 PM

50. Some seem to think Obama fired her from a position she was never appointed to

in the first place.

My post was sarcasm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:44 PM

56. I got that...

I got that, but my point was that the sarcasm wasn't being followed by anything to help move the discussion forward. Instead, most of this thread seems to be stuck on a single word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:27 PM

64. Some may call it "sarcasm",

others can justifiably call it Willful Distortion

and others will call it a Strawman.

Regardless of the label,
what you posted IS inflammatory,
A Logical Fallacy,
and adds nothing to the debate.

"A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition."


If you would respond with a valid rebuttal,
you wouldn't be forced to use embarrassing Logical Fallacies,
and acrtually contribute to the discussion.

Happy New Year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:58 AM

11. "Germans?" ...... "Forget it, he's on a roll"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:02 PM

17. Yes. I think the Republicans asked him to. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #17)


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:05 PM

18. Yes he did. Warren created the Consumer Protection Agency. The right went crazy at the idea of

Warren at the helm. So Obama un nominated her. As he tends to do when the GOp asks him to.
That is why she ran for Senate. Obama took her out of his government.

the people know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:03 PM

51. Who had asked her to create the CPA in the first place?

And which is better ... to have her as a political appointee, who serves at the whim of the next President, or as a Senator, sitting on the oversight committee for the agency she created?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:46 PM

62. I believe it was Warren's idea. Warren's creation. the fact is, Obama fired her when the right

complained about her. She is serving now in spite of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #62)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:26 PM

67. So Obama let Warren build something he didn't want her to build ... and then

fired her for it ... then gave her a prime time slot at the Democratic Convention, but didn't want her to win ... then she won anyway, and Obama told Reid not to put her on the oversight committee, but Reid did it anyway.

Makes total sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:20 PM

29. "Fired"?

When did he fire her?

And not appointing her to the CFPB because it would be a long, drawn-out fight that he would almost certainly lose does not count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:34 PM

30. Good for Massachusetts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:26 AM

2. Most people already straddle the edge of a cliff

No jobs, real wages stagnant for decades, no buying power, increasing costs, no healthcare, no security

For politicians and pundits to make up a fake 'fiscal cliff' is adding insult to injury

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:29 AM

4. The status quo is awful; it must be preserved at all costs! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:30 AM

7. Run for office, Manny.

That's the only advice I have for you. If you can get elected, maybe you can do something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:18 PM

20. LOL! Yeah, Right! You Mean Actually DO Something That Makes An Actual DIFFERENCE?

ROFL!! Much easier to snipe impotently and cynically from the peanut gallery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:24 PM

21. Well, he seems to have lots of ideas about how things should be run.

I think running for office would be a great idea for Manny. It would let him put his ideas out in front of the voters and see if they like those ideas enough to elect him to office.

I can't see any downside to that for Manny, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:13 PM

25. The Downside Is He'd Actually Have To DO SOMETHING Other Than Snipe From The Peanut Gallery

Somehow I don't think his type would be capable of accomplishing anything actually, you know, meaningful. If he ran for office where would he find the time to snipe on the internet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:00 PM

33. Translation....

not rich enough to run for office?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:54 PM

23. Really? Why should he do that rather do what citizens are supposed to do,

push their elected officials to do what they were elected to do. Do you know Manny in RL btw, know anything about what he does? Your comment indicates you have zero knowledge of his activities on behalf of the Dem Party and is therefore a comment with no substance or relevance to this OP.

Did you know that Dems rarely use that old tactic on internet forums?

The reason why Dems rarely use the 'run for office' pretend 'advice' instead of reasoned arguement? Because we know that the work of citizens is equally as important as the work of elected officials, in fact it is more important.

See eg, how currently citizen activism pushed elected officials to remove the Chained CPI from the current Deficit Discussions where it never belonged.

And see how citizen activism forced elected officials, no matter how reluctant they were originally, to end DADT.

So why would you think that every citizen who expresses an opinion about the policies being pushed by elected officials should become an elected official themselves?

That makes no sense whatsoever since our system never intended that the only way a citizen has the right to an opinion is to 'run for office' themselves.

You appear to have little faith in what citizens can do when they are organized, as they are currently. I have far more faith in the people especially now that they are way more informed than ever before, in encouraging our elected officials to do what they promised to do. They need to know the people will support them when they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:04 PM

24. Why should he not do that?

It was just a suggestion.

Activism can do many things. I've been an activist since the 60s. Generally, though, activism is best employed by speaking directly in some way to those who are in office and who can change things. Sometimes it's done through individual communications and sometimes through public demonstration. Sometimes, activism also includes running for office.

You know little about me, and what little you think you know is wrong. I hope you have a very pleasant new year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:18 PM

26. Why did you suggest it? Was it a sincere, 'I would love it if you ran for office

because you are a great Democrat and I would definitely vote for you', or was it a carefully chosen way to say to the OP that you just wish he would 'stfu' but you are afraid that if you said what you really wanted to say, you would get your post hidden?

Btw, you do not have to lecture DUers on what activism means. Knowing as many DUers as I do, they could teach people how to effectively get the attention of the people they hire to represent them. I, eg, have met most of the top Dems in this party partly due to my job and have been able to speak directly to them about issues that both they and we care about. But I don't feel the need, nor do most DUers to keep repeating what we do as most DUers expect that Democrats here are extremely active in politics outside of DU. That is how DU has always been. Your comment to Manny implied that you are not aware of this.

You know zero about Manny or me, for that matter yet you often feel the need to make declarations about other DUers. I am pointing out that perhaps you should learn more about people before using those old, internet tactics which are really useless in terms of actual discussion. The kind of discussion we used to have on Democratic forums and which actually resulted in positive results.

Have a great New Year and we will continue to speak out and to our elected officials as that is our civic duty. I hope no one minds, but regardless, we will continue to do so because it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:12 PM

36. You can easily read my first post. It's brief. It suggests

running for office. That was what I intended to write. It's not complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:39 PM

31. I agree with you. Manny should run for office. He would serve his constituents well.

And people would vote for him because of his sense of humor. He would have a good chance of winning.

I'm serious about this. Manny is one of, if not the, smartest DUers. I love his posts, and I think he should run for office.

Manny should run if for no other reason than to have an opportunity to voice his dismay at what is going on in the Democratic Party and share his ideas.

The more people with progressive ideas run for office, the more choices for progressive government the American people have.

Americans do like progressive ideas when well presented.

Very seriously and very sincerely, I would like to see Manny run for office.

Great ideas, Mineral Man.

His posts are among my favorites (and so are some of yours, Mineral Man).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:09 PM

35. There you go, then.

Running for office makes great sense for dedicated people. Thanks for getting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:31 PM

43. I agree with you, I would definitely vote for him if I could because of his

understanding of Democratic principles mainly. And we sure need more of them in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:59 AM

12. The cliff is a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:43 PM

32. Absolutely. It is a manufactured, playground, ready-to-build kit that the Republicans

construct every time they get into office.

They've had a long stretch, more or less with a short interruption from 1980 to the present. They are like termites. They ate our economy out from the inside and now they are complaining that there is no more to eat. They forget that the pulp, the strength of the fiber that holds our house up is in their very round, greedy little bellies.

Time to rebuild the house, termites. And this time you are going to put the fiber in, not take it out. We are raising the price of your meals. Thank you very much. We want a strong house. You can stay as long as you don't eat so fast and so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:59 AM

13. We had an election

How can a new president make progress when he's stuck with the former president's disastrous policies. No appeasement, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:01 PM

15. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:38 PM

22. Some of us went off the cliff 15 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firehorse (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:17 PM

38. And now the question in Washington is

how much further we should be dropped.

