I hate that Boehner invited Netanyahu - but there's a silver lining

[MannyGoldstein]

With Republicans now owning both houses of Congress, there was a good chance, I thought, of Boehner and Obama teaming up for some awful deals - for example, they agreed to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in 2011 but Cantor seems to have scuttled it, they agreed to keep more than 80% of the Bush tax cuts, and both are very fond of sending American 99%er jobs to other countries so the Predator Class can make even more money free trade agreements.

Hopefully this unbelievably foolish move by Boehner causes their personal animosity to reach a point where terrible "bargains" will be minimized for the next two years.

[LawDeeDah]

1. steamy pile

Yeh, President Obama is as treacherous a shitpuke as Boehner but he just hides it better.
sure.


I hope one day you tire of this one sided view of the President.

What am I saying, I don't give a flying...

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Do you disagree with anything that I wrote?

If so, why?

[LawDeeDah]

5. My interest in your opinions has never been high

and now is completely empty and waned.

But do carry on as there are others that share your ************** opinion of this President and you wouldn't want to disappoint your audience.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Sounds like you don't disagree,

but it makes you feel bad.

You can feel bad and be civil.

[Long Drive]

106. Hidden posts might make someone think twice

about opening their pie hole. Good deal.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Excellent post*

*He won't tire of it.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. You've got to admit...Manny is pretty good with subliminal messages, isn't he? eom

[Stellar]

61. Agreed!

I might extend that to a month though.

[Control-Z]

16. Amazing, isn't it?

Same old shit. Day after day, post after post.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Let me guess.

You're going to tell us what, in this post or any others of mine, is wrong - because attacking the messenger without saying squat about the message is a low thing to do.

[Control-Z]

24. I've got your number, manny.

You'll attack anyone and anything just for the fun of stirring up new shit. That's what you do.

You did it to me on a very personal level and I will never forget.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Well... I guessed wrong.

Isn't the first time.

[sheshe2]

51. +10000

[sheshe2]

50. Interesting comment from you Manny.

because attacking the messenger without saying squat about the message is a low thing to do.

After you derailed my thread the other night , you just had to make it about you. I have never seen you post so many times on any thread ever. Last I checked I believe you left 21 comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026119475

[MannyGoldstein]

52. And would you like to point out any that were incorrect?

You asked, I answered. Sorry it was traumatic.

[sheshe2]

53. Lol~

I think MADem did a brilliant job of answering you while I was working. Brilliant!!!!

First, you had already childishly derailed my thread before I asked you a question. Don't play coy with me Manny. You wanted it to be about you. Sadly it is not.

And would you like to point out any that were incorrect?
You asked, I answered. Sorry it was traumatic.

Traumatic? No it was not. Sorry to disappoint you on that. However I thoroughly enjoyed watching MADem take you down a peg or two.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. The part where MADem said that Jan Schakowski was a right-wing shill in bed with lobbyists

because she had the same information on Obama's proposed Social Security cuts that the AARP does?

Yeah, that was pretty devastating.

[sheshe2]

66. ...

[Long Drive]

107. You are so brave

Bring the wisdom on man, it shines a bright light on those who cower in the dark.

[Bobbie Jo]

85. Wow. That thread.

I read and Rec'ed it early on, but had no idea of the bizarre ass-showing that went on there.

[msanthrope]

98. You Better Believe It! nt

[COLGATE4]

2. From your mouth... nt

[Andy823]

8. What can I say Manny

I think others have said it pretty well, you never cease to try sneak in some bullshit about the president, no matter how low it makes you look. Keep stirring the shit seems to be your goal here, sad the some actually rec your asinine remarks.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Even Elizabeth Warren has expressed the same concern

about the President making terrible deals with Republicans, and has even called out at least two of the three deals I mentioned as being awful.

[msongs]

10. to be fair, obama has self identified his policies as "moderate republican"

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080

[MannyGoldstein]

11. But if I said he was, at best I'd be called a Rat@$!#er,

and perhaps banned.

Frustrating.

[truebluegreen]

12. Just exactly what all of us Democrats wanted!

Not to mention what the country needed.

[lark]

13. Not all Dems want moderate Repug.

And it certainly isn't what the country needs. We need what Obama sold during the campaigns, not what he did to appease Repugs like having a stimulus that was 1/2 wasted in tax cuts rather than creating jobs.

[truebluegreen]

47. I shoulda added

the thingie, since your point is actually what I was trying to say.

[Enthusiast]

14. At that very moment in history, after the Bush Administration nearly destroyed the nation,

what we most decidedly did not need was a moderate Republican.

[truebluegreen]

48. It's hard to make sure everyone gets the sarcasm when corresponding over the intertoobz.

I'll be sure to use this in the future.

You're absolutely correct: the last thing we needed was a moderate Republican, especially one who called himself a Democrat.

[Andy823]

17. And how many of those "deals" are now law?

You can bring up all kinds of BS Manny, but until it actually happens, your still just stirring up shit, as usual. It may get you more recs with your loyal followers, but it's still just BS.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. More than 80% of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent

via the agreement between Boehner and Obama. We can agree that counts as law?

Three "free" trade agreements that Democrats rejected under Bush are now law because Pres. Obama lobbied Democrats to pass them. So those count as law, also.

Are you suggesting that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts, the TPP and TTIP, are bluffs?

[geek tragedy]

26. "more than 80% of the Bush tax cuts"

So, you were in favor of raising taxes on middle and lower income Americans? Because that's what you're bashing Obama for failing to do.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have not been cut one penny despite Republicans controlling the House of Representatives since 2011. I'm sure that happened by accident.

Not fooling anyone.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. The vast bulk of the 82% of the remaining Bush tax cuts

Helps the wealthy and upper-middle class.

[geek tragedy]

41. So does every tax cut on lower and middle income taxpayers, due to this concept

of "marginal tax rates."

That all you got?

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Seems like you don't have a good grasp on this.

Try a web search.

[geek tragedy]

46. Do you do much academic work?

I imagine citations such as "see, e.g., the Internet" don't quite pass muster.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. I wrote a college textbook that sold quite nicely

Last edited Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Does that count?

(Imagine! Students running around with their brains containing my nonsense!)

But for that, I got paid something to explain simple stuff to naifs. In your case, there's no remuneration on the table so you can look up the simple stuff yourself.

[geek tragedy]

73. So you need to get paid in order to back your claims up and engage

in good faith discussion?

In case folks reading are confused, what happened is that Manny threw out the factoid that over 80% of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent by the fiscal cliff deal of after President Obama won re-election. (The actual number is 82% according to CBO estimates--look I did that for free!)

This much is true. What that deal did was to shift the tax burden onto the top 1%. Virtually all of that 18% tax increase (tax cuts expiring vs tax increase is semantics--either people pay more or they pay the same or they pay less than they did last year) fell on households in the top .7% of income.

Now, but Manny claims, the remaining tax cuts also still benefit the rich more than the poor.

Unfortunately, this is true of any tax cut on lower and middle incomes. Because income tax is assessed at marginal levels, e.g. the first $18,150 of everyone's income is taxed the same way, then the next ~$55,650 for everyone is taxed at the same rate, etc*

Thus, while a tax cut on middle class wage earners will help them, a rich person will benefit from that cut as well. In fact, a rich person will benefit more than a middle class taxpayer, because they will have the maximum amount of income to which that tax cut applies.

So that was what Manny was trying to argue, but unless someone passes a collection plate around we'll never know for sure.

Manny, of course, neglected to mention that part of the deal on taxes was an extension of tax credits for lower earning working people, college tuition tax credits, and a 1 year extension on unemployment benefits. Readers can draw their own conclusions.




*using 2014 IRS tax tables for married, filing jointly

[MannyGoldstein]

74. And again, you clearly don't know what was - and was not - in the deal. nt

[geek tragedy]

75. So,you allow yourself to make unsubstantiated claims for free, but

you require cash in advance to substantiate your claims?

But we're supposed to just assume that everything you say is the gospel truth. If we have doubts, we need to pass a hat around so we can afford your wisdom and insight?

P.S. Wikipedia is free,

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff#American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_2012

The budget sequestration was delayed by two months to give time for further negotiations on deficit reduction. $24 billion (out of $110 billion for FY2013) was offset by tax increases, as well as a provision allowing 401(k) accounts to be rolled over into Roth IRA plans, requiring taxes to be paid on the assets.
Marginal income and capital gains tax rates increased relative to their 2012 levels for those with annual income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples, but the rates below these levels remained at their 2012 levels. The top income rate increased from 35% to 39.6%, and the capital gains rate increased from 15% to 20%.
A phase-out of tax deductions and credits for incomes over $250,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples was reinstated. Limits on deductions had existed before the Bush tax cuts, and had disappeared in 2010.
Estate taxes were set at 40% of the value above $5,000,000, an increase from the 2012 rate of 35% of the value over $5,120,000.
Changes were made to the alternative minimum tax to index it to inflation, to avoid its application to middle-class families.
The two-year-old cut to payroll taxes was allowed to expire.
Federal unemployment benefits were extended for a year without a budget offset elsewhere, at a cost of $30 billion.
Some tax credits for poorer families were extended for five years, including ones for college tuition and an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The Medicare "doc fix", suspending a decrease in physician payments due to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, was be extended for one year.
A pay freeze for members of Congress was extended, but the general pay freeze for government workers was not.
Some portions of the farm bill that had expired in September were extended for nine months, but without changes supported by dairy farmers and legislators.[97]
A number of corporate tax breaks and loopholes were extended, including the "active financing" tax exemption for major corporations (cost $9 billion[98]), a rum tax supporting Puerto Rico rum industry ($547 million in 2009) and a tax benefit for NASCAR racetrack owners (around $43 million).[99]

I think you owe yourself a refund.

[Andy823]

88. Excellent reply

I guess as long as people don't do the work of checking out his BS, he can get away with accusations. Thanks for setting thing straight, and proving that some here just want to bash and stir up things, not deal in facts.

[joshcryer]

80. I guess you survived the jury.

[randome]

15. I think Bibi will be forced to cancel.

This will deal a major setback to his own prospects and further damage the Republicans. They will be seen as losers yet again.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[branford]

18. Why and how would Bibi be forced to cancel?

To the extent the invitation was problematic, he's already taken any political hits by accepting. Bibi is also already scheduled to be in the USA for the 2015 AIPAC Policy Conference, and there's no way the White House could interfere with his travel here without causing a political disaster with otherwise loyal Democratic Jews and virtually all of Congress, including the over two-thirds of Congressmen of both parties who will be in attendance.

Additionally, there's no way the Republicans would cancel the speech. Asserting congressional power on foreign affairs and embarrassing the White House, particularly after the president's moves on immigration and Cuba, is a feature, not a bug for the Republicans, as well as some Democrats. Just as the president has asserted unitary powers, the new Republican Congress is eager to flex its muscles.

The only way Bibi would cancel is if the White House announced an agreement with Iran that is satisfactory to Congress, including many Democrats like Menendez, who's accused Obama of spouting Iranian talking points. Since a bipartisan majority in Congress appears to favor sanctions and has expressed doubt about what Obama may be offering the Iranians, and Obama himself only gave the negotiations a 50/50 chance of success, such a result appears unlikely.

[randome]

20. Politically, this looks bad for Bibi on his home turf.

March is a long time from now. I think he will cancel (which may be wishful thinking on my part) and take the heat for backing out. This looks bad for him and there is nothing to be gained. Obama has 2 more years of making all decisions regarding Iran.

Two years.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[branford]

28. I think it's wishful thinking on your part.

Bibi has already taken the political hit by accepting the congressional invitation. Not showing up would only make him look weak, without any political upsides.

While you might dislike Bibi, he is no political fool or novice. When he speaks to Congress (and AIPAC), he will express sentiments about Iran and Islamic terrorism that are very popular in the USA and with congressmen and senators of both parties. He will not personally insult Obama, and will speak glowingly of all American elected officials, as he has done on both prior occasions when he addressed a joint session and virtually all of the many other speeches he's given on American soil. The optics will be good for his election prospects in Israel, and it's the very reason why his political opponents in Israel who are complaining about his poor relationship with the president (an allegation made all other times before he was elected prime minister), are also actually trying to block the rebroadcast of the speech and press tour from Israeli audiences.

Obama is also not going to alter US policy on Israel because he dislikes Netanyahu, and Bibi knows this. This is hardly their first bitter public spat. Current American policy has strong bipartisan and congressional support. Moreover, while key Democratic constituencies who are responsible for a great deal of Democratic election financing and organization might have their misgivings about Bibi personally, any changes in policy concerning Israel would be met with astonishment, anger and substantive repercussions. Obama additionally need Congress to finance his broader Middle East policy, and retaliation against Israel itself would result in blow-back such as cutting-off funds to the Palestinians, Syrian rebels or various United Nations agencies.

Obama is also concerned about is own Iran policy. He's invested a lot in the negotiations. If they fail, or if the public believes we got a bad deal, he will lose significant political capital when he's already a lame duck. He's annoyed at Congress and Bibi because the visit raises the expectations on the already precarious Iran negotiations.

[geek tragedy]

43. WATCH: Fox News blasts Netanyahu's 'egregious snub' of President Obama"

http://www.haaretz.com/video/1.638788

[Jesus Malverde]

58. Interesting video.

Israel continues to isolate itself and shit all over it's main benefactor.

[geek tragedy]

44. Feinstein tells Haaretz: PM speech 'inappropriate,' Iran sanctions 'dangerous'

The growing backlash against Netanyahu's planned speech in Congress is diluting Democratic support for the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill.

Gee, you were telling us just 24 hours ago or so that this was a master stroke diplomatically and politically, and that it would lead to Obama's veto being overridden, because you claimed all Democrats agree with Boehner 100% on Israel.

[branford]

49. Sigh, I never said the invitation was not a snub or even a "political master stroke."

I stated that that neither Bibi or Boehner will suffer politically for the invitation, and it served both their political interests. The speech will also have a large bipartisan congressional audience, who will enthusiastically welcome and applaud Netanyahu's comments about the dangers of Iran and Islamic terrorism. You might hate the Republicans and Netanyahu, but they are not fools or novices.

I also stated that I personally did not believe that Congress would actually muster enough votes to override the veto, but that it was certainly still a possibility, and the White House fears the eventuality. Obama desperately doesn't want a vote on Iran sanctions, as evidenced by both his entreaties and veto threat in the State of the Union, and with or without Bibi, such legislation still has strong bipartisan support. We would not even be having a veto override discussion if that was not the case.

In any event, with respect to this thread, are you suggesting that Obama intends to seriously punish Netanyahu, other than just not meeting with him, or that there is a way to do so without substantively changing American policy concerning Israel and suffering the severe political fallout?

You cite Senator Feinstein. Do you have any evidence that she doesn't intend to attend the Bibi's speech or has altered her long-standing pro-Israel positions in any way? I would also note that Feinstein opposed the Iran sanctions legislation well before the Bibi invitation issue, and it has not altered the legislation's broad support.

[geek tragedy]

55. blah blah blah blah blah blah.

For the Republicans, causing the president political grief is a feature, not a bug. I'm surprised it took them this long to react after the President's unilateral and controversial actions concerning immigration relief and Cuba. Threatening a veto of new and bipartisan Iran sanctions in the State of the Union was like waiving a red cape in front of a bull.

More importantly, could you cite to any notable Democratic congressman or senators (or any non-WH Democratic loyalist) who actually objects to Bibi addressing Congress about Iran. Whether you like it or not, Congress has expressed both strong bipartisan support for new Iran sanctions and Israel generally, and Bibi personally. Do not forget, Bibi's already addressed joint sessions of Congress on two prior occasions to great acclaim.

Congressional Democrats are not particularly concerned if Obama is embarrassed by the Bibi invite and speech. Obama's relationship with Congress has always been rocky and deteriorating, and now that Obama is at the end-point of his term, his influence over them is even more diminished. I additionally expect Democratic presidential contenders like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren to endorse the content of Bibi's speech, and Biden will simply say nothing to not embarrass the president.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113493163#post16

Under our constitutional republic, we have separation of powers, and Congress, a co-equal branch of government with the executive, can invite whomever they want to speak. While you might not agree with Congress, and I quite often do not, they are hardly a "shadow government." Speaker Boehner, just like the president, has a phone and pen at his disposal. Elections have consequences.

And in response to your earlier post, and much to the dismay of you and others here, not only will Democrats not boycott, Netanyahu will, as he has repeatedly in the past, almost certainly receive a strong bipartisan welcome. Do not forget that new Iran sanctions are popular with a great many Democrats in Congress, and that will be the subject of Netanyahu's speech. In fact, I've read a number of articles today, including from writers on the left, concerned that the new Iran sanctions may be ripe for a veto override by Congress.

Of course, there is no doubt that Boehner invited Bibi to tweak President Obama, but the move was certainly legal, and actually quite shrewd and politically astute, particularly since Israel (and the Iran sanctions) receives strong bipartisan support among all elected officials. Bibi will be well received by everyone from Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=93203

Simply, Congress believes inviting Bibi is good for Congress and their support for Iran sanctions legislation, and Bibi believes speaking before Congress is good for him. Congress, Democrats and Republicans, didn't "kneecap" our government or conspire with a foreign power, they're lawfully playing political hardball with the president on an issue where they strongly disagree with his position. If the voters don't like how their legislators act, they can punish them in the next election. However, as you acknowledge, when you have everyone from Ted Cruz to Elizabeth Warren basically sharing the same position, not to mention the results of the 2014 elections,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113493163#post20


You have spread the hasbara-Likud-Republican line of bullshit over and over and over and over. You try to portray a partisan stunt cooked up by two rightwing hacks as something that everyone in Congress, Democrat and Republican, was clamoring for. Even though no Democrats were consulted on it.

You see, when you claimed this was Congress, and not the Republicans, trying to punk Obama, you were lying through your teeth. As you now backpedal.

By the way, the fact that Di-Fi is criticizing your team's stunt here is pretty much ironclad proof that you were lying your ass off when you claimed that all Democrats, including Sanders and Warren, are on the same side as Ted Cruz when it comes to trying to kneecap Obama on Israel with this stunt.

There is not one person here who has been fooled into thinking you are a Democrat making good faith arguments.

Shit, Joe Lieberman manages to sound less like a Republican.

[JI7]

57. yup

[branford]

59. We'll discuss the issue again in early March,

when I link the inevitable Youtube video of the bipartisan standing ovations that most of Congress extends to Netanyahu during and after his speech before the joint session. I probably also link to the Congressional reception and comments during the 2105 AIPAC Policy Conference just to emphasize the point.

You also cannot seem to distinguish the near universal and unequivocal support for Israel in Congress (and by the president and in the Democratic Platform) with support for Boehner's tactic to invite Bibi to speak about Iran sanctions. It's entirely unsurprising that some Democrats will defend the White House after the invite embarrassment, most of whom are already in the minority who did not originally support the new Iran sanctions. However, with respect to Israel generally, and much to your chagrin, there is in fact very little light between the positions of Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. No amount of laughable whining about the "hasbara-Likud-Republican line" or the protocol breach of Bibi's speech changes this basic fact.

Nevertheless, I'll inquire once again, how exactly will "hell rain down" upon Bibi and Boehner?

[geek tragedy]

60. you're very good at what you do. But you're still a little too obvious in your agenda. For example

It's entirely unsurprising that some Democrats will defend the White House after the invite embarrassment, most of whom are already in the minority who did not originally support the new Iran sanctions.

So, you portray a backfiring stunt on the part of rightwingers as an "embarrassment" to the President causing Democrats to do damage control for him, while making the egregious claim that most Democrats support the new sanctions bill (which is obvious bullshit since that would mean a veto override would be fait accompli). I guess you could be arguing that only a minority of Senators reject new sanctions right now, but that's a stupid fucking argument considering only a minority of Senators believe that human activity is causing global warming. Because a majority of Congress are rightwingers.

If your argument comes down to Congress's willingness to kiss Israel's ass, no shit.

[geek tragedy]

110. We'll discuss the issue in late March which is when the earliest vote on sanctions will occur

thanks to your boy Bibi.

Who has managed to blunder so colossally--contra your genius analysis--that he may wind up losing power.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/01/26/4507171_criticism-of-netanyahus-planned.html?rh=1

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/Netanyahu-vs-Obama-on-Iran/384849/

[geek tragedy]

111. Yoo hoo!!! nt

[randome]

62. 'Obama' and 'desperately' in the same sentence. I don't think you've been paying attention.

Not to the real world, that is. Maybe too much attention to spy thrillers and mysteries.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

92. Again, I agree with you.

The apocalypse must be near.

[Aerows]

30. OMG.

I had to check out the window to see if pigs were flying, because ... I agree with you.

Horrible move for Netanyahu, and wins him no favors in the US OR Israel. Bad move by Boehner, because he looks like what everyone always knew he and the GOP are - willing to throw everything under the bus in pursuit of making life difficult for Americans simply because they are dead set against working with a Democratic President on ANYTHING.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. I believe Obama will make it clear that Hell will rain down on Netanyahu

unless he cancels, to the degree Obama can make Hell rain down. Netanyahu, as opposed to Boehner and the vast majority of Republicans, is intelligent and might pull back, although we don't know everything that would go into his calculation.

(This kind of disrespect is precisely the kind of thing that gets Obama upset.)

[randome]

27. Hilarious.

Yes, Obama has shown his vindictive side so many times.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[branford]

29. How can he "make Hell rain down" on Netanyahu,

without demonstrably changing US policy on Israel, a political nonstarter (despite the wishes of many on DU) for the Democratic Party, including presidential hopefuls like Clinton, Biden, Cuomo and even Bernie Sanders?

I'm reminded about the time early in the relationship between Bibi and Obama, when the president intentionally snubbed Netanyahu and make him wait a long time to meet because the president was displeased about Bibi's criticism of Obama's Mideast policy. That minor event caused such a ruckus, that Obama had to publicly treat Bibi like royalty on his next visit. No that much has changed.

I would also note that Obama is still suffering criticism concerning his failure to attend the solidarity march in France against Islamic terrorism and antisemitism, and he now intends to visit Saudi Arabia to personally extend his condolences on the death of an Arab Islamic theocratic dictator. Making too much of a production snubbing the Jewish prime minister of a democratic and strongly pro-American state in the Middle East is not what the White House or Democrats really want to discuss.

Obama does not want to "rain hell" on Netanyahu. He wants to the entire mess to just go away.

[Aerows]

32. Little bit of difference here.

Obama is still suffering criticism concerning his failure to attend the solidarity march in France against Islamic terrorism and antisemitism

Attending the solidarity march, which by the way, Netanyahu horned in on against the wishes of the French government, would have taken security measures that were just not possible in 2 days time.

Everyone knew that the Saudi King was going to die. Not so much planning.

[branford]

34. I think that's a little nit-picky and disingenuous.

First, the White House has already admitted on multiple occasions that not showing up in France was a definite blunder. They haven't raised the security issue, and I don't understand why so many of DU are still trying to defend the mistake. In any event, the security was more than sufficient for numerous western and other leaders, including Netanyahu, and prime target. Heck, AG Holder was actually in France at the time, and failed to show up to the march.

It also doesn't change the fact, or more importantly, the optics and pr, related my points. Obama cannot seriously punish Bibi personally without other obvious and politically disastrous repercussions, no less in the context of other recent international relations issues.

Simply, there will be no "raining hell." Obama does not want to draw yet more attention to this matter, and would rather focus on the successful resolution of the Iranian negotiations, preferably before Bibi's visit. That would undoubtedly be the best means to neutralize and embarrass both Bibi and Boehner.

[Aerows]

54. You are accusing me of being

Nit-picky and disingenuous? While you attributed me to saying "raining hell" when I said no such thing, merely comment on the difference between the French solidarity march and the death of man everyone knew was dying?



Gosh, where is that entire of block of salt when you need it.



Oh boy.

[JI7]

35. nobody but Benghazi types give a shit about the "march"

Which was more a photo op

[branford]

38. It was indeed a photo-op.

However, as any politician would admit, sometimes certain photo-ops are necessary and important.

I simply do not understand the denial about Obama and the France march by many on DU. The issue was covered extensively, and is still discussed on both the liberal and conservative media. I imagine it will receive even more press coverage as contrast once Obama lands in Saudi Arabia to pay respects to an Arab Islamic theocratic petrostate dictator.

If nobody cared, the White House would not still be apologizing for the blunder. You may not care about it, but many others feel differently. Not going to France was certainly not the end of the world, but attempting to defend the poor choice, simply gives it greater prominence.

[JI7]

39. BENGHAZI

[branford]

40. So, I therefore assume you believe Obama intends to "rain hell" upon Netanyahu?

I wouldn't hold you breadth.

[geek tragedy]

31. "This kind of disrespect is precisely the kind of thing that gets Obama upset."

Yes, Obama is so petty and vindictive over personal slights and disrespect. Lord knows he flies off the handle every time the loons in this country disrespect him.



When Warren decides against running and Hillary becomes the likely successor to Obama, what are you going to do with your life?

[Aerows]

33. While I hope Warren really does run

I do have to admit that if disrespect caused President Obama to fly off the handle, he could have flown to Mars the first month he was in office.

[joshcryer]

82. Hillary would be the best thing for TWM's posts.

What are you even asking that for? It'd keep it all alive.

Of course, so would Warren.

Or any Democratic President for that matter.

But Warren would have at least a few months or perhaps a year lull in "criticism" as everyone tries to justify everything.

[JI7]

36. Netanyahu has made the situation with Palestinians worse

No sign of him holding back there as seen with gaza last year.

[joshcryer]

81. Unlikely, Obama doesn't hold grudges.

He's, ya'know, the only adult in the room when it concerns the bipartisan approach.

Which, for the record, I don't really like, because fuck bipartisanship.

But Obama ain't budging on that approach. It's who he is.

[840high]

63. I don't think most people care.

[JI7]

23. fuck Netanyahu

[JI7]

65. they aren't that good, it's pretty obvious to me

but i guess it's one of those where just one post itself doesn't seem like much but if you look at overall posts we know they are clearly a troll.

dkf posted in similar ways. but this one isn't as good as dkf.

defending corrupt abusive cops is another thing they do.

[Cali_Democrat]

67. Cantor and the GOP saved Social Security from eeeeevil Obama...

amiright?

[MannyGoldstein]

71. That's what numerous mainstream news sources claim.

Do you think they're lying? That John Conyers was lying?

[joshcryer]

79. In a vacuum they're lying, absolutely.

Go find one mainstream article that conditioned "Social Security cuts" on the poverty exemption. They don't do it.

John Conyers is well meaning, C-CPI is a shitty thing to place on the table, but he doesn't really appreciate what Obama was trying to do. We're talking millions of disabled, retired, and single spouse Social Security recipients being lifted out of poverty.

I am on the record saying that if they pulled that off, that I'd be OK with it. My mom goes from being bottom 5% to bottom 10%. That's fine by me.

[JEB]

68. Will Ayatollah Ali Khamenei be speaking before or after Netanyahu?

[sabrina 1]

69. I think that some Democrats actually did think they could negotiate with Republicans. Why I have no

idea. If this doesn't show them how naive that was, nothing will.

[MannyGoldstein]

72. Or they agreed with Republicans.

Compromise or agreement, that's the questions.

[joshcryer]

78. Um, if they agreed, why didn't it pass?

Could it possibly, you know, maybe, be that they fucking didn't agree and in fact the Democrats deal wasn't good enough for the Republicans?

Closing the tax loopholes alone scuttles any deal with Republicans, you know.

[JDPriestly]

76. Hopefully, but Obama's masochistic willingness to reach out and touch Republican nastiness

could overtake him at any time. We all should pray that Obama not fall prey to those submissive tendencies that have led him in wrong directions from time to time during the first six years of his presidency.

The urge to be kind to mean people is hard for Obama to resist. He wants to look like a good guy.

I would like to see him campaign for more union membership. But that is probably a hopeless dream.

Anyway I support his plans for free community college and increased assistance for families who pay for day-care and pre-school education for their children as well as other plans he suggest in his State of the Union address.

So with my criticism of Obama, I shall join praise. But we shall see what happens in the future.

[joshcryer]

84. "submissive tendencies"

Do you comprehend how racist that shit is? Obama campaigned on bipartisanship, Obama has fought long and hard as a bipartisan President. Obama is probably the most fervent, powerful, bipartisan President to ever exist. More so than Bill Clinton.

You act as if the Republicans hold the power. But Obama has the veto pen, they don't. Objectively.

This isn't about Obama "wanting to look like a good guy." Obama, objectively, is a good guy. Everything he's proposed has been a decent and good compromise. It doesn't matter what the MSM says or what the teabaggers or far left say, he's offered up decent and good proposals. My mom would have been lifted out of poverty had the Republicans chosen his "Social Security cut" budget plan, which included closing the tax loopholes.

[joshcryer]

77. Cantor didn't like the tax loopholes and a poverty exemption.

Obama felt C-CPI was a fair exchange for closing the tax loopholes as part of the budget deal. But, he conditioned it on a poverty exemption in the C-CPI calculation. This would've actually had the effect of lifting millions of people out of poverty, btw, which of course the Republicans couldn't allow to happen.

Medicare and Medicaid "cuts" were a fabrication. They were offset in large part by the ACA, and much of it was fixed by already planned efficiency and standards increases. It wasn't a cut in that vein.

But, of course, you lack this nuance, because if you dared to post a single nuanced OP, it'd sink like a rock. Gotta get people pissed off and all.

[djean111]

86. Social Security just got a COLA of 1.7%.

Less than that, if C-CPI was in place, would be even more laughable, but I don't see numbers like these "lifting millions of people out of poverty".

But, he conditioned it on a poverty exemption in the C-CPI calculation. This would've actually had the effect of lifting millions of people out of poverty, btw, which of course the Republicans couldn't allow to happen.

Was there a provision to substantially increase the SS amount for those living in poverty?

edited due to keyboard/cat technical difficulties

[joshcryer]

93. Yes, the lowest SS check per individual was to be 125% poverty.

[Andy823]

89. Some here only post for the rec's

I think they know that most of their loyal followers will never take the time to actually check out what they post for accuracy. When you post facts to show they are wrong, they usually don't reply anymore. I guess for some it's all about their "ego" and not the truth.

Thanks for the facts.

[MannyGoldstein]

91. I'm not aware of a "poverty exemption" for chained CPI

The "superlative" CPI contained some bump ups at intervals for lowest-income recipients, but it was still a net cut:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/11/1201044/-About-that-chained-CPI-bump-for-the-most-vulnerable#



Do you have a link for what you're claiming?

[joshcryer]

96. That has nothing to do with the 125% poverty baseline.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/2-22-12bud.pdf

I believe that report the liberal Center for Budget Priorities put together. Yes, the long term solution is simply raising the cap. No one disputes that. But you need the votes for that, and if we didn't have the votes for cuts what makes you reasonably believe we had them for a massive tax hike on the top 5%?

[MannyGoldstein]

97. Is that link to a proposal made by President Obama?

Or is it a white paper from an organization stating something that might be a good idea?

[joshcryer]

99. It never got out of committee.

All you can find is talk about what they want, nothing like draft legislation or anything like that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-boehner-meet-as-debt-talks-intensify/2012/12/17/6b43c24a-4868-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html?hpid=z1

That's what is so rich here, you are outraged over something that never left the discussion phase. And now you want a link to a proposal that was never finalized.

[MannyGoldstein]

100. As indicated in the link I supplied, Obama made a specific proposal

And it was a definite cut.

Congress was a different story, but I never claimed otherwise.

[joshcryer]

103. Of course it was a cut for most.

But it would've brought some 5-10 million out of poverty... raised taxes... closed tax loopholes.

[MannyGoldstein]

104. How would it have raised 5-10 million out of poverty?

I don't recall seeing an analysis that showed that. Do you have a link?

[joshcryer]

105. *In* 100% poverty is around 3 million.

125% poverty would be all SSI recipients.

Here's the data for SSI recipients: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n1/v69n1p45.html

Read the PDF I linked. C-CPI cannot work without the exemption, it would be a disaster, and Obama never offered C-CPI up without the exemption.

[joshcryer]

83. Hey, Manny, do you have a response to #77?

Just wondering, I know this thread is kind of falling or dying or whatever, but I'd appreciate a substantive response about it.

[JoePhilly]

87. Flogging the imment SS Cuts Again straw-Manny?

[2banon]

90. As regards to the point of the topic that few seem to be directly addressing...

xing fingers you're right on this call.. I hate that Netanyahu was invited to to speak to Congress by that orange face ass clown.. but i'm heartened to read that a backlash may be brewing by his own constituents and right wing media. That for me will be a major silver lining!

[Aerows]

95. Me as well

This whole thing doesn't sit well with *many* people from many different political alignments. Netanyahu and Boehner have both majorly blundered here, in my view.

[joshcryer]

108. That Obama would stop negotiation is asinine.

I addressed this in another post. At most this will make Obama negotiate from a less compromising position. But can damn sure be assured that Obama won't "walk out of talks" like the petulant republicans did dozens of times in the past 6 years. He will be ready and willing to have a discussion.

[2banon]

109. Are you responding to my post?

Have no idea what you're referring to.

[Rex]

94. I bet you didn't know Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton!

Did you know that? I bet you didn't!

[neverforget]

101. I see your fan club is active.

[MannyGoldstein]

102. It's like walking through a wading pool

filled with chihuahuas cranked up on LSD and crystal meth.