HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Krystal Ball: I actually ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:08 PM

Krystal Ball: I actually want to go over the cliff

Easy for you to say your a business woman with money.Kind of fucking selfish if you ask me we have millions of citizens who are living paycheck to paycheck and working poor people that no one even talks about. So I say fuck you Krystal

20 replies, 1679 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 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Krystal Ball: I actually want to go over the cliff (Original post)
bigdarryl Dec 2012 OP
Filibuster Harry Dec 2012 #1
elfin Dec 2012 #2
Whisp Dec 2012 #8
juajen Dec 2012 #14
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #3
Iggo Dec 2012 #4
freshwest Dec 2012 #5
MH1 Dec 2012 #12
freshwest Dec 2012 #13
juajen Dec 2012 #15
Filibuster Harry Dec 2012 #6
John2 Dec 2012 #7
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #9
AlinPA Dec 2012 #10
hopemountain Dec 2012 #11
juajen Dec 2012 #16
Sugarcoated Dec 2012 #17
cliffordu Dec 2012 #18
Revolutionary Girl Dec 2012 #19
Adenoid_Hynkel Dec 2012 #20

Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:09 PM

1. I would like to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:18 PM

2. She irritates me often

Not all the time, but lately I wonder at her smarts.

Often on Bashir's show. She seemed progressive earlier, now I wonder if she is planning to run for office again and is practicing hedging comments to be more successful with repugs in another run.

Believe she ran for the House and lost.

From Wiki -


2010 U.S. Congressional campaign

See also: United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 1
In 2010 Ball ran to represent Virginia's 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives and was defeated by Republican incumbent Rob Wittman. Early in the race, Ball was endorsed by WUFPAC (Women Under Forty Political Action Committee). Despite being defeated by a margin of 63.90% to 34.76%, the former candidate was named by Forbes Magazine as number 21 on the magazine’s "The Top 25 Most Powerful Women Of The Midterm Elections".
Political positions
Ball supported:
Education reform, including charter schools, using technology, alternative certification of teachers, and paying teachers six figure salaries.
The 2nd amendment as ensuring individual gun rights (she is an NRA member). Ball has stated that she is "uneasy" about guns in National Parks.
Supports a lifetime ban on lobbying by former members of Congress, banning lobbyist gifts, increasing disclosure, and establishing a new Independent Ethics Commission to investigate and audit influence by special interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elfin (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:44 PM

8. the other day she was sucking up to the NRA/gun ownership.

 

can't stand her, nor those other kindergarten irritants she is on the panel with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:26 AM

14. She was raised in a family with guns, as was I.

We have a somewhat different perspective; although, I certainly don't see any need for automatic guns or rifles. Of course, if a bear is coming at you, could come in handy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:21 PM

3. It Needs To Be Done, Sir

People have to be made to realize just how dangerous to the country Republicans in Congress really are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:29 PM

4. Get off my girlfriend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:29 PM

5. A lot of DUers want us to go over the cliff, too. So it's coming from both sides now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:42 PM

12. I think this is due to understanding that any kind of GOOD deal will be impossible

and what is coming with the so-called cliff is less bad than what the republicans will agree to.

Consider that A LOT of progressives dearly want to see large cuts in defense spending. Have you noticed what has been missing from everything being discussed in terms of a deal to avoid the "cliff"? Exactly. Now I'll admit I haven't paid attention to details of all the offers, but it seems that going over the "cliff" might be the ONLY way to see those military spending cuts.

Yes, cutting military spending will hurt some people, some people will lose their jobs. But there is no cut in defense spending that won't cause that, and progressives generally want lower defense spending. (The preference might be to do military cuts at a time when the unemployment rate is lower, but hey, what makes anyone think the opportunity will be available then?)

Since there is an insistence on "cutting spending" by the republicans; if military is mostly off the table; how in the world do we do any better than what happens with the fiscal "cliff"? It seems to me that any plan they will come up with will hurt social programs MORE than the "cliff".

Of course there is also the issue of the expiring tax cuts. I wish we could keep the tax relief for only the lowest incomes, the people who are really struggling. I'm sorry, but if you have a flat screen tv and the latest iPhone, you're probably not one of the folks I'm worried about. We need to stop running up deficits. People need to pay sufficient taxes to pay for the stuff their elected reps vote for. That means all of us. Preferably at a more progressive rate scale than we currently have, but in any case it has to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:07 AM

13. I always considered the cliff to be a daring way to cut defense. It eliminates the ideological spat.

That was why the plan with Obama agreeing to it was considered 'chess' etc. I don't play chess, but I do understand long-term goals and following the intent. In this case, the intent was to get out of the centuries of war making the USA has engaged in.

This way of doing so removes the charge of being soft on enemies. Although it is exactly what the most radical on the right have claimed - that Obama wants the USA to change its world role. He's announced, and the right has laughed at the idea - that he wants to create a jobs program for those soldiers coming back to America - to rebuild America.

This is a popular goal among progressives and you are correct in all you say, even with the loss of defense jobs. But those workers could go into other industries that use government funding such as alternative energy and other things this nation needs.

It's been a battle of the plutocrats who made their family fortunes with weapons and fossil fuels and diverting the tax dollars to them. That money was and will be government money; why not use it for things the people want and need?

The plutocrats or whatever name we wish to call them, have held onto a system of wealth creation that worked for them no matter the costs ot many things and refused to change. They could have adapted new business models. Now people don't believe their fables anymore. Well, many people don't.

Taking the money from the defense industry doesn't mean the permanent impoverishment of those workers - they will gravitate toward jobs created to restore the country. But Tea Party Two as promised by Grover Nordquist to fight all that Obama tries to do from 2013 on, and will keep agitating both sides.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Sorry I'm so wordy in mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:28 AM

15. Military spending certainly needs to be reduced.

There are great savings here. The first thing we should do is stop paying military contractors. I can't believe we are even doing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:36 PM

6. What's the saying: Be careful what you wish for? Who will chicken out first? Any bets ... odds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:29 PM

7. I like her too,

 

even though she is a gun nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:00 PM

9. Obama needs to call their bluff, because the howls will be directed towards the GOP.

Are they serious about deficit reduction or not? Will they let the DoD bear ANY of the Austerity (when they should bear it ALL)?

We existed for the entire Clinton era under these rates. The FICA tax cut was never meant to be anything but temporary, either.

Besides, how much of a cut did the Bush Tax Cuts give you? For the rich, it was substantial. I barely noticed a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:23 PM

10. I saw that MSNBC garbage program last week and wondered where in the hell they get

those airhead "pundits", amateur "journalists" or what ever they are. MSNBC is scraping the bottom of the barrel with those twits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlinPA (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:25 PM

11. the pm shows are far better

except for the blow hard bully, chris matthews. although, he does have some good moments when he is attacking bigots. however, his commercial with mount rushmore behind him is an affront to the first people of this land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlinPA (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:29 AM

16. They are going after younger voters. Wise move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juajen (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:00 AM

17. Yes

I don't always agree with everything they say, and they can be annoying sometimes, but going for the youngins is a very smart move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:19 AM

18. Do you really understand what "going over the cliff" really means?

To your finances???

To people in your tax bracket???

I didn't think so.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:55 AM

19. She's right.

I hope we will too. Only way we'll ever get serious defense cuts, among other things. They'll fix the tax situation in a hurry, don't worry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:07 AM

20. easy for her to say - try being laid off and having your jobless benefits end

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread