Morning Must Reads: Symbolic

Bow and Obama. Two black and white poodles. Both walked dogs. At least the dog has instinct. Most people feel contempt for people who have been out of work for 99 weeks, because they could always get a job flipping burgers. We as a people feel respect for others willing to work two low level jobs to support their children. Those people we want to help. People who feel too good to work lower.. and want more than 99 weeks of unemployment instinctively turn most people off. It is like a stray dog that keeps pissing on your carpet. I’m talking instinctive feelings. I understand it lacks a certain amount of empathy.. but most people react instinctively.
So here are the democrats will to give more money to the rich so that they can give people unwilling to work flipping burgers to support themselves more money.
That is how most people in the middle will see it.
Democrats are fools. They are all heart and head but totally lack gut instinct so fail to understand middle America.
Fools.
Obama will be tagged the republicans poodle. Weak.
Obama will be tagged a wall street whore who tosses money to lazy freeloaders.
It might not be totally fair.. but that is how it will play out.

Slight OT, I brought up the whole primary challenger to Obama on another thread in another forum and their response was similar. A bunch of people weren’t happy about the prospects of a second Obama term, but then the prospects of who such a challenger would be came up and everyone got silent. I was curious whether swampland had any input on who such a challenger should be, even if they weren’t “electable,” I’d kind of like to know who other liberals think would actually stand for their values.

Sorry I don’t have a “must read” to go with it.

–Bush tax cuts state of play: The White House wants a year-long extension of unemployment benefits and the major tax credits from the stimulus renewed in exchange for extending the Bush-era breaks in full.
,

Why do I get the feeling that he is trying to buy me off. I mean the Tax credit of $400 for an individual and $800 for a family. I feel sooooo good about it!

I’m not really a liberal, but the tax cut thing has me waiting.
.
If Obama caves in to the GOP and gives them an extension without the 250k limit, even with START and the 99′ers, then I’m going to vote for Obama’s opponent in any primary run-up to 2012.

I think the tax cuts should lapse if there is no other way.
.
I’ll be willing to take my medicine, and even like it, because I know the rich will have to take the same medicine…

See, but that’s just the point. Who is that primary opponent going to be? If it were Lieberman (and it wouldn’t be), I wouldn’t vote for him. And that’s the point. The reason we took Obama in the first place was because he was the best option available. Is there a better one?

“Obama will be tagged a wall street whore who tosses money to lazy freeloaders.”
.
That will be my opinion if he allows an extension, unmodified, of the tax cuts.

I’d have to wait and see. Liebermann is totally not it. I’d have to go with Obama too.

I think as far as these tax cuts are concerned, most Dems, except the blue dogs, will revolt, and that might have an effect on the primaries in 1212.
.
Boehner is really feelin’ it I guess. He wants to wag this dog now! His talk about how things are “going to be” is the highest form of chutzpah I’ve ever seen.
.
And it will make Obama look incredibly weak as a result if Boehner gets his way even he does get some concessions.

Howard Dean is a “gut” type. He would be divisive but far more effective in regards to getting real progressive legislation passed. He would have used the reconciliation process for the public option and for ending the tax cuts for the rich. He would flush the middle with more cash because they spend it and it stimulates the economy and creates job because of demand. It is demand side economics in action. Give it to the rich proves that they give themselves bigger bonuses than before the recession, if they spend it.. they spend it on a few luxury product or vacations that do not benefit business growth much. One rich person with $100,000 tax break does not spend it like a 100 middle class people with an extra $1000 tax break. Middle class America needs money for car repair, new home appliances, winter clothes, food, heating and AC repair.. the money ends up in the pockets of small businesses all over America. It flushes our nation with cash and growth. Bottom up. demand side economics. Everyone profits.

Obama is a coward in many ways. Howard is not.
Yet, I’m not sure it would do democrats to split in 2012.

However, if Obama is now just going to start being the republicans walked poodle.. and give up.. and try and scare us with a jobs report.. in the process of letting down the majority of people who voted for him on such a pivotal issue..

I’m so sick of the privileged few scaring the public into supporting policies that prove to enrich them while sucking our country dry of revenue.. making us borrow money from China so we can give them more tax cuts.. it makes me feels ill.

I wish Howard would speak up.

With unemployment at 9.8% and rising, all we need in this country is a continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts, because it has worked out so well. While we are at it we can continue the unfunded war. Perhaps we can even lower the Tax rate to extend the unemployment payments out for say a couple more years. Oh and pay for it out of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Chips, Education, and go to some voucher system to help out the wealthy.
.
The problem is mine, I just do not get it!

gumOnShoe:
.
Well…
.
I’m starting to think that a primary isn’t a good idea, but I could be convinced.
.
That doesn’t mean I want to vote for Obama, though.
.
So I am actually thinking about a draft Bloomberg campaign.
.
I know, it sounds hilarious coming from me, an avowed political enemy of the establishment center-right and techocratic center-left, but…it’s so crazy it might work.
.
It’s not that I think that Bloomberg will solve any of our problems, or be much more or less of a centrist failure than Obama, it’s that there needs to be a way of punishing the Democrats for failure that doesn’t involve electing a candidate even partially beholden to the neo-conservative, Iran-bombing cabal.
.
So even though it sounds like a big joke coming from a movement liberal like me, I’m thinking that it might be useful to counter partisan Democrats’ usual fear-mongering and spin about the consequences of electing scary Republicans by going the centrist independent route, as silly as the Broder-esque fantasy is.
.
How would Obama differentiate himself from the centrist Bloomberg without blowing the whole DLC-Democrat thing up, and “moving to the left?” Would he campaign to the right of Hillary? How would that work, exactly? Since there’s only tiny ideological differences between Obama and Bloomberg, it would all be about the record of competence, which Obama would lose.
.
Another centrist in the race would give Democrats, especially liberal Democrats the ability to deliver electoral consequences to Obama and the rest of the shameful Dem establishment, and yet not vote for the Palin or Pawlenty rightist who had just made their primary beds with voters who want Federal funds for creation museums and purity balls.
.
I am thinking about bringing this funny idea up with Marcy Wheeler this Sunday evening when we discuss the week’s developments on Virtually Speaking Sundays.
.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking

The default position should be to let the tax cuts expire, just as the Dubya-led GOPers planned for them to do.

The compromise position should be to make the cuts up to the first $250K of income permanent, like what was just passed by the House.

That’s it. If the compromise position is not achievable, then the GOP-planned expiration triggers, ending those cuts in January.

And I’ll gladly take my medicine…

I think that’s a very decent way to put it, 53_3, well said.

“Boehner is really feelin’ it I guess. He wants to wag this dog now! His talk about how things are “going to be” is the highest form of chutzpah I’ve ever seen.”

lol, God yes. It makes me recoil. Watching Obama be the republican dog is such a turn off. It is foul. The middle will not respect Obama if he allows himself to become “The gimp”.
I think I’ll send him the movie Pulp fiction and a gimp mask for x-mas if he rolls over on the tax cuts like a poodle. It is so gross to watch him. Women don’t respect men who are gimps. It’s instinctive repulsion. Obama is clueless.

I think the political system is too far entrenched. I do not know what the answer is but to take to the streets. We have no voice so we have to make one.

Obama has brought this on himself. His political career was centered on bringing people together, and he’s so married to that theme that he cannot see that they do not want to compromise.
.
If I was the prez, I would publically dress Boehner down and tell him:
.
“Ok. You’re what? 42 or 43? You’re a tail, Boehner, and I’m the dog.”
.
“Now I’m telling you it’s time to wag, and if you don’t, then we’ll just keep the public eye on it, ok?

But that hasn’t been the position. Obama’s positions have always been, “this is relatively exactly what I want, I’m not going to ask for more, but if you push me hard enough you can have more of what you want than I’ll take for myself.”

And that’s ultimately the problem The republicans are going to move the goalposts, but Obama set the goalposts up right at across the end zone at the point of “no more attrition” from the beginning.

I actually used chutzpah in a sentence.
.
It seems that people have moderated quite a bit. The the hate filled rhetoric that used to abound is mostly gone.
.
Maybe I helped play a role in that evolution, but to see it wane has pleased me greatly. It should never be, and should never have been allowed a place* in acceptable political discourse.
.
*I’m referring to taboo, not Amendment 1.

in response to [6] btw.

I think the same, but I don’t think the rank and file Dems will back him. They will revolt if Obama falls across the aisle in an attempt to shake an opponents’ hand…

The Republicans are the ones who decided it was important to focus on the deficit because they could make Obama look bad. The press, of course, went along and played it up as a problem in spite of the many economists who said it is not the most important issue to deal with right now.
.
Therefore, let all the tax cuts expire. The Dems won’t get any credit for compromise and we’ll just be adding to the deficit. An extension would only drag the ugly discussion even closer to the 2012 election. Once again the Dems would lose.

I’ve found this to be a relatively representative argument coming from Obama supporters:

“Yes, everybody knows that if Obama had come in twisting arms and rhetoric blazing and imposed his radical socialist will on America, Republicans would have scattered like hummingbirds and he would’ve gotten everything we lefties want.
.
Because there’s nothing white Americans respect more than an angry black man who acts like he’s our boss. ” — beejeez Yesterday 03:12 PM
.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/12/the-fallacy-of-private-knowledge/#

If one understands that this is what they’re willing to say, that this is the argument they’re willing to make to liberals (“You’re ignoring that this is a racist society, liberals! You’re just like the racist, conservative GOP! Bad liberals! Bad, racist liberals!“), one can reasonably predict on what terms a primary campaign will be waged, I think.

Halperin just stops short of calling Democrats insane, and then in his last paragraph accurately lays out the fact that the entire debate revolves around a lie. The Villagers wagons have officially circled.

The White House wants a year-long extension of unemployment benefits and the major tax credits from the stimulus renewed in exchange for extending the Bush-era breaks in full.
.
What an unimaginative plan.
.
Expert testimony before the House claimed these “major tax credits” to be the least stimulative stimulus option available. How about letting all these tax breaks expire- likely that would not only pay for temporarily extending benefits but for hiring the unemployed to begin work on that modern electrical grid we were promised as well.

Sorry Stuart I haven’t found that discussion representative here.
.
That sounds like an excuse to me, not a reason.

I don’t disagree with this. By choosing to remove a talking point from the GOPers’ noise machine, he’s given up too much.

SZ I’m trying to think of the history of “voting strategically” and whether it has ever worked.
.
I think of the “I’ll vote for Nader because there is no difference between Bush and Gore and even if Bush is bad everyone will run to the left once their eyes are open” style of voting and shake my head.
.
I don’t doubt that there are examples but none are coming to me.

“That will be my opinion if he allows an extension, unmodified, of the tax cuts.”

Yeah.. and the more I think about the 99 week unemployment extension for another year.. in exchange for the rich soaking us some more.. the more turned off I become.

99 weeks of unemployment checks. That is almost two frigging years. There is not a chance in hell those people could not find work flipping burgers or serving coffee. CNN had this lady who was an “Art curator” or some such who was a 99 weeker.. and I did not feel sorry for her. She could get a job at Ihop.. but i guess felt she was “too good” for such a lowly position and was just fine taking hand outs and mooching off friends. No middle American respects people like that! WTF?
And democrats think championing those people are going to win them love from the middle. Really?

Democrats think that handing hard working Americans tax money over to rich greedy people and lazy free loaders is going to win them support in 2012??
Really?

Democrats have no gut instinct at all.
There might very well be a practical reason for being such toe sucking push overs.. but what ever it is.. their image is going to suffer like hell.

“I’ll be willing to take my medicine, and even like it, because I know the rich will have to take the same medicine…”
.
Medicine? It’s a prescription of economic stupidity. Unemployment is going up and its been over 9% for 19 months, the most in history.
.
These prospect of higher taxes, more costly regulation and ill-advised laws (HC reform) will keep this figure above 9%. The inability of the left to understand economics is frightening and is being reflected in the economic releases

But PNNTO, this is precisely the opposite of the Nader “strategy”!
.
By not wasting our support on a loser, fringe, lefty protest vote (I’m paraphrasing partisan Dems here), we can A) not vote conservative Republican and B) vote out the centrist Obama!
.
If they’re going to restrict our choices to Obama vs rightist, it’s a “strategic” vote.
.
In a lesser-of-two-evils world, all Democratic votes are strategic, aren’t they?
.
Apart from the year that we were promised “Change we can believe in,” haven’t they all been strategic votes?

*prior quote referring to what was stated @8, not @8.4.
.
That sounds like an excuse to me, not a reason.
.
Yup. And this doesn’t sit well with me:

“Because there’s nothing white Americans respect more than an angry black man who acts like he’s our boss.”

It’s not in my reality where all white folk are blackophobic. If someone did get upset with Obama because he was being pointedly assertive, I’m guessing that they wouldn’t be supporting him anyway.
.
I’ve found this to be a relatively representative argument…
.
Snooping around the DLC-friendly sites again?

freep maybe you missed the mortgage crisis and bank failures, but it wasn’t taxes that caused this situation.

What did I miss?

“At the depths of the worst foreclosure crisis since the Great Depression, we are surprised that the Fed has proposed rules that would eviscerate the primary protection homeowners currently have to escape abusive loans and avoid foreclosure: the extended right of rescission.”

Maybe the Democrats & Wh should focus more on fixing the economy and less about taxing positive contributors to society or targeting those who come out against their policies that infringe on our freedoms.

In light of new reports alleging that the TSA is creating a watch list of individuals who criticized the agency as a form of collective punishment, it’s revealing to note that CNN journalist Drew Griffin was also put on a TSA watch list immediately after he filed reports critical of the organization back in 2008.

As we highlighted earlier this week, a reported TSA memo was circulated at the height of last month’s opt out controversy which “officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as ‘domestic extremists’.”

In response to the story, former Congressman Bob Barr filed a Freedom of Information Act request which demanded to know if the TSA had categorized those leading the charge against invasive security measures, namely Matt Drudge, Alex Jones, and John Tyner, via the websites drudgereport.com and prisonplanet.com, as “domestic extremists”.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that Homeland Security has engaged in political witch hunts against Americans critical of big government. Earlier this year, Big Sis was caught spying on Tea Party groups as well as State Representative Daryl Metcalfe.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnn-reporter-put-on-watch-list-after-criticizing-tsa.html

“The White House wants a year-long extension of unemployment benefits and the major tax credits from the stimulus renewed in exchange for extending the Bush-era breaks in full.”

How about an even better tax cut for the rich, but only if it is tied directly to job creation, which the right argues will result from the cut anyway. Add in about 3 or 4 transformational infrastructure projects, the middle-class tax cut and unemployment extension, both of which will likely end up back in the economy. Then we may have a deal.

My guess, total capitulation for a tax cut that will have no meaningful impact, as Obama has already stated.

Paul: I believe the difference here is the voting that takes place during the primaries versus the general election.
.
You’re correct that a “message/strategic” vote for Nader in the general ended up helping Bush.
.
Likewise, a message/strategic vote for, say, Kucinich, might make the primaries interesting, but he’d have no chance in the general, IMHO.
.
Actually, I kinda like Stuart’s “draft Bloomberg” idea. It could work in both the primary and general elections.
.
I think a case could also be made for a “draft Colin Powell” movement, but I’m concerned that he’s seen as “damaged goods” by the right, and would be a liability in the general.

.”Apart from the year that we were promised “Change we can believe in,” haven’t they all been strategic votes?”
.
Oh I’ve made plenty of affirmative votes for national, statewide, and local elections. I assume you have too.
.
And I think I should make clear I wasn’t going all Eric Alterman on you by using the Nader example I was just using that as a specific case of “strategic” voting that doesn’t pan out the way some had hoped.
.
As best as I can tell (and this couldn’t be more of a parlor game on 12-3-10) any chance of progress would have to come from a primary.
.
LBJ got elected with by a large margin, passed “big things” got bogged down and saw which way the wind was blowing and chose not to run.. That might be the way it goes for BHO.

“in exchange for the rich soaking us some more.. the more turned off I become.”
.
This brain dead economic analysis is tiresome. Soaking you? HOw? It is there money. By keeping THEIR own money it does not create deficits. Spending creates deficits. Tax increases is nothing more than wealth re-distribution. Say it. Let’s stop hiding behind this nonsense of fairness. The left is apoplectic over a 15% profit margin of HC companies but think taking 39% of someones earned money is fairness.
.
Look at the history of tax rates. Regardless of the level 28%-90%, taxes have been between 17-19% (roughly ) historically of GDP. The upper income will shift their income behavior which in this case will prolong unemployment and possible send the US into a second recession.

“Meals for low-income children, unlike tax cuts for millionaires, apparently have to be paid for…”

grape_crush:
.
“Snooping around the DLC-friendly sites again?”
.
Well, yes, as always.
.
But the line (“Bad liberals! Bad, racist liberals!“) is not really coming from DLC-friendly sites, and it’s not a recent phenomenon:

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2010/02/27/racist-attacks-on-president-obama-early-and-often/
.
Racist Attacks on President Obama: Early and Often
.
Feb 27, 2010
.
A blogger over at DailyKos (blackwaterdog) has raised a question I have been thinking about for nearly a year now. How is President Obama being treated differently than other presidents and leading white politicians?
.
The racist imaging has obviously come from the far right wing and white supremacists, but some criticism is also coming from the white left, which can be seen in the left political blogs:

. . . there’s also some hidden and maybe subconscious and disturbing underline tone behind some of the things . . . throughout the Left blogosphere…. “He’s weak, he’s spineless, he’s got no balls, primary him in 2012.”

Adia and I predicted some of this attack in our Yes We Can? Book, but it is already clear that we need to add a chapter to that book on how quickly and severe these attacks have become, and not much more than a year into his pathbreaking Presidency. What do you make of the many attacks on President Obama so far?

As much as we can blame the DLC for so many of our problems, this is not necessarily one of those.
.
This has the sophistication of NDN or OFA, in terms of manipulating movement liberals’ support.

“We made it very clear at the time of the vote that this was a death sentence.”

(h/t to John Cole)

“These prospect of higher taxes, more costly regulation and ill-advised laws (HC reform) will keep this figure above 9%”
.
Thank you Free In Pennsylvania!
.
When will these silly libtards understand that the producers in this Exceptional country are our true salvation! Not the government!
.
Why can’t we just go back to the low corporate tax rates we had under the Greatest President the Greatest Country has ever known, Ronald Reagan? The corporate tax rate in the 80s was only 28%-69%! It must be like 80%-90% now, right? (I’m ballparking here… maybe one of my conservative compatriots can provide the actual rate?) It has to be super high, because corporate profits are way down! That right, isn’t it? I mean corporations are complaining a lot and not hiring, so profits must be way down. There’s no other explanation, really. I should probably look that up when I get a chance. It might also be way down due to over-regulation so some tree hugging liberal can save the spotted stoner bird or some such nonsense. Either way, I’m sure its the Dimowits fault that profits are so bad. Obviously!
.
I propose we tax corporations between 1%-5%. Just think of how many jobs THAT would create! We can offset the decrease in taxes with the increase in taxes from the now super profitable corporations! In the meantime, the unemployed will just have to find some other scam to get their cadillacs and crack! Maybe they’ll actually have to get off their lazy butts and get jobs!

“Others are watching, and they’ll use those words the next time some media outlet publishes something they don’t like.”

The first time I heard the “spineless” argument it came from Canadian blogger I occasionally read who, after looking at his own country is completely turned off by our politics.
·
I’m paraphrasing, but basically the argument he consistently makes with regard to our politics is that the Republicans have the easy job since they largely are trying to please people who don’t care about facts, evidence, or people who are different than themselves; whereas the Democrats have a hard time because all of their attempts at logical arguments require willing listeners.
·
That said, I don’t think calling Obama spineless is racist. He just isn’t an advocate, he’s a negotiator. But having no one to negotiate with, he’s a very poor leader at the moment.

Do you really think that 10% of the population is simply too lazy to get a job?

The corporate tax rate in the 80s was only 28%-69%! It must be like 80%-90% now, right
-
wow, realest. Just how ignorant are you? The highest corporate rate in the US is now 39%.

http://www.taxrates.cc/html/us-tax-rates.html
-
But keep fantasizing about Rino Reagan.

You’re blaming the Obama WH for something that TSA did in May 2008? No wonder you’re confused about current events.

“…it’s that there needs to be a way of punishing the Democrats for failure that doesn’t involve electing a candidate even partially beholden to the neo-conservative, Iran-bombing cabal.”
.
The trouble with that is 1) “punishment” is about retribution, which is more emotion than rational politics and 2) anything that punishes Democrats will necessarily strengthen Republicans and “conservatives”. I also fail to see how split centrist parties get us anywhere against “conservatives” and the plutocrats. The whole exercise has to be to make the body politic more progressive not simply more fractured – and the problem with the party is already that in contains an ideologically inconsistent array of politicians including many “conservatives” and centrists, promoting more democratic centrism seems likely only to exacerbate their ideological pollution.
.
We have to keep working to improve the public media, promote progressive Democratic candidates and make the best electoral choices available. It may not be a satisfying as “punishing” politicians whom you feel have betrayed (obviously, it isn’t satisfying at all at the moment) you but it the only rational course.

Ack! Poe strikes again.

This has the sophistication of NDN or OFA, in terms of manipulating movement liberals’ support.
.
If so, then it’s one of the most stupidly divisive manipulations I know of.
.
If there is a cult of personality attached to Obama, I can think of few worse expressions of loyalty than to infer that voters and activists (who are at least sympathetic to the object of their affection) disagree with his policy stances because of bigotry. Criticism is not necessarily racism, which is something that those persons responsible for that quote you excerpted don’t seem to understand….Support for a set of principles isn’t the same act as playing follow the leader.
.
And for you Teabaggers out there who may be reading this: There are more than enough extreme examples of racially-motivated criticism of Obama coming from members (and leaders) of your corporate-sponsored ‘movement’ that you have no grounds for comparison.

ohiolib, you’ve been had.
.
Don’t feel bad. He/she does a hilariously good impression of the Teatard species.

Struart,

Frankly I just see this as more blame the GOP tripe when in fact it is us, or our leadership that has failed to come up with an effective message and, or, willing to stake their political capital on doing the correct thing.
.
It boils down to what I find as the consensus today, No leadership, lack of message, no spine, just more begging.

ehh..The problem is that the trolls around here have become caricatures of themselves. It makes it so hard to tell who’s serious and who’s not. Ah well.

“I’m paraphrasing, but basically the argument he consistently makes with regard to our politics is that the Republicans have the easy job since they largely are trying to please people who don’t care about facts, evidence, or people who are different than themselves; whereas the Democrats have a hard time because all of their attempts at logical arguments require willing listeners.”
.
Yes, that’s one of the huge disadvantages for Democrats. Their base tend to seek reason and facts and discover and be appalled by lies, quite unlike the right wing base. Two others: one, Democrats care about the business of governing, where Republicans and their base care only that government be proved to be unnecessary and incompetent and lastly, the Democratic base cares about things like comity and cooperation, whereas the Teatards possess mostly a reactionary, oppositional and sometimes down right fascist psychology.
.
People seldom take those huge disadvantages into account when they complain about supposed Democratic pusillanimousness and failure.

The upper income will shift their income behavior which in this case will prolong unemployment
.
If the CEO of a large company gets $50K in income tax breaks, how many new employees will his/her company hire? Conversely, if he/she pays $50K more in income taxes, how many will be laid off?

I don’t guess that they’re really “surprised” at all. What an elegant way to disappear millions of fraudulent mortgages and the bank losses that go right along with them.

grape_crush:
.
“I can think of few worse expressions of loyalty than to infer that voters and activists…disagree with his policy stances because of bigotry.”
.
That’s exactly correct. It’s also morally wrong, and anti-reality.
.
Just to be clear, although there seems to be a small fringe of loyalists who will accept arguments like these, the line seems to be coming from high political places in the Village:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04rich.html?_r=1
.
It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Obama!
.
By FRANK RICH
Published: April 3, 2010
.
Last week, after I wrote about the role race plays in some of the apocalyptic right-wing hysteria about the health care bill, a friend who is a prominent liberal Obama supporter sent me an e-mail flipping my point. He theorized that race also plays a role in “the often angry and intemperate talk” he has been hearing from “left-liberal friends for the past many months about what a failure and a disappointment” the president has been.
.
In his view, “Obama never said anything, while running, to give anyone the idea” that he was other than a “deliberate, compromise-seeking bipartisan moderate.” My friend wondered if white liberals who voted for Obama expected a “sweeping Republicans-be-damned kind of agenda” in part — and he emphasized “in part!” — because “they expect a black guy to be intemperate, impetuous, impatient” rather than “measured, deliberate, patient.”

Variations on this theme can be predicted and expected, I think, the closer we get to mounting any sort of electoral challenge to Obama, no matter what damage his policies or politics do over the next two years.
.
His supporters seem to have preempted a movement against him, actually, as if there were still a low-level primary campaign going on this whole time.
.
I’d just like to touch on this, briefly:
.
“And for you Teabaggers…”
.
At this point, I don’t think that we have to worry about liberals’ credibility in terms of being able to speak to neo-Southern Strategy politics suffering when it becomes known that we can distinguish between real acknowledgment and dishonest political attacks. If anything, our ability to call partisan Democrats or OFA out on these sorts of ridiculous attacks confers credibility, and implies that there’s some over-arching integrity to our thought processes on the subject that isn’t politically-motivated.

“Maybe the Democrats & Wh should focus more on fixing the economy and less about taxing positive contributors to society…”
.
You mean the one destroyed by Republicans and other “conservatives” partly using those very tax policies?

Hey, Joe Lieberman, permanent Chair of Homeland Security advised Amazon.
.
Because we elected Democrats in ’06 and ’08 so that Joe Lieberman could prevent Americans from seeing public information, right?

And he calls himself the “realest” American.
.
(_).) pfft
.
That’s my salute to him. Yes. Only a popcorn fart.
.
‘cuz I’m realer’er than he izz…

“Michelle Rhee lands on Florida Crook-elect Rick Scott’s transition team (!)”
.
Fixed it for you…
…and why would Crook hire an education bully? Could be that she’ll likely get away with stuff down here that she couldn’t in DC.
.
Gonna be a long, long four years…
…or shorter, if he’s indicted.

Ok I have had fun venting over the last few days. I can see that the Politicians know us better then we know them and, our selves.

After her position as secretary of state ends, Hillary Clinton will retire:

Source: Salon

shepherdwong:
.
““punishment” is about retribution, which is more emotion than rational politics”
.
I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood me.
.
It’s not that I’m suggesting “punishment” as an outlet for feelings of disappointment or anger –not at all.
.
I’m using the term “punishment” in the sense that we would use it when sentencing convicted criminals to prison terms, i.e. dispassionately, and in order to achieve relative short-term justice, and to promote social goals (accountability).
.
As far as your other points, well…I have to do some work now, so I’ll let them stand unargued, saying that they are well-taken, and should be considered.

“freep maybe you missed the mortgage crisis and bank failures, but it wasn’t taxes that caused this situation.”
.

No it was the failure of the most regulated industry we have in this country–banking. And what is the liberal solution? More regulation. Of course- the blind led by the stupid. Great answer. Increase the costs and keep down employment while creating more bureaucratic morass.

OK, I stand corrected on your dispassion about punishment. I have to ask though, if the intention is to send a message that corrects behavior, don’t you think Democrats were just punished plenty? They have to know they’re staring into the abyss on the tax question and yet its’ still looking as though they’ll give the oligarchs exactly what they want, sound public policy, deficits and electoral drubbings be damned. We simply have no power to equal the Master of Everything.
.
Anyway, thanks for reading and considering my thoughts.

There was a Draft Bloomburg campaign in ’08. I was all for it. But then Bloomburg decided not to run and I had to back Obama. Obama hasn’t delivered. And I’m not just talking liberal things like medicaid for all. Obama hasn’t delivered anything that doesn’t look like something Bush or any other republican might have done. The Dems need far better leadership.

So, you are arguing that the banks failed, and hence made horrible loans because they were regulated?

First, I made no mention of folks not wanting to work. But there is a percentage that does not. It is easier to take entitlements than to work. If not just review the liberal arguments as to why we need illegal immigrants.
.
“If the CEO of a large company gets $50K in income tax breaks, how many new employees will his/her company hire? Conversely, if he/she pays $50K more in income taxes, how many will be laid off?”
.
This is a simpleton question to elicit just one answer. Of course with any amount of economic analysis it leads to a broader picture. Why limit it to a big company? Because we can crucify them with impunity. The CEo might not hire a single person for his company (because he knows high taxes will limit economic growth) but he might buy a car, take his family and friends out to dinner, shopping, a vacation any number of things that would create demand for other businesses.

Conversely, it is an unknown but it might be more than you think. Consider the bonus pool to all executives of a given company. They may have gotten limited bonuses this year and now with a tax increase it may be less. The take home money to all of them drop by tens of thousands. For the company to provide increased bonuses they will need to up the bonus pool to compensate for the tax increase. If it reduces profits, that CEO will look to cut other costs, and guess where that comes from? The rank and file?
.
You can whine all you want about it being unfair and greed but businesses are called businesses because profit is the goal and motive for successful operation.

Check a dictionary for the meaning of spending

Oftentimes, people who are highly educated can not get hired flipping burgers because hiring managers know that as soon as something better comes along, those people will be the first to go–it increases the cost of doing business because of training.

Liberals squawked that Republicans will get rid of Pelosi’s “Ethics Committee” and now we can see why the Republicans are making a good decision. It will save time and money because it is useless. Rangel should be in jail. Instead liberal whine about how hard an ordeal it was for this criminal.
.
Pelosi, as the rules require, did not read all the charges and in the end Team Donkey applauded Rangel. He remains collecting a taxpayer paid salary and a pension.
.
Let’s here it for Democratic ethics!!!!!

On Friday, the CBS Early Show failed to make any mention of New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel being censured by the House of Representatives on Thursday for 11 ethics violations. ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today did cover the historic punishment, but adopted a very sympathetic tone toward Rangel.

In a slightly extended news brief on Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos described the censure as “an unusual moment,” seeming to lament that Rangel “had to accept the punishment.” Correspondent Jonathan Karl remarked that Rangel “was defiant right to the end” and “told reporters this was a very political vote.” Stephanopoulos concluded the report by praising such bitterness: “That’s right. He fought it. He tried to get an alternative passed. But in the end, handled that apology with real grace.

.
According to CBS Evening News host Katie Couric on Thursday, the censure of Charles Rangel was “painful” for “everyone watching” and a “fall from grace.” Reporter Nancy Cordes also tried to find the “silver lining” in the Congressman’s reelection.

I’ve been saying that for months. Just let the tax cuts expire, let taxes raise on everybody in January. If Obama really to give the middle class a tax cut, he can submit one to Congress for a vote–and then we’ll really see how many are for or against helping the poor and middle class.

Yes, tax cuts it the problem for deficits especially when you spend spend spend. Now not only does Obama want more spending he wants to be able to select how it is spent. Apparently he doesn’t like that part of the Constitution either.
.
Only liberals know hoe best to spend money, especially when its not theirs!

Many agencies would be left frozen at their current spending levels, but the documents indicate the White House is seeking more than $11.4 billion in new spending above 2010, chiefly for foreign aid and defense accounts as well as education initiatives and housing assistance for low-income tenants. The administration also wants to a remarkably open-ended authority to transfer funds between accounts – a power that is sure to be resisted by the Appropriations Committee leadership

Yes but that’s a pretty lame excuse overall. Most of the problem according to employers is not overqualified but under qualified. And of course the liberal answer is spend more money. Maybe if they were as concerned about performance in education as political correctness, diversity and other non-productive inefficient uses of capital that wouldn’t be the issue, The need isn’t more money by accountability.
.
However the bulk of unemployed is young, poor and minority, so are you saying they are not qualified? Not willing to work? both?

Yes it was tax policy to cause people to be over-leveraged. And just a timy clue (since you don’t have one). The longer the glut of foreclosed houses remain on the market the lower ALL real estate prices will go and the longer construction remains as a loser of jobs.

But then if that gets fixed liberals would have to find something else to whine about.

. For the company to provide increased bonuses they will need to up the bonus pool to compensate for the tax increase. If it reduces profits, that CEO will look to cut other costs, and guess where that comes from? The rank and file?

·
This is the point at which your entire argument becomes so perverted I can’t follow along. You’re basically arguing that companies not providing bonuses is a good reason to fire people because that will free up money. And it appears you’re making that argument in a bubble, from which the “rank & file” provides nothing to the company and they are expendable.
·
It is short sided profit motivation and ignores the idea of “building a business.” If the one goal of a CEO is bonuses, then they are willing to drive the company into the ground for the sake of short term profit. Like a vampire squid they move in, suck everything out and leave a shell of a corpse, but because they profited it was in their best interests and market economics is a success. It also then follows from this distorted logic that their slow dispersement of invested revenue overtime somehow helps the economy more than have a function business with employees who actually spent more of the money faster and on goods which are generally considered necessities of life, and if they aren’t necessities they are at least fairly priced entertainments that won’t break the bank and are worth producing on a cost/functionality level.
·
But your argument is not for a society of compensated producers and consumers, but for that of voracious vampire squids who will rip your arm off for a buck, so long as there is profit in it for them (or the appearance of one).

“Obama hasn’t delivered anything that doesn’t look like something Bush or any other republican might have done.”
.
That’s just irrational nonsense that doesn’t elucidate anything. Please stop.
.
http://www.urlesque.com/2010/11/02/what-the-fck-has-obama-done-so-far-contains-information-and/

Except for the wee fact that it is the GOP that has been the big spender.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
.
But hey!
.
Cheer up freeinpa!! It’s even color coded — red for GOP!
.
ALL, with the exception of the current administration, are GOP…

He’s actually agreeing with you.
.
The fact that it is “…the most regulated…” is beside the point.
.
You see, if the banks were enabled to circumvent them by yoo-no-hoo…

Still dumber by the day. The President does not have the authority to spend one dime.

“The longer the glut of foreclosed houses remain on the market the lower ALL real estate prices will go and the longer construction remains as a loser of jobs. But then if that gets fixed liberals would have to find something else to whine about.”
.
In fact, it is strictly liberals who are “whining” about the Democratically-controlled government’s failure to “fix” that problem. I take it then you are either in favor of some sort of cramdown, where lenders are forced to write down the value of their paper to match home values or some illegal scheme where fraudulent bank-held mortgages are immediately re-sold to hide both their mortgage fraud and the valuelessness of the bank assets they represent, because those are the only solutions available.
.
And please don’t trouble you’re confused little head, as long as “conservatives” and centrists are in charge and doing the bidding of the banking, insurance, pharmaceutical, oil, defense and media industries, and that appears to be, like, forever, liberals will have plenty to whine about.

Great work freeinpa. I love your deniability in the face of facts. It’s so, so…
.
…insane!
.
ALL, with the exception of the current administration, are GOP…

Here:
…o…
…..o….
..o……
….o…
………O….
(_).) ppppt
.
Bite it when the bubble surfaces, freeinpa…

“The President does not have the authority to spend one dime.”
.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42768339/The-Power-of-the-President
.
Still dumber by the day.

“The highest corporate rate in the US is now 39%”
.
Whatever the rate is, the US Corporate tax rate is one of, if not the highest in the industrialized world.
.
“So, you are arguing that the banks failed, and hence made horrible loans because they were regulated”
.
No, despite being highly regulated which shows how useless government is. More regulation will end in a similar crisis a number of years down the road, in the meantime it will just be more wasted money on more worthless bureaucrats that the taxpayer will support and then be charged a second time by the banks as their costs rise.

Yes the banks should write them down over some period.
.
“And please don’t trouble you’re confused little head, as long as “conservatives” and centrists are in charge and doing the bidding of the banking, insurance, pharmaceutical, oil, defense and media industries, and that appears to be, like, forever, liberals will have plenty to whine about.”
.
No we should let the government take over all of those industries because they have done such a great job with the Post Office, Amtrak, Freddie and Fannie. Then you could whine about how we need more taxes, only there won’t be any income to tax!

All appropriations bill are passed by Congress. Speaking of which do you think Team Donkey will pass one anytime soon.

Sorry then, for missing that point, but I still disagree with the argument that regulation is a waste of money, especially when that argument is based on a system that had recently been deregulated or wasn’t being enforced properly as a matter of policy at the time because people were claiming “regulation is prohibitively expensive.”
·
That’s like defining a word by using the word you’re defining in the definition. “Regulation doesn’t work because when we tried to deregulate last time bad things happened” haaa cha chaaaa! *Waves hands magically*

Killer thread. My late-in-the-day thoughts:

Bloomie is a terrible idea. If there’s going to be a draft-anyone campaign, let’s draft Feingold or Dean or [insert authentic liberal candidate] here. IOW, if we hope to have a liberal narrative among the choices in the next interminable election cycle, let’s not hope a fellow centrist (Bloomie) is going force our New Dem president to be a pander-bear for a year or two, only to instantly pivot back to the center in the end.

Additionally, punishment hardly a movement makes. Liberals must have a horse in the race, whether an indy, 3rd party candie, or in the primaries. We need to start focusing our energies on an agenda and a movement that transcends the limitations of the dem party and the duopoly. It’s a rigged game, which we can all agree on, and we simply can’t continue to play by its rules (i.e. putting on the face paint and joining the kabuki).

If Obama is to be challenged, it must be from the left or it’s simply not worth doing. That said, I do agree that an independent run (even if it fails) is preferable to a primary run. While the result may amt. to punishment, splitting the center-left vote and handing the election to the GOP candidate, we begin the long/arduous work of rebuilding from virtual scratch a liberal/populist movement in this country. I no longer feel this is possible within the dem party. That said, if a liberal primary opponent comes FWD, I’ll enthusiastically support him/her.

Whether it’s the ACA and liberal members of congress or elected centrists and their liberal base–if there are no consequences to your outright whorish behavior and abandonment of Americans’ interests, then why in god’s name would you stop turning tricks.

Finally, for Shep, though not here, I’ve detected a note of sympathy for our favorite elected centrists (not here but in recent threads). The have you seen Obama lately/how he’s aged line a few weeks back. That they’re scared of the boogedy boogedy oligarchs etc. As if they’re facing the freakin’ breadlines if their patron class cuts off the funds. These were mostly rich (lawyers) who’ll continue to be rich when they leave office. If, by your words, they do not deserve our anger or resentment for failing to meet our needs, then they sure as hell don’t deserve our empathy.

“Finally, for Shep, though not here, I’ve detected a note of sympathy for our favorite elected centrists (not here but in recent threads).”
.
Sad for me, I suppose, I have sympathy for lots of people (call me a bleeding-heart liberal, if you must). Not very much for people who have essentially made very lucrative career choices and rationalized those choices by telling themselves they’ve accomplished all that could be accomplished (even if true) when it comes at the cost of intentionally deceiving the public and ensconcing truly ugly policies into law.
.
However, unlike many liberals, I reserve my anger for the people who orchestrate, perpetuate and control this sort of treason, the sociopaths who run the industries that constantly seek to corrupt our democracy and f@ck everyone but themselves for fun and profit and the most egregious purveyors of their traitorous lies. I like to keep my eye on the ball and place my sympathies and anger accordingly.

Personally, I wouldn’t back anyone that did not have a really good chance of beating the Republican candidate. This country cannot take another George W. Bush.

You see yourself participating next cycle jc?

“Whatever the rate is, the US Corporate tax rate is one of, if not the highest in the industrialized world.”
.
A statement that is both irrelevant and dishonest (I’m shocked!) because no one has to pay it.

About two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay taxes annually from 1998 to 2005, according to a new report scheduled to be made public today from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
.
In 2005, after collectively making $2.5 trillion in sales, corporations gave a variety of reasons on their tax returns to account for the absence of taxable revenue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102324.html

Swampland reporters should take a pledge never to quote Halperin or POLITICO. Not going to happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/12/01/business/01retrographic.html
.
Interesting graph showing the amount of taxes the very rich paid in the 1940s, They still remained rich.
.
Of course we were coming out of a depression and fighting a war on 2 fronts. Oh wait…

“Speaking of which do you think Team Donkey will pass one anytime soon.”
.
Not until Team Traitor stops blocking the business of running the government in service to their treasonous paymasters.

Shep,
.
I’d merely reply that it’s the same “ball.” Again, as you said yesterday, there probably is no way to circumvent the oligarchy’s stranglehold on the duopoly and very little chance of reversing the corp-coup. Where we differ is in thinking that if we continue playing by the same rules, within the confines of the same game, that we’re going to get better results.
.
Paul,
.
I think I’ve explained my views previously about local races vis-à-vis my expat status. I will participate in the presidential election if I have a liberal choice on the ballot (primary or general).

I am all for letting the tax cuts expire. Of course, I am one of the lazy poor who pays no taxes.
Seriously, I have no problem not receiving a SS COLA in 2 years.
Let the cuts expire.

Dean and Feingold have stated they support Obama and would not challenge him in 2012.

lilaland, you do know the word “gimp” is derogatory of physically challenged individuals. Also, I am disappointed in Obama but am not looking for a macho man (GW) to lead us.

Ian Welsh today:
.
“If the left doesn’t stand against Obama and doesn’t primary him, it stands for nothing and for nobody.”

The public sure didn’t notice the tax break they got with the stimulus plan. Let them expire. After some hoohah, they won’t notice the change. Then Dems have to come up with some good messaging.

jc, you understand-I hope-the frustration with the blow it all up point of view being hard to take for people who have to live directly with the consequences.
.
Not even saying that I’m not sympathetic to that but I really sway back and forth between that and the reality of what republican one party (which is what a republican president would certainly usher in) rule would mean for citizens in the U.S.

lila: Many of the unemployed are over 50. Companies will not hire them because they are: over qualified, will raise the companies health care premium, prefer younger employees.
.
I was laid off just before my 62nd birthday. Believe me, I went on a lot of job interviews. No, at my age I wasn’t going to flip burgers. Not because of aversion to hard work (I have worked at canneries, waited tables, etc in my younger years) but physical limitations.
.
Unfortunately, the longer one is on unemployment the harder it is to get hired.
.
Why don’t you do some research and share it with us? Where is your proof that the 99ers are malingerers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/on-jobs-robert-rubin-poin_n_791690.html?ref=tw
.
Can no one tell Robert Rubin to STFU.
.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/27/923642/-Inside-JobFinancial-Calamity,-A-Whos-Who
.
A good rundown of those oligarchs and their henchmen who brought us where we are.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/understanding-john-mccain.html
.
If you want to bother, a good article about understanding John McCain. Maybe the Villagers could learn something.

Governor Christie didn’t want money to finish a commuter tunnel. But, he sure wants to give money to finish a mall for private interests.
.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/12/seems-about-right-5
.
Why you can’t negotiate with Paul Ryan: Because he is stubbornly wrong.
.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79615/why-you-cant-negotiate-paul-ryan

“Where we differ is in thinking that if we continue playing by the same rules, within the confines of the same game, that we’re going to get better results.
.
I beg of you, point me to another game with better rules.

“Can no one tell Robert Rubin to STFU.”
.
From what I’ve seen, no one but their wives ever tell CEOs that they’re wrong or to STFU. It’s why they eventually start thinking they’re always right when everyone else knows better.

BTW, I think Welsh is wrong here:
.
“If the left doesn’t stand against Obama and doesn’t primary him, it stands for nothing and for nobody.”
.
“The left” needs to stand against Obama when he’s wrong and stand with Obama when he’s right, just like they have been doing. It doesn’t need to become a mindless, anger-driven political force that doesn’t separate sh!t from Shinola, all while facilitating the oligarchs’ treason. We already have one of those and it’s killing us.

Wow free, I ask a simple question and you go off on a half-dozen different directions- and don’t answer it.
.
I did find it amusing that you’d mention the “upper income” then make the argument that putting money in their hands will “create demand”. You actually argued liberal theory, only backwards. Liberals want to create demand, conservatives want to create supply. I agree with you that we need to create demand- just remember “upper income” typically refers to 2% of the population, they won’t move the needle. Putting money in the hands of the other 98%, well now you’ve got something.
.
Taking it further, when in economic crisis, such as now, a program where the government hires un/underemployed to do special projects creates far more demand than a tax break. So you’re making a Keyneisian argument, only with the 2%ers that spend readily, instead of where the argument belongs, with the rest of us who watch our pennies.
.
By your answer we can see that, intellectually, you realize we’re right, but you stubbornly try to fit our round peg into your square ideological hole, and you end up making confused comments like the one above.

Wow free, I ask a simple question and you go off on a half-dozen different directions- and don’t answer it.
.
I did find it amusing that you’d mention the “upper income” then make the argument that putting money in their hands will “create demand”. You actually argued liberal theory, only backwards. Liberals want to create demand, conservatives want to create supply. I agree with you that we need to create demand- just remember “upper income” typically refers to 2% of the population, they won’t move the needle. Putting money in the hands of the other 98%, well now you’ve got something.
.
Taking it further, when in economic crisis, such as now, a program where the government hires un/underemployed to do special projects creates far more demand than a tax break. So you’re making a Keynesian argument, only with the 2%ers that spend readily, instead of where the argument belongs, with the rest of us who watch our pennies.
.
By your answer we can see that, intellectually, you realize we’re right, but you stubbornly try to fit our round peg into your square ideological hole, and you end up making confused comments like the one above.

Jon Stewart demonstrates that John McCain is the Black Knight….

“The left” needs to stand against Obama when he’s wrong and stand with Obama when he’s right, just like they have been doing.”
.
Well you have a point there. Trouble is it looks like he is going more and more to the right, and I have to oppose him on too much. So is the Democratic Party going to be come the new moderate GOP Party?

So, just to be clear, liberals who oppose Obama outright, based on the overwhelming evidence reflected during nearly two years in office, are mindless, driven only by their irrational anger. Whether we vote for a Nader-figure or simply opt to stay home, we’re stupid and emotional. Fair enough, good to know where you’re coming from, but let’s just say you sound an awful lot like various WH officials who talked a bunch of sh!t about their base during the last year.
.
And ironically the same name-calling could be employed against partisans like yourself–that nothing is as irrational and mindless as continuing to vote for the folks who’ve been pissing all over you for years. That, in fact, it’s this mindset that’s facilitating the oligarchs’ treason. That you’re validating a dem leadership who are obviously eager to work with the corporate mafia for personal gain. That the people who rule over you are worthy of your time and effort. Sorry man, but that’s some servile sh!t right there.
.
Listen, the lesser than two evils approach to the ballot box is fine. I respect anyone who chooses to vote on those terms. But don’t start clucking to me about sh!t vs. shinola when they’re both turds. And telling people who’ve opted out of a rigged game that they’re merely petulant and stupid, when by your own admission the coup is in the past tense, JFC man.

BTW
.
“‘The left’ needs to stand against Obama when he’s wrong and stand with Obama when he’s right”
.
Weigh the scales–when has he been “right,” flat out right (i.e. liberal). On the other side tally up all that tasty, mind-boggling wrongness. The left, naturally, should have been opposing him the vast majority of the time during the last two years, and on balance, if wrong so obviously outweighs right, then they should be committed to making a stand in two years, when it counts, when we actually have a cudgel hanging over his head.

As Marcy Wheeler said (of just this week!)

OK: So O’s week: 1) Attack Social Security 2) Tax cuts for the rich 3) Korean Trade Agreement 4) anti-growth pay freeze 5) censorship

Again, weigh the scales man.

“A statement that is both irrelevant and dishonest (I’m shocked!) because no one has to pay it”
.
So your problem is with the tax code. WHich as with every problem is due to government meddling in every aspect of our lives. Micromanaging the economy, regulating light bulbs all comes at a cost. What liberals won’t admit is that more and more laws and regulations do nothing to achieve what they believe, it just exposes more parts of the economy to the nonsense of politicians. And the wish and hope of “pure” politicians is nothing short of a cry to have your prozac doubled.

“Not until Team Traitor stops blocking the business of running the government in service to their treasonous paymasters.”
.
Boo hoo hoo (stamping of feet) of those mean Republicans just let me re-distribute all of their money because I knwo better than everybody the world would be perfect, free ice, no cavities, everybody gets a trophy.

You are pathetic, paranoid and devoid of the common sense God gave Chimps

“And telling people who’ve opted out of a rigged game that they’re merely petulant and stupid, when by your own admission the coup is in the past tense, JFC man.”
.
Well, to quote a response I got to what I thought was fair criticism of Obama on another site, “…then just burn it all down man.”
.
What I never get from you, jc, is then what? How does electorally punishing the Democrats for their sins, either by voting them out or merely leaving the playing field to clueless get us a better government? Paint me a picture.

To the extent that both of you can keep this as reasonable as you have, both knowing that the other is no fool, and accepting the notion that a persuasive argument may possibly be forthcoming, this is a really valuable discussion, in my opinion.

Interesting list but what it doesn’t show is how they behaved over time or the proportion of taxes paid by the rich. One of the problems with high tax rates is they discourage working and investing. Reagan for example only did 3 films some years because it wasn’t worth doing 4. Today’s executives get compensated in a variety of ways to minimize taxes. Warren Buffet famously takes only $100K in salary. And brags about paying less in taxes than his secretary. Funny she can’t afford a $14M private jet or $4M vacation home in CA. Funny he can. What we know starting in 1960 with JFKs tax cuts when you lower the rates the proportion of total taxes paid by the top bracket increases because they declare more income. It happens every time. The reverse it also true, every time.

I’m honestly curious. Obviously, I’m sympathetic to the idea that you shouldn’t keep putting deeply flawed politicians back in power to enact deeply flawed policies, I just haven’t heard of any realistic alternative. I also struggle with the concept of wanting to punish bad behavior by politicians and choosing Democrats over Republicans. The tell for me that’s they don’t even think that’s rational being the obviously false notion frequently heard from scorched-earth liberals that there’s no difference between what the two parties do with power.

Chait is not going to enjoy the next several years. There isn’t going to be a tunnel and both Christie and Ryan are rock stars. I have no illusions they can repeal healthcare but they will modify it and they will go after spending in a very detailed way. Nancys global warming committee is toast and if I worked at the NEH or NPR or PBS I’d expect substantial changes. Obama won’t be raising taxes on anyone and the vote won’t be close. We are going to move slowly to a balanced budget by cutting and then capping spending until total spending hits some level of GDP near 19.5%. The left will be livid. If there is a stimulus it will be 100% tax cuts. Time hasn’t written much on Fridays employment report but they understand it’s political toxicity. Obama blew it. You elected a guy with zero experience in the private sector and a marxist bent economically. It had to go badly. How ironic he can’t raise taxes even 1% even on millionaires.

rdw:
.
Move to Israel…

We are going to move slowly to a balanced budget by cutting and then capping spending until total spending hits some level of GDP near 19.5%
.
I hope you’re right, because the only way we’re going to seriously impact spending is by cutting into our defense budget.
.
As I’ve said before, my hope (unfortunately I have little hope for Obama, who has turned out to be what we would consider a moderate republican only a few years back) is that the Teaparty movement grows to the point where establishment republicans, corporate elites and Fox-and-friends can no longer control it. Then perhaps we’ll see republicans nominate an actual conservative, or even libertarian, to oppose Obama.
.
Yeah, I’d give up industry regulations (which I feel are necessary) and the option to use the Keynesian model to stimulate an economy in crisis– but I’d get an end to overseas neocon folly, to the Long War, to my tax money being spent on cold-war-relic weaponry; I’d get normalized relations with Iran- a potential partner and stabilizing force, an honest-broker relationship to the Israeli/Palestinian dispute; I’d see the return of respect for Constitutional and International Law and Civil Liberties.
.
With any luck, we’ll see a similar movement for liberals in the next election cycle. It would be nice to have debate between liberals and conservatives as opposed to spin from the current group of corporatists that rule DC and the Village.

Sorry, spent the remainder of my weekend retching or prostrate. Will look FWD to continuing this discussion when I’m not feeling quite so light-eaded.

Get well soon.