Enough!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firehorse (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:47 PM

47. Ronald Reagan was the cliff.

But hey, real memory is in short supply in the USA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:19 PM

28. Yes, it would suck. But make no mistake,

when the repercussions start to hit the masses, there will be a solution. Maybe we have to go over the cliff to show people the problems we have with this hostile Congress. I do not think that we will be over the cliff for long. It is political suicide for all involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:13 PM

37. And it wouldn't fix a thing anyway

Going back to the Clinton tax rates would raise enough revenue to cover only a small fraction of the current deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/democrats-dont-want-to-go-back-to-clinton-era-rates/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:27 PM

42. Did you just misread thea article, or are you deliberately mis-representing it?

"the difference between the two plans is huge. Clinton’s tax code raises about $2.35 trillion more in revenues over 10 years than Obama’s tax plan."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:36 PM

61. Read it. Just saying $2.35 trillion over 10 years is a lot of money, but...

even if accurate that's 235 billion per year, against an annual budget deficit of $1.1 trillion. It is being discussed as some unbearable tax burden for the country to face, yet it would address only 21% of the deficit. How much will we all be hurting if taxes are increased enough to fix this budget gap just from the revenue side?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:45 PM

45. Sorry Manny, there must be shared sacrifice ahead

As President Obama said in today's press conference, there must be shared sacrifice as long as he's president. Austerity will be our new normal. What national treasures do you suppose they'll sell off first?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:08 AM

66. shared?

the working class has ALREADY sacrificed - it's the RICH BASTARDS, the ones who got ALL THE REWARDS, who did not SACRIFICE

edited to acknowledge you know that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:46 PM

46. If you are a Plutocrat, yes it would!

Everyone else, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:58 PM

49. Consider the following two options...

We work out a deal:
- Millionaire's taxes go up


We go over the Cliff:
- Millionaire's taxes go up
- YOUR taxes go up
- Unemployment insurance is cut
- spending is cut

Which is worse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:06 PM

52. Going over the cliff will take more away from middle/lower class incomes than chained CPI.

I am strongly against chained CPI for the record.

But those of you who advocate going over the cliff while screaming about chained CPI are either mathematically challenged or just straight up hypocritical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:55 PM

58. That's precisiely how disaster capitalism works

Sell you on a horrible idea by taking advantage of a "crisis". Those two are completely unrelated. The imaginary fiscal cliff is supposed to be about the budget (it isn't, but we all know that). The chained CPI is an assault on Social Security, which is not part of the federal budget and shouldn't be up for discussion. Trading the long term health and welfare of an enormous (and growing) pool of citizens for a very short term "gain" is a raw deal and there is nothing hypocritical about opposing it. What's more, any damage from the austerity brigade...fiscal cliff...whatever...can be mitigated or reversed in the new year (tax cuts can be retro-active), you know, when the debt ceiling extortion begins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:48 PM

60. That it will,

...but only for a short time.
Congress WILL be forced to act,
and we will have better numbers after Jan 1st.

Falling for another hostage grabbing like in the last debt ceiling "debate"
where the Democrats traded:

* a short extension in benefits for some of the unemployed

FOR

*a ruinous Two YEAR extension of the Bush tax cuts for The Rich


..is NOT something we want to repeat.


Look, MA!
I traded the Family Cow for a handful of beans!!!!
...but the guy said it was a Good Deal because at least I got something!


Hurry Up!
Add Saving the Unemployed to "The LIST"!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:10 PM

53. you da man-ny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:17 PM

63. You are exactly right Manny.

And thank you for saying it so clearly. We had to draw a line somewhere. We keep taking bad deals for the sake of getting a little something good in the mix. I honestly think all the grass roots activism, calling Congress and stuff, is what made the difference in preventing a horrible deal. It could have been something much worse if people hadn't been so active.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:50 PM

65. Going over the cliff is good. Massive military cuts that are

Almost impossible to get with all the baby killers out there, AND end of the Bush and SS tax cuts!!!!

Now we just need to fix unemployment payments, the AMT,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread