So, here's the "deal"

Posted by: MacBozo

So, here's the "deal" - 12/01/10 05:09 PM

Cut off unemployment to 2 million folks who have been out of work, but searching (you have to show proof that you have attempted/applied for work to receive unemployment compensation), suspend government pay raises, suspend or cut SS benefits and Medicare benefits and extend tax cuts to the wealthy. All this to cut the Federal deficit and promote job growth?

All this does is transfer the burden from the Federal Budget to State and local governments and it increases the demand for social and financial services since more folks will default on their mortgages, become homeless while the wealthy get richer. This is stupid! crazy
Posted by: garyW

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/01/10 05:28 PM

Posted by: DLC

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/01/10 05:35 PM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
This is stupid! crazy


No, this is beyond "O'Donnell" stupid... this is insane!

and demented, heartless GREED !
Posted by: steveg

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/01/10 07:32 PM

And the Democrats who have controlled the WH for two years and both houses for four and still do 'til the end of the lame duck session have just rolled up into the fetal position and showed the Right where to put it and hold the Vaseline thankyouverymuch.

As sick as I am of the Republicans, I'm even more sick of the spineless Left. And I swear, if I hear Obama utter the word "bi-partisan" one more time, I'm gonna throw up! The Democrats didn't lose a single seat they didn't deserve to lose.

And I really don't wanna hear any more a/b how much this administration has accomplished in two years. Before I quite nearly 35 years ago, I burned through four packs of cigarettes a day. Sounds like a lot, no? Except that I never smoked more than half a cigarette before stubbing it out. See my point?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/01/10 11:59 PM

Quote:
I'm even more sick of the spineless Left. And I swear, if I hear Obama utter the word "bi-partisan" one more time, I'm gonna throw up!


Agreed. This man could walk on water and "they" would say NO!
Posted by: Lea

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/02/10 12:39 PM



"As sick as I am of the Republicans, I'm even more sick of the spineless Left. And I swear, if I hear Obama utter the word "bi-partisan" one more time, I'm gonna throw up! The Democrats didn't lose a single seat they didn't deserve to lose."


I wish there was something I could add. There isn't. You've nailed it.

OK wait. How's this? Really smooth of Obama to kinda leave this all up to Congress, huh? No dirty hands over at the WH. Slick. Really slick. Seriously, of all the Presidents I wouldn't want to have my back in a bar fight?

I hope another Dem does challenge his wimpy ass come 2012. And I know just the woman who could do it. "If Hillary gave Obama just one of hers, he'd finally have one and she'd still have a pair." Have no idea who said that, but yeah. It's true.

Not bad for somebody who didn't have anything to add, huh?
Posted by: Nana

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/02/10 01:16 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
And I swear, if I hear Obama utter the word "bi-partisan" one more time, I'm gonna throw up!

laugh

You hit the nail right on target! Obama is a gifted orator. By the time he finishes his speech, he has me believing his $hit smells like roses. whistle
Posted by: garyW

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/02/10 01:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea
Really smooth of Obama to kinda leave this all up to Congress, huh?


The Constitution kinda dictates that legislation get passed that way. Like the House just passing with 230 votes to extend tax cuts to the middle-class.

Quote:
No dirty hands over at the WH. Slick.


As Boner says, "that's chickencrap!" laugh So that's why the rightwing is at this moment attacking Obama's negotiations to extend the middle-class & small-business tax breaks/credits that were in the Stimulus package, and not giving in to tax breaks for billionaires.

Obama cannot control how the Senate votes, and Blue Dog Dems are in the pocket of big corporate money. The GOP can block every single legislative action, as they have, and they will continue to do so so they can claim Obama raised your taxes, or Obama stopped your unemployment insurance benefits.
Posted by: DLC

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/02/10 03:04 PM

Someone said Obama is acting like George McFly (before the time travel) ... I think that's an accurate image with Biff being the GOP ! mad
Posted by: garyW

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/02/10 03:25 PM

Okay, I'll buy that. Obama needs to look to the future. He needs to very loudly call out the Senate GOP obstructionists .... when McConnell filibusters this middle-class tax cut, Obama needs to use that as his Flux Capicitor to get this thing in gear. And to add to it, without Senate Blue Dogs willing to support the President he's stuck in time.

The President said he will deny an unfunded tax break for the top 2%. He may need to veto. Outside of all the hyperbole of the weak and spineless Obama, he hasn't caved on this issue. The Senate dems have. And Obama needs to open a can of whoopass on them too. Obama wanted this vote before the midterm elections, but the Senate dems were to pussified to do it.



Posted by: Lea

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/02/10 03:30 PM



"And Obama needs to open a can of whoopass on them too."


He needs to learn how to use the can opener first.
Posted by: garyW

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/02/10 03:37 PM

Lea, how does Obama change the Senate rules to stop the obstruction? He can't.
How does he influence the Blue Dogs. He can't.

How did he pass the Stimulus, healthcare , etc.. under the same circumstances? By being Mr. Congeniality and getting one or two republicans to vote with him. That's his politics. He paints them into a corner politically (that kind of whoopass laugh ) It's what he's done in the last two years, what he campaigned on and what he wrote about in both his books --- it's no mystery. This time is no different.
Posted by: garyW

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/02/10 03:46 PM

This addresses the point you raise, as well as what I'm saying to:

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/12/obama-20

Obama 2.0
By Kevin Drum| Wed Dec. 1, 2010 3:00 PM PST
Ezra Klein has a good post up today about Barack Obama's inexplicable ongoing dedication to bipartisanship in the face of mountains of evidence that Republicans simply have no interest in negotiating with him. It ends with this:

The White House's critics think the proof is in the election. Democrats just got "shellacked." Obama gained absolutely nothing by seeming more reasonable than his opponents. In fact, the Republicans ran some notably unreasonable candidates and still won the election. The question, they say, isn't why Obama wants this strategy to work. It's when he'll admit that it's failed.

I'll repeat something here that I said at a talk I gave last weekend: basically, Obama has another two or three weeks to prove he's not an idiot. During the lame duck session, a continuing public dedication to bipartisanship might make sense because there may still be a few bills that he can pass with just a few Republican votes. And it's easier to get those votes if he's not out in the Rose Garden every day telling the world that Republicans are all obstructionist assholes.

But starting next year that won't be true anymore. Republicans will control the House, and in the Senate it will take a significant chunk of the GOP caucus to get anything passed. Sweet talking Olympia Snowe will no longer even arguably be a viable strategy. Obama's only hope is to draw dramatic contrasts with Republican orthodoxy, call them out relentlessly on their obstructionism and corporate obeisance, and try to rally public opinion to his side. It might not work, but there's no better alternative.

Obama's legislative strategy was defensible during his first two years because it might have been his best opportunity to peel off a few votes here and there and get stuff passed. But if he keeps it up next year, he's just being willfully blind. Next year is put-up-or-shut-up time.
Posted by: steveg

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 02:30 AM

[sigh] You must invite me over some day to see your bumper sticker shrine...[/sigh]
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 04:13 AM

I ask you frankly why don't Obama have the guts to stand up to the GOP party once and for all?
Posted by: Lea

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 06:08 AM



[from the MJ article] "Obama's only hope is to draw dramatic contrasts with Republican orthodoxy, call them out relentlessly on their obstructionism and corporate obeisance, and try to rally public opinion to his side. It might not work, but there's no better alternative."


With a more realistic understanding of what he was up against and a less kumbaya approach to same? He could have well now had a considerable number of alternatives.

Apparently, Obama has never read The Art of War.
Posted by: garyW

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
[sigh] You must invite me over some day to see your bumper sticker shrine...[/sigh]


Yes! And my favorite at the moment is the one that reads:

Did You Forget That It's The Republicans That Are The Problem?
They Are Immune To Obama's Magic Pixie Dust


grin
Posted by: garyW

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 07:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Lea
With a more realistic understanding of what he was up against and a less kumbaya approach to same? He could have well now had a considerable number of alternatives.


And what kind of approach by the president could have prevented the GOP from blocking a vote in the Senate on the middle-class tax cut bill today? (as they've blocked almost all legislation and appointee conformations for 2 years ... only the kumbaya moments seem to have pursuaded someone like Snowe or Collins or Brown to break a filibuster).

Quote:
And it's easier to get those votes if he's not out in the Rose Garden every day telling the world that Republicans are all obstructionist assholes.
Posted by: Lea

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 07:51 AM


gary, it's not like he just recently parachuted into all this. Although, sometimes, I have to wonder. Like it or not, politics is a blood sport. The GOP gets it. Dems pretend they don't. Obama seems oblivious to it.

Today's standoff(s) have been a long time in the making. Apparently, a strategy to at least put up the good fight has been nonexistent.**


Edit: **The razor close midterm calls last month are a perfect example of the lack of strategy. Jesus, a dead cat could sneak up on the Dems and Obama right now. And pounce and drag 'em off into dead cat land. And then all they'd do is whine about how mean dead cats are.





Posted by: steveg

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 10:23 AM

And singing Kumbaya and making nicey-nicey to a bully ain't how you fix a problem.

Add this one to your collection:

It Should-a Been Hillary!
Posted by: garyW

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 10:41 AM

That's a winner! (Dream on.)


Hillary's Balls!
Overflowing With Magic Pixie Dust That Makes GOP Obstructionists Slightly Less Assholey!
Posted by: steveg

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 10:50 AM

If he had 'em, he'd be King.
Posted by: steveg

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 10:56 AM

Zero worship. blush
Posted by: carp

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 02:01 PM

Just get rid of this stupid two party system - all they do is fight over what their parties represent.

No one - No one is fighting for the people.
Posted by: DLC

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 02:18 PM

Well, if you didn't have Dems and GOTPers, you'd have Progressives Vs. Conservatives... same crap !


or Blues Vs Reds.. we're doomed ! eek
Posted by: carp

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 02:31 PM

Dave

They will still be there - its called (conviction) their personal ideals of whats right <-- not what is right for a particular party.

What stops is this - Divided between 2 parties and the WH divided the seating as well in both Houses. <-- I mean you wanna talk about how (obvious) in your face that is.

You vote for the right or you vote for the left (Parties) and they draw a line.

What ever happen to voting for the People ? ?
Posted by: DLC

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/03/10 02:44 PM

Rarely happens Steve, they're all to "self-serving SOBs" !! mad

If they're not voting for something for them Directly ($), they're voting for one of their buddies who reimburses them (i.e. indirectly) with perks (trips- gifts) and campaign $ !!

and they say Karsi is crooked ! look in the mirror fokkers !
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 03:38 AM

what would you propose if you were President of the US?
Posted by: carp

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 04:28 PM

I would have the candidates run on their party beliefs, Dem or Repub for example.

Once elected - remove all party affiliations - only votes for the people are excepted.

1 - No special seating on the House or Senate. No Divided seating
2 - No special Majority or Minority Speakers <- again dividing the votes into parties.
3 - No filibusters - since they are supposed to be voting for the people and Not Parties.

What I always see is Dems -vs- Repubs <- what ever happen for the people ? ? We got to remove the Party Dogma.
Posted by: Lea

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 04:33 PM


I wish I could do math equations. I can't, so I'll just fake it ~


"I would have the candidates run on their party beliefs" + "We got to remove the Party Dogma" = 0000000000


Anybody want to weigh in on this? I'm sure carp and I are both smarter than a fifth grader, but I think I win this one. Anybody?
Posted by: steveg

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 04:58 PM

I say we all just move to Amsterdam, become career hedonists, and spend the rest of our days laughing at the U.S. and making book on how wide the splatter pattern will be when it hits the pavement. grin
Posted by: Lea

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 05:13 PM


Be still, my f'n heart! Sigh.

OK, sigh with a huge smile. I've never considered a career as a hedonist, but I think I could to it. Yeah. I'm pretty sure I could do it. wink
Posted by: steveg

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 05:44 PM

See that? Job growth just ticked up! laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 06:20 PM

I think carp is dead wrong. Parties are not an invention meant to keep the pols from doing the people's business. Parties are the inevitable result of people's having different views on the world. In my more cynical moments I attribute all sorts of self-interest to what the Republicans and Democrats do. But I'm fairly sure that Boner believes that even passing out tobacco lobby money to congressmen on the floor of the House was doing good work, keeping the faithful faithful or whatever. There are very few people like the Louisiana dude with all the money in the freezer, I think. Even the Hammer, slim brains though he seems to have had, was trying to get people in power who would do work that he thought was good. They all sincerely believe what they say they believe. So you can get rid of the artifice of division in offices and in the architecture of the buildings, but the ideological divisions will remain and ultimately lead to the formation of parties.
Posted by: DLC

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 06:59 PM

Seating easily fixed... shuffle the deck of Jokers ! wink

But I think you have to have majority and minority heads in Congress-

now filibusters are NOT in the Constitution- those CAN be abolished any time.

It was meant to give the minority some power on KEY, major issues... like treaties, wars, etc.
The GOP has turned it into a DAILY SOP. In the entire 1800's, there were only 22 !! Last year, the GOP had 134 !! mad

but I think no matter what you "label" it - principles, philosophy, etc there'll always exist conservatives, moderates, and liberals... what we need is a party of ONLY the middle (~60%) and leave the fringes to themselves.
Posted by: carp

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 09:00 PM

people's having different views on the world.

The only problem Yoyo - as I see it - they vote for their parties Dogma, the people are stiff armed in the process.

You see it in your face every day Dems -vs- Repubs. I cannot be more blunt than that.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/04/10 10:03 PM

Dogma is just another way of talking about the way those folks see the world. For me it's obvious that the richer you are the more able you are to contribute to the society and therefore the higher your taxes should be. For Boner that's pure socialist dogma. My heartfelt belief is dogma for him, and his heartfelt belief is dogma for me. IOW, dogma is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by: steveg

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/05/10 03:22 AM

Dogma Poopma! shocked
Posted by: DLC

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/05/10 06:33 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Dogma is just another way of talking about the way those folks see the world. For me it's obvious that the richer you are the more able you are to contribute to the society and therefore the higher your taxes should be. For Boner that's pure socialist dogma. My heartfelt belief is dogma for him, and his heartfelt belief is dogma for me. IOW, dogma is in the eye of the beholder.


That's the way the 16th amendment was set up. The more you're ABLE to pay the more you can afford it... One way to look at it is the tax relative to net wealth... the $20,000 middle class worker pays a chunk of his income (when you count SS and Medicare)**... so why do the million- billionaires feel they should pay less ? Besides many of the greedy ones support having 2 wars... helps their business... so pay for the Damm things !!

BTW - Thomas Friedman has another great article today about Wikileaks and how we've backed ourselves in many corners dealing with world problems. . . mainly because of our dependency on Oil, lack of saving, bad economic policies and bad foreign policies !!
as usual Tom NAILS it !!

** for millionaires and billionares this mandatory 7.5% cuts off at ~$105,000. This may change.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/05/10 09:17 AM

The SS cut-off has never made sense to me. Or for that matter the fact that SS is not means tested. I think I've said this some time ago, but I can't believe that Bill Gates will be getting a SS check when he turns 65 or whatever age it is for him. I don't care what he does with it, or whether he burns the check instead of cashing it. It's absurd that the gvt. even considers sending it to him.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/05/10 09:41 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
The SS cut-off has never made sense to me. Or for that matter the fact that SS is not means tested. I think I've said this some time ago, but I can't believe that Bill Gates will be getting a SS check when he turns 65 or whatever age it is for him. I don't care what he does with it, or whether he burns the check instead of cashing it. It's absurd that the gvt. even considers sending it to him.

I won't hold my breath waiting for him to create jobs with it either.
Posted by: DLC

Re: So, here's the "deal" - 12/05/10 12:56 PM

Well I definitely think the ceiling needs to be raised on the income taxed. . . maybe to $1 million or more. That will make it solvent for 100 years !

And I agree it does need to be means tested, but how exactly do you do that ? Retired people have no salary ! Do you do it off net worth ? What's the limit ? Say someone has $1 million in assets in retirements funds - should they be cut off ? Remember those retirement funds must last 20-30 years! eek

I do think if you've got >$5 million you don't need it since the max per month is about $3000. Maybe set a limit of $2-3 million for 100% SS and make it graduated to phase out at ~$5 million... so if you have $4 million estate- you get 50% . . . etc...

The point is it's not an easy "fix" to throw in.