Spintested: 12/12/10

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

Sunday, December 12, 2010

That's what I'm (and millions of other liberals) trying to do, dearie.

Get the flick out of the way.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

No, dearie, the "it's only for two years" ploy again isn't fooling anybody.

It lapses, yet again, in another election zone. Whatever the circumstances are, improved or worsened economy, the argument is going to be that "You don't 'raise taxes' during a _____" -- The fact is that this isn't 'raising taxes'.

By the way, the economy is going to be worse in two years -- Everything that Obama and Ds&Rs are doing guarantees it. We've had 3 million foreclosures so far and there are 11 million in the pipeline. That, in and of itself, is going to cause another wave of firings and foreclosures. Obama just negotiated another NAFTA-like treaty with S. Korea -- That's more Americans' jobs going overseas.

Obama is liquidating the US. It's a fire sale.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

99ers aren't covered in this 'deal' -- How selfish are you then for selling your fellow Americans out?
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

Obama Cites Bailed-Out Bank Donor as Reason to Back Bush Tax Cuts

A press release from the White House (you can see it here) citing a pro-tax cut memo from Morgan Stanley as reason for Congress to pass the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 a year. Let's step back and chronicle the steps that show just how audacious this really is.

1. Morgan Stanley is one of the big financial firms that helps run the economy into the ground.

2. Morgan Stanley becomes one of the top corporate campaign contributors to Barack Obama.

3. Obama's Fed gives Morgan Stanley a 2 trillion bailout.

4. Nonetheless, Obama cites this same bailed out bank as a credible and objective source on the economy Morgan Stanley helped destroy - all in order to sell a tax plan that will benefit Morgan Stanley's executives in the form of new high-income tax cuts.

I think the "Which side are you on?" question about Obama has been answered.

* Note that the press release also cited another Obama bailout recipient, Barclay's.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

The 'Rule of Thumb' about when tax cuts make sense is, "When a nation's bills are paid". When the nation is in surplus.

You don't go on vacation when you haven't paid the rent. You don't buy a Rolls Royce when you're living in your parents' garage. You don't buy Godiva chocolates when there's no food in the fridge or the cupboards to feed your kids.

When a tax cut requires a nation to borrow more money, adding to the deficit, increasing the national debt, that's robbing the People to give to the rich. Average Americans, our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, for generations to come, are getting stuck with the bill.

In 2001, Bush's tax cuts were sold to us as "job creators". "They'd stimulate the economy". They didn't.

The money for Bush's tax cuts had to be borrowed, just as these tax cuts will have to be. From China, Saudi Arabia (which then turns around and donates to Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, etc.) and IRAN (yes, Iran own us, too).

The money is all gone. We're now stuck with cleaning up the party that the rich had (investing overseas, in other nations, outsourcing Americans' jobs and closing down US manufacturing). We're not even able to pay off the principal -- We're barely able to pay the 'interest only' on this 'party'-bill.

It's bad enough that working Americans have been paying for the parties of the rich, but it's even worse than that: We're not only paying for their parties, we're taking out loans so that they can stuff their mattresses.

If I'm paying for bathtubs full of Dom Perignon, I'd better d@mned well be the one soaking in it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

^ - Then there's this one..Brain dead...Lucky that breathing is an automatic function that he doesn't have to think about.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

Most of them are operatives paid to spread disinformation. No kidding.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rep. Jim McDermott: Obama's Tax Deal Good For Trust Fund Babies, 'Unfair' To The Unemployed

You seriously believe that 99% of Americans support borrowing $4 trillion that they will be on the hook for, that ends Social Security and Medicare, that ends the 'American lifestyle'/American Dream for them and their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren, so that 1% who are f!lthy rich can leave more more to their Paris Hilton children?

The US is over if this deal goes through. I'm not kidding you. I've called it accurately from the first day that Ronald Reagan got into office. This is the 'end game'.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Even Ezra Klein repeated it on Lawrence O'Donnell's show last week -- "Internal divisions within the White House" and "37 Democrats in the House and a handful in the Senate threatened to balk" became the talking point both before and after the midterms.

The fact is and was that Bush's tax cuts need to expire, for EVERYBODY, and that the American people were fine with it. But that was never to be what Obama, Democrats or Republicans had in mind. So it was kicked down the road, past the mid-terms, and the strategy was for Obama and Democrats to adopt Republican talking points -- That letting the Bush tax cuts expire was "increasing taxes". That's straight out of the Republican game plan!:

First time a Democrat used this rhetoric -- November 30, 2010 -- We saw David Axelrod on Hardball setting up the continuance of Bush's tax cuts:

"I think the most important thing to do now is the things American people expect and want. One is to make sure they don't wake up on January 1st with a very large tax increase because the tax cuts were scheduled to expire at that time and there's a great sense of urgency on the part of the president. I think that is shared on the part of the republicans to make sure that doesn't happen."

Democrats had rejected that spin years ago!

You don't borrow money to give tax cuts.

The 'Rule of Thumb' about when tax cuts make sense is, "When a nation's bills are paid". When the nation is in surplus.

You don't go on vacation when you haven't paid the rent. You don't buy a Rolls Royce when you're living in your parents' garage. You don't buy Godiva chocolates when there's no food in the fridge or the cupboards to feed your kids.

When a tax cut requires a nation to borrow more money, adding to the deficit, increasing the national debt, that's robbing the People to give to the rich. Average Americans, our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, for generations to come, are getting stuck with the bill.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Yes.

This is being done in the same way that the faux healthcare reform legislation was done.

There actually is no bill. It's a "framework". The White House has told Congress, "Read the bill, read the bill", but there is no bill to read! The White House wants the House to agree to general ideas which will then be written as a bill, given to the Senate and there will be a m@d frenzy, pressure on senators to vote for it within 24 hours, in the dead of night, 3 am with nobody watching, and then it'll go to conference with what the House has already passed. Again, at the last possible moment, the conference bill will be pushed onto members of Congress to pass in the middle of the night.

Obama is a CHARLATAN!
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

BEFORE THE MIDTERMS, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress. More caving by Obama & Democrats, to Republicans:

Aides say that the president's been spending "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," brainstorming with administration officials about the best way to revamp the strategies & goals of the White House.

And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislating power, including perhaps control of the House & even Senate, Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that'll be marked with the same obstructive nature from the GOP.

"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, & so the strategy of just saying no to everything & sitting on the sidelines & throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals & work with me in a serious way."

Dick Durbin says Obama's post-election agenda "will have to be limited & focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people." Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The keyword is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive."

Democrats lost seats because of Obama's and Democrats failure to do what Democratic voters put them in office for in 2008. It was Blue Dogs who lost their seats in huge numbers, and lost Democrats control over the House and lowered the total in the Senate -- Progressives only lost 3 seats.

However, Obama has tried to spin this as some mandate for more Republican-like legislation. The purpose of the pre-election broadcast was to tamp down turnout of Democrats. Obama did everything he could to make sure that liberals and progressives did NOT get into office, from the primaries to the general election.

This was exactly like what Pelosi did prior to the 2006 midterms -- She announced that if Democrats took control over Congress, impeaching Bush was "off the table".

The purpose of this is SPIN. So that Democratic leadership can say, "We told you what we were going to do before the election, so our success in retaining our seats means you were voting for what we broadcast."
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

There is NOTHING that Pelosi or Reid do without Obama either being on board or directly ordering it.

You don't know what you're talking about.

When your party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, your game plan (what you want to accomplish and how you intend to do it) is organized and laid out years in advance. There isn't a day from 1/20/09 to 1/5/11 (from Obama's taking office to when Republicans take control of the House) that isn't scheduled and planned for.

We have 'party government', and have had it since 1790. It's the only reason that there are political parties.

There will be conflicts from time to time, there will be bolting or attempts to bolt, but that's out of frustration and @nger over a party's leader having fumbled.

You do not have a Democratic Party that says "No, no, no, no", but then falls into lock step behind Obama without it being all for show. For people like you who don't understand what BS this all is.

KEEP READING
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bernie Sanders Filibuster: Senator Stalls Tax Cut Deal

If We The People are Obama's client, he's a bad negotiator.

If the rich and transnational corporations are Obama's client, then he's masterful. He manages to consistently get amazing deals for them, on their behalf.

The real question, and what Obama is trying to force Americans to swallow is this:

Was this deal, as Obama claims, the best deal We The People could hope to have gotten?

Not on your life.

Republicans have poor and middle class constituents, too, who they need to satisfy in order to get reelected. Republicans are t3rrified of them, because they're very well organized. The Republican base knows how to make their elected representatives jump -- Republicans hear from their poor and middle class constituents when they cut government services for the People, like Medicare. Republicans cave when Democrats hold their feet to the fire.

Everything that Obama said that "Republicans are giving up" in this deal, Republicans either initiated or eagerly campaigned on because their supporters liked it and there would be h3// to pay for them if they were responsible for them ending:

OBAMA: And, as I said, there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up. I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the Republican perspective, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit -- all those things that are so important for so many families across the country -- those are things they really opposed. And so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years.

'U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner said he would vote for middle-class tax cuts sought by the Democratic Obama administration even if it means eliminating reductions for wealthier Americans'.

This is an absolutely wretched deal (but standard for Obama, with a long record of negotiating lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf); if Obama was in private practice and 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he would be sued, successfully, for malpractice.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

OBAMA: And, as I said, there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up. I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the Republican perspective, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit -- all those things that are so important for so many families across the country -- those are things they really opposed. And so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years.

Rep. Jim McDermott: Obama's Tax Deal Good For Trust Fund Babies, 'Unfair' To The Unemployed

OBAMA: And, as I said, there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up. I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the Republican perspective, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit -- all those things that are so important for so many families across the country -- those are things they really opposed. And so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years.

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Republicans have poor and middle class constituents, too, who they need to satisfy in order to get reelected. Republicans are t3rrified of them, because they're very well organized. The Republican base knows how to make their elected representatives jump -- Republicans hear from their poor and middle class constituents when they cut government services for the People, like Medicare. Republicans cave when Democrats hold their feet to the fire. [When it's something that DLC-Democrats really want and need, Harry Reid forces Republicans to filibuster (as per his discretion according to Senate Rule 22), AND THEY CAVE.]

Everything that Obama said that "Republicans are giving up" in this deal, Republicans either initiated or eagerly campaigned on because their supporters liked it and there would be h3// to pay for them if they were responsible for them ending:

OBAMA: And, as I said, there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up. I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the Republican perspective, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit -- all those things that are so important for so many families across the country -- those are things they really opposed. And so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years.

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Obama Cites Bailed-Out Bank Donor as Reason to Back Bush Tax Cuts

A press release from the White House (you can see it here) citing a pro-tax cut memo from Morgan Stanley as reason for Congress to pass the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 a year. Let's step back and chronicle the steps that show just how audacious this really is.

1. Morgan Stanley is one of the big financial firms that helps run the economy into the ground.

2. Morgan Stanley becomes one of the top corporate campaign contributors to Barack Obama.

3. Obama's Fed gives Morgan Stanley a 2 trillion bailout.

4. Nonetheless, Obama cites this same bailed out bank as a credible and objective source on the economy Morgan Stanley helped destroy - all in order to sell a tax plan that will benefit Morgan Stanley's executives in the form of new high-income tax cuts.

I think the "Which side are you on?" question about Obama has been answered.

* Note that the press release also cited another Obama bailout recipient, Barclay's.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

I want to know about your family. Are you living in your parents' basement? Grandma's moving in, and you're moving out.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Oh shut up. It's not done like that, that Republicans will ever be in a position where the blame is clear-cut. It'll be done as a fait accompli -- That we're bankrupt, and there is no money to pay benefits. This is Obama's and Democrats' fault. This is their job, to block Republicans. Not to work with them. Republicans have been blocking all Democratic efforts for the past 4 years. Democrats won decisively in 2006 and 2008. Do you remember that Bush line? "I earned me some political capital in the election and I'm gonna spend it"? Democrats supported Bush's spending his "political capital" -- That was their excuse for not blocking Republicans after the 2006 election when Democrats gained control over both Houses of Congress. Now for you to make this ridiculous argument, you are either a neophyte to civics and politics or you're a political operative paid to spread disinformation. Obama is a corporate t00L.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Those of you who are supporting Obama's deal with the GOP seem to have a 'unicorn'-belief, that this isn't any big deal. This is the nail in the coffin for the US. I don't you people understand what's going to happen with the end of Social Security, Medicare, the impact on your lives even if you aren't one of those on Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs. I'd like to hear from commenters here about their parents, grandparents, what they live on and how you expect them to survive now.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

I'll explain to you why you're an id-jit. I hold everyone who has the ability to prevent this from happening and isn't responsible. Republicans couldn't do what they're doing if Obama and Democrats were to block them. There is nothing that Republicans can do without Democrats coming on board with them. Obama, the president of the US, with veto ability, with a bully pulpit, with that ultimate chick magnet (Air Force One) parked in his backyard. Obama doesn't even try. And you think Republicans are the problem. Republicans, with the smallest minority ever in last 116 years, managed to block everything that Democrats claimed to want to do these past 4 years. Obama caved to EVERYTHING, and if you knew anything about probability of odds, it's virtually impossible to lose 100% of the time as Obama has. You're an id-jit.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Send a Thank You From China to Our Leaders: A Call to Action

I'm urging people to send Obama a clear message of their dissatisfaction with his 'deal' with the GOP by sending packs and cartons of cigarettes to the White House. His brand is Newport 100s (softpacks), but I think high-tar is called for. Camels. Ovals. Galoise. Lousianans can send Picayunes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

It was born out of the need to get around HP's filter, along with maroon, @$$, 0bamab0t, etc.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

An alliance with conservatives. Interesting notion.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Abortion Rights Expected To Come Under Attack When Republicans Are In Charge In The House

What do you think Obama meant when he said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molWTfv8TYw
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rep. Jim McDermott: Obama's Tax Deal Good For Trust Fund Babies, 'Unfair' To The Unemployed

What do you think Obama meant when he said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molWTfv8TYw
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

What do you think Obama meant when he said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molWTfv8TYw
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

I don't think he caves -- He has no problem standing up to Democrats' constituents. He works for the corporations.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Something like 80% of the American people are against extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich. So why do you think it's going to pass? Congress knows that 80% figure. Why would they pass it in light of that?
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Click the link-- "Privately, Obama describes himself as a 'Blue Dog'."
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

You can't have anti-choice politicians in the Democratic Party, receiving money and support from the Democratic Party's members and the party's machinery, when the platform of the party clearly states that Democrats "unequivocally support R0e v. W@de and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal ab0rt!on, regardless of ability to pay, and oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right". Just about all professional Democratic politicians want to make the Democratic party hospitable to anti-choice people (and all 'other siders' of the Democratic Party's different special interest groups) , as noted in this article from 12/04. http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/washington/wnb121504.htm The only way to do that is for the party to not take a stance on abortion, to remove any reference to 'choice'. That's certainly true of Howard Dean. During Howard Dean's tenure as chairman of the DNC, he indicated in several interviews that the intent was to move the Democratic Party from referring to abortion at all in its platform. Here's one of those interviews , from 11/1/05: Video - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/9882255#9882255 Transcript - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9883824/ January 14, 2005 - Dems May Waver on Choice, Repro Rights - http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2144/context/archive As long as we're talking about Howard Dean, he's a nice guy, but he's not a liberal and definitely not 'married' to what I would say are sacrosanct Democratic Party positions (like pro-choice and public health care). Most voters judge politicians by their personalities and mistakenly assume politicians' ideological positions for their own when they've decided they personally like the politician . Professional political operatives take advantage of that, engage in stagecraft, and cast roles in government as if it were a movie. Who looks/sounds like a president/ senator/congressman/ etc.? Who has the countenance, the gravitas? Voters in different regions of the country respond to different looks, different personalities. Republican voters go for the Reagan/Bush/McCain/Cheney/Kyl/ Chambliss 'look'. Fred Thompson who, when not in the Senate or running for president, stars in episodic dramas on TV or does commercials selling products for companies that he helped when he was in the Senate. Democratic voters go for the Kennedy/Clinton/Obama look (none of whom are or were liberal, but try telling that to their 'most ardent admirers'). All of these politicians were and are pro-corporate, pro-military industrial complex. The only differences have been on social issues, and on the Democratic side, they have proven to be, let's say, 'less committed' to their party's stated values, ideals, and goals, i.e. the People's issues. And that's what defines whether one is a Democrat or not.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Both parties, both the DLC Democrats who control the Democratic Party and Republicans, are corporate t00Is. At the top of Big Businesses ' shopping lists to Democrats & Republican s is "Give us more money. And if you can't do that, if you can't fool the average American voter into going along with that, then let us be able to rake it in as we've been doing." That's what Obama's "Healthcare Reform" legislation was all about. Republicans had their turn at delivering to Big Insurance & PhRma in 2003 with the Medicare Reform Act. After that, corporations shifted their donations to the Democrats. When politicians have had the chance to reform campaign financing (all publicly financed) and elections, they've refused and made it more 'exclusive ' (harder for third party/independent challengers), controlled by corporate media and accessible by only those with huge bankrolls. The fix is in, and they've fixed it, but good. KEEP READING
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

I am a liberal Democrat and I do not always agree with my Democrat politicians and I do not expect that legislators will always agree with their party ... I find that impossible. In fact, I find it impossible to agree with my President on this tax cut "compromise." Does that make me a RINO because I disagree and would cast a vote to that effect? I think not. ============================================= The Democratic Party has a platform. http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform It's what distinguishes Democrats from Republicans. Only now, due to the DLC having hijacked the Democratic Party, Democrats- In-Name-Only (DINOs) hide in plain sight and work against Democratic ideals and for helping Republicans achieve their goals. One of them even sits in the Oval Office. The reason that has happened is because corporations have gamed our political system so effectively that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests which corporations defend as, "What's good for GM (corporations) is good for America (We the People)". KEEP READING
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

I think you're confused. To begin with, you said "Actually, if you look at the voting records of Blue Dogs, they really are not RINOs". You mean DINOs. That's a small point, but it brings us to this: "Actually, if you look at the voting records of Blue Dogs, they really are not RINOs. I think Nelson has the worst with 60-some percent ... wait a minute ... okay, I checked. Lincoln voted with her Party 83.1%, Nelson was 67.7%, Landrieu 92.1%, Bayh 71.5%, Conrad 92.2% ... these are all considered Blue Dogs yet their voting records reflect a super majority (two-thirds) in voting for Democrat legislation." Where are you "checking" their records? What votes are you talking about? How many years? On what votes? There are far fewer votes to assess of senators than congressmen, and that's particularly true for the past 4 years. Very little has made it to the floor of the Senate. Then we're dealing with legislation that is allowed to get to the floor because it will pass, already majorly compromised by Democrats to be Republican-like, so, of course, Blanche Lincoln, et al, will be counted as "voted with her party" a high percentage of the time. The game has already been rigged. Do you know what the DLC is and who is in it?
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

"And the poorest in America are still richer than most people in the world."

====================================================

In other words, they have it good so they should "stop whining"?

When you say that you are "firmly planted in what we would call the middle class), you're more likely like most Americans: One to two paychecks from homelessness.

If the poor in America are still richer than most people in the world (according to you), you then won't have any trouble going back to the streets?

That would make sense, your 'crust', which I think must come from a childhood of being put down, being told you're not worth more, not worth anything really.

Between that line of yours about poverty in other nations, and "don't give me any lip", I'd guess you come from a family that was working class, living paycheck to paycheck, stressed beyond belief, one or both of your parents resorting to physically punishing you (who in your family used to say, "Don't give me any lip"?), and perhaps battering each other. And very possibly you dropped out of school.

I wish I could feel badly for you, but it's difficult to muster up compassion for someone who is actively working to bring all of our lives down.

How did 9/11 bring our economy down, by the way? How much do you think ending t3rr0rist threats to the US cost?

Obama just negotiated another NAFTA-like treaty with S. Korea. If you didn't like NAFTA, you're going to h8 this new one. Your list is interesting, but nothing on it, except our response to 9/11 by attacking Iraq and a long war in Afghanistan, has anything to do with the deficit. The housing market crash doesn't really have anything to do with the deficit -- Not directly. WTO and the deficit?

So I ask you again, what are you doing to educate yourself about this?
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

"Personally, I am very liberal, BUT I am also, VERY realistic about what CAN be accomplished. Unlike YOU...I live in reality...and am not a ideologue. I'm practical."

===========================================

No, you're one of those people who stands for nothing and falls for anything.

We could forget about values and positions altogether, rename the Democratic Party, hang a '~~DEMOCRATIC~~ REPUBLICAN PARTY' sign on the door of the DNC, and all members of Congress would be Democrats? But do you think that's going to do anything about our core differences on issues?

I assume that as a liberal, you're pro-choice. Are you willing to bear the child of your r@p!st when those 'new' Democrats insist that ab0rt!0n be outlawed? When do you finally fight, for anything that you purport to believe in and want?

I suspect you don't fight because we haven't come to anything of 'yours' yet. You're perfectly ok with compromising away other Democrats' issues because they don't impact you. But I'm sure that when we get to one of your issues that Obama trades away, we'll see the hellfire come out. You'd better hope there's someone left to give a d@mn.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud.

What we are dealing with is a corporate takeover of the US government. And Obama is a DINO - A Democrat-In-Name-Only. He's not a "centrist" as has been sold to us from his entry onto the national stage -- "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat."

Blue Dog Democrat = REPUBLICAN

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, changing its name to 'bee' isn't going to get you any honey.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

To those who defend Obama and his "compromises":

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particularly women's & the pro-choice movement's. And Obama's been particularly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal. [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".]

One example of how Democrats & Obama are real free and easy "compromising away" a base group's interests is Obama's healthcare legislation which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all ab0rtions). We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an ab0rt!on in 87% of the counties in the US (& 3 states in the country that have only one ab0rt!on clinic, & other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to ab0rt!on, & banning ab0rt!ons in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, & banning ab0rt!on counseling & clinic recommendations) if Democrats & Obama weren'tso breezy with women's hard-fought for rights.

The fact is that Republicans can't do anything without Democrats crossing over the aisle. Faux Democrats are the problem. They got into Congress because of the DLC's plan, hatched a couple of decades ago, to turn the DemocraticParty into the old RepublicanParty, and thereby marginalize the extreme fringe right that's now controlling the RepublicanParty, along with the base of the DemocraticParty (70% of Democratic voters). Then they'd "govern the country for 100 years".

We've been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for 20 years now, & the government & the DemocraticParty keeps moving farther to the right. That's because your way is to l!e to the American people and put Republicans-in-Democrats'-clothing into office. At the rate this is going, Republicans won't have to bother getting Roe overturned -- Why bother outlawing ab0rtion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you & I are on the same side (as you insist), and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protecting Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over & over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

By getting off his @$$ and taking the fight to those states. By pulling a 'Kucinich' on those elected representatives of the People, broadcasting rallies of the local middle class and unemployed and sockin' it to the politicians who are standing in the way.

Obama knows how to do it; he doesn't want to do it.

Don't you have eyes and ears? How is it that Obama's 'most ardent supporters' don't realize this yet?
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

Yes, absolutely.

He's a fascinating figure in his own right. Born in New England, son of a Presbyterian minister, he was a war correspondent for the NYT who read Shakespeare and Cicero and Homer on the battlefields. He has a graduate degree from divinity school, is multi-lingual (one of the languages is Arabic, which allows him to work 'un-embedded', independent of those who try to control/spin the information coming to us). He's not anti-war but was against the Iraq war.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

That's because you're unaware or in denial about how the system's been fixed and is being fixed to drain all of the money from the poor and middle classes and into the pockets of the top 1%. It's not even the top 2% -- It's 1%.

What have you done to educate yourself about this?

I can only pre-screen and pre-digest so much material and offer links to the most widely recognized as legitimate and even mainstream resources. But if you won't even read them, won't consider them, then you're the most immediate problem. You are what's responsible for the US's downfall.

So what have you investigated?
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

And speaking of Nader, what he had to say about Obama's deal on Bush's tax cuts, and Obama's dismissal of the Democratic base on Lawrence O'Donnell's program.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

motoGpifupleez 27 minutes ago (2:26 PM)

"To those of us who were willing to listen to the warnings of Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges, the fact that the Obama administration is pulling out all the stops to take care of the corporations and the donor class comes as no surprise."

===============================================

Speaking Chris Hedges, the most important read of the day...perhaps of the year:

Power and the Tiny Acts of Rebellion
By Chris Hedges

For those who aren't familiar with Chris Hedges, he's one of the most interesting, thoughtful, intelligent (in addition to being well educated), complex journalists in our history. His book, 'War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning', should be required reading in every high school.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

wcb59 2 hours ago (12:53 PM)

"President Obama says that this is the best deal he can get and better than he is likely to get in the coming Congress. I believe that this whole debacle was entirely avoidable and should be laid squarely at his feet."

=======================================================

Alan Grayson - "Obama's Deal Is Really 'Obama's Surrender to GOP":

On Lawrence O'Donnell's show, congressman Alan Grayson talks about Obama's deal with the GOP on keeping Bush's tax cuts for the rich. "You can always reach an agreement when you give up"

Also, "This deadline that we've been talking about iis an artificial deadline. We change taxes retroactively all the time. The president can direct the IRS to keep withholding rates exactly where they are so that nobody is hit by higher rates on January 1st."

See the clip.

By the way, there is still plenty of time before 12/31 to break up this bill and pass tax cuts for the middle class alone (if that is so desired -- I'm in the middle class and I'm willing to forego a tax cut in order to bring down the deficit, which will have a much greater benefit on our economy overall and to me and all others in the poor and middle classes). Legislation can get done in ONE day, if politicians want it to happen.

If it doesn't pass, if Republicans want to pass this massive giftbag after they take control over the House next month, let them. Obama can veto it. If Republicans override it, it's on the Republicans' heads, and let them run on it in 2012.

But let's remember that Republicans, with the smallest minority than any other in Congress in something like 116 years, were able to block everything the Democrats tried to do these last 4 years.

Is anybody seriously suggesting that Democrats aren't capable of doing the same thing?

Or are Democratic voters going to finally figure out that Democrats in Congress and the White House don't want what their constituents want?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

Alan Grayson - "Obama's Deal Is Really 'Obama's Surrender to GOP":

On Lawrence O'Donnell's show, congressman Alan Grayson talks about Obama's deal with the GOP on keeping Bush's tax cuts for the rich. "You can always reach an agreement when you give up"

Also, "This deadline that we've been talking about iis an artificial deadline. We change taxes retroactively all the time. The president can direct the IRS to keep withholding rates exactly where they are so that nobody is hit by higher rates on January 1st."

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

When politicians say that "Social Security is the third rail of politics", they mean it with a hostility that should be reserved for their Corporate Masters. You don't see politicians putting campaign finance and election reform on their agenda from year to year as you do their continuing assaults on social safety net programs for the People.

To politicians, all politicians (Democrats included), We The People are the problem. If only they didn't have to deal with making us happy to get our votes that keep them employed. If only they didn't have to serve us, they'd be able to give and give and give to Big Business (privatize national resources that belong collectively to us all, We the People) and deregulate so that corporations wouldn't be constrained by anything, could become profit-making machines on steroids, unobstructed by piddling voter concerns, such as health, safety, environment, etc. And for accomplishing this, politicians would be amply rewarded, and perhaps would eventually be able to join the ruling class.

You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politicians, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corporate branch), and that Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate (Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constitutionally-required role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administrations -- What little regulating they've put in legislation the last 2 years is ineffective for a whole array of very sneaky moves). As a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractors stealing us blind, insurance companies don't have to comply with healthcare reform laws, banks can continue as huge-profit-making machines for their officers and lead the nation into one bubble and crash after another.

You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy. What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past two years has been in the People's and not the Corporations' interests.

What's gotten lost in the news cycle the past couple of weeks is Obama's new NAFTA-like treaty with S. Korea that means more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas. And then there's Obama's Cat Food Commission (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the Dream Act trotting along (which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages).

We The People are being transformed, from sheep to sacrificial lambs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

Politicians WANT a high deficit so that they can create a fiscal crisis that forces us to cut vital safety net programs. It's what Grover Norquist (president of Americans for Tax Reform, and George W. Bush's once-a-week lunch buddy for the 8 years of the Bush-Cheney Administration) meant when he said,"Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub."

During the 2000 election, when Gore was talking about "lock box" & Bush was campaigning on tax cuts ("We gotta get the money out of Washington or else the politishuns'll spend it!"), I was writing about how Bush and Grover Norquist intended to bankrupt the country as a back door to ending the Great Society.

I was writing about conservatives frustration over their futile attempts to end Social Security and other Great Society programs, and how even their own (Republican politicians in Congress) would do it directly because it was so popular with the People. It would end their political careers if they went at ending Social Security with a head-on vote. They would have to go about it indirectly, lining up the ducks in a row, for the step-by-step dismantling of the singlemost effective program in the history of the US for lifting people out of poverty.

The way they would do it would be to get the nation into so much debt, into bankruptcy, that there would be no money left in Social Security. That's how they would k!ll it.

When George W. Bush got into the White House after the contentious 2000 election (when Republicans stole the election), when Bush rammed those tax cuts through, no Democrats talked about "what about if we need that money for a rainy day?" Or "find ourselves in a war?"

Around 2006, when Democrats won the election and talk was rampant about Bush's legacy, when even conservatives were repudiating Bush, Bush was saying that he was certain he'd be vindicated in history as " a great conservative".

Even conservatives didn't see what he was talking about (that what Bush is counting on is the end of the Great Society programs, like Social Security and Medicare, vindicating him as both a great president and a great conservative).

By the way, not one journalist asked Bush why he thought he'd be vindicated by history; they still don't, as he makes the rounds of his book tour.

Democratic politicians aren't stvp!d, by the way. They knew what Bush and Republicans were up to, and they let it happen.

Why? Why would Democratic politicians want to end Social Security and Medicare?

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

Alan Grayson - "Obama's Deal Is Really 'Obama's Surrender to GOP"

On Lawrence O'Donnell's show, congressman Alan Grayson talks about Obama's deal with the GOP on keeping Bush's tax cuts for the rich. "You can always reach an agreement when you give up"

Also, "This deadline that we've been talking about iis an artificial deadline. We change taxes retroactively all the time. The president can direct the IRS to keep withholding rates exactly where they are so that nobody is hit by higher rates on January 1st."

See the clip.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: No 'Major Changes' To Tax Cut Deal As Van Hollen Calls For Estate Tax Vote

The 'Rule of Thumb' about when tax cuts make sense is, "When a nation's bills are paid". When the nation is in surplus.

You don't go on vacation when you haven't paid the rent. You don't buy a Rolls Royce when you're living in your parents' garage. You don't buy Godiva chocolates when there's no food in the fridge or the cupboards to feed your kids.

When a tax cut requires a nation to borrow more money, adding to the deficit, increasing the national debt, that's robbing the People to give to the rich. Average Americans, our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, for generations to come, are getting stuck with the bill.

Bush's tax cuts were sold to us as "job creators" - "They'd stimulate the economy". They didn't. The money for Bush's tax cuts had to be borrowed. The money is all gone. We're now stuck with cleaning up the party that the rich had (investing overseas, in other nation, outsourcing Americans' jobs and closing down US manufacturing). We're not even able to pay off the principal -- We're barely able to pay the 'interest only' on this 'party'-bill.

It's bad enough that working Americans have been paying for the parties of the rich, but it's even worse than that: We're not only paying for their parties, we're taking out loans so that they can stuff their mattresses.

If I'm paying for bathtubs full of Dom Perignon, I'd better d@mned well be the one soaking in it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

The 'Rule of Thumb' about when tax cuts make sense is, "When a nation's bills are paid": When the nation is in surplus.

You don't go on vacation when you haven't paid the rent. You don't buy a Rolls Royce when you're living in your parents' garage. You don't buy Godiva chocolates when there's no food in the fridge or the cupboards to feed your kids.

When a tax cut requires a nation to borrow more money, adding to the deficit, increasing the national debt, that's robbing the People to give to the rich. Average Americans, our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, for generations to come, are getting stuck with the bill.

Bush's tax cuts were sold to us as "job creators" - "They'd stimulate the economy". They didn't. The money for Bush's tax cuts had to be borrowed. The money is all gone. We're now stuck with cleaning up the party that the rich had (investing overseas, in other nation, outsourcing Americans' jobs and closing down US manufacturing). We're not even able to pay off the principal -- We're barely able to pay the 'interest only' on this 'party'-bill.

It's bad enough that working Americans have been paying for the parties of the rich, but it's even worse than that: We're not only paying for their parties, we're taking out loans so that they can stuff their mattresses.

If I'm paying for bathtubs full of Dom Perignon, I'd better d@mned well be the one soaking in it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

DTree 1 minute ago (12:48 PM)

"Howard Dean was the single most effective chairman of the DNC in the last 30 years. His leadership brought about the 50-state strategy, made Democrats competitive in red states, and led directly to the Democratic takeover of congress and the presidency. Howard Dean's leadership is needed badly needed back at the DNC, so here's my vote to draft him as chairman once again."

==================================================================

You're going to have to get rid of Obama and the DLC to do that.

In 2008, the Obama demanded all progressive outside groups disband. He wanted 100 percent control of the message through the OFA.

And once Obama got into the White House, Obama dithered while the GOP wiped out the singlemost effective Democratic voter registration group - Democratic Outside Groups, Voter Reg Drives Fall Flat
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Tax Deal: 'A Short-Term Washington Fix' Filled With Easy Promises

I yearn for leadership that protects and defends living, breathing human beings' needs and interests instead of legal fictions (corporations) that, if they were people, would be diagnosed as sociopathic character disorders.

Back at the founding of the the US, a corporation's charter was required to be dissolved after 40 years, so suspicious and cautious were the earliest Americans about corporations.

Now, corporations are immortal, which is another abzurdity about their being considered 'persons' under the law.

Following the reducto ad absurdum of corporations as people, if you look at them as people, the vast majority of them could be diagnosed as sociopaths. They're completely self-absorbed, their only motivation is profit and destroying competition (other corporations or by the same legal definition other people), they have no conscience, no capacity for empathy. The only time they do something that could be construed as generous or for the greater good is when their consultants tell them it's good for business. It's like they display all of the lower qualities of human beings - greed avarice predatory nature. The same behavior in a flesh and blood human being would elicit cries of shame in the community and considered appalling, but somehow it's just fine for a corporation to behave that way.

And they can't be criminally prosecuted.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Linkbar

Book Recommendations

Search This Blog

Spintested Twitter Feed

What I Read

Think Tanks

Blog Archive

Labels

Sunday, December 12, 2010

About This Blog