Skip to main content

Why are we doing this? By us I mean us Democrats. Why do we give a shit about the deficit at all?

Look: Republicans, who have been the main creators of the deficit in the first place, are the ones running around screaming about the deficit and the debt. They run on it. They campaign for it. They have accounting orgasms over it. So you know what, just let them have it. Just give them the whole fucking issue. If Republicans want to balance the budget by cutting Social Security or whatever else it is they want to do, FINE. Let them campaign on it, win the election, and then they can go ahead and do that. If they win, so be it. The American people will get what they deserve if they elect a Republican government.

But Democrats need to stop this shit. We should be standing up for our folks and our positions, not doing their work for them. Not figuring out how to do their politics for them. Not explaining to our people, our voters, why we have to adopt the Republican policies they voted against. We need to stand up as strongly for a Democratic vision of the economy and its relationship to government as strongly as we stand up for social issues. Can you imagine Democrats seeking a "balanced approach" to Women's rights? Looking to meet Todd Akin halfway? How about a "balanced approach" to marriage equality?

Right now we have divided government. You know what that means? It means status quo. It does not mean the American people want to the two parties to work together on things they strongly disagree about. It means they want one party to check the other. If there isn't broad consensus, then leave things as-is. When the American want movement in one direction or the other, they will send that message with a wave election. Otherwise, they want the status quo. That's exactly what they ought to get.

Our position in budget negotiations should always be: Let the people resolve this at the ballot box.

Make it plain: If you want your benefits cut, then vote GOP. If you don't, vote Democrat. If you want a tax cut for the rich, vote GOP. If you want a tax increase for the rich, vote Democrat. Let the chips fall where they may. And if they send a mixed message, then do what divided government usually does: nothing.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (129+ / 0-)
  •  We're doing it cause we have to submit a budget (5+ / 0-)

    every year, it never passes, it's non binding, all that really matters are Appropriations bills, those are actual laws.

  •  A small problem there. (4+ / 0-)

    Something has to get through Congress and be signed into law by the President for the federal government to continue to operate.  Congress has to vote to fund the government at SOME level before the 2014 election.

  •  Because Democrats actually care... (19+ / 0-)

    We want to clean up the mess of our country that the Rethugs leave it in every time.  We'd LIKE to do it by getting rid of the crap they left behind, but they insist that we remove the furniture first.

    It'd be NICE if they'd let us actually clean up the mess instead of standing in our way and screaming about how we're doing it wrong.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 05:25:29 PM PDT

  •  From your keyboard, BBB... n/t (8+ / 0-)

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 05:26:24 PM PDT

  •  I've sometimes thought (15+ / 0-)

    just let the fucking GOP drive the car off the cliff, stop trying to mitigate small order effects.

    Let them crash the economy, would we then get a huge House and Senate Majority, and increase the chances of a New New Deal?

    I mean why fight for 100 billion for infrastructure when we need a trillion?

    ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 05:37:46 PM PDT

    •  Because They're Not Merely Wrecking the People, (15+ / 0-)

      they're taking over government and the economy at all levels. The more we let them do, the more power they acquire.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 05:55:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It already happened (12+ / 0-)

      It's called 2001-2009.

      The GOP drove the car off the cliff, the Dems got huge Senate and House majorities.

      Problem is, we had us some Dems then who didn't mind being bought.

      And the GOP is very good at blocking passes.

      And we didn't have a coherent progressive agenda and message ready to roll out.

      I'm hoping we're a bit more on track now.

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:02:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fucking A right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      on the cusp, Roger Fox

      Let them drive it over a cliff. We'll get the House back in 2014, and then we can fix the systemic problems.

      -5.38, -2.97
      The NRA doesn't represent the interests of gun owners. So why are you still a member?

      by ChuckInReno on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 07:46:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Filibuster. Assuming we keep red state seats, whic (0+ / 0-)

        h would be unlikely in a crash, the voters being irrational - or did you forget who won in 2010 and by how much all bc the Thugs squaked 'where are the jobs!', nevermind they killed the jobs and then did everything they could to keep them dead so to make BO 'a one term Pres.'?

        Insanity is thiinking the rational results come from irrational systems.  The Thugs have so corrupted and broken our electoral and political system these 40 years (just what do you think the folks behind Reagan, Stockman and Gingrinch were up to?) that we first have to heal the poli.

        In the meantime, we have to mitigate the damage.

        Sucks big time, but being the adult often does.

    •  That's what I think too, Roger (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dallasdunlap

      We may need that in order to get the thugs out of office permanent like.

      The thing about the chained CPI is that both republican and democratic voters are going to hate Obama if they go through. He will be be vilified. And rightfully so.

      •  Binary system means you CAN'T 'get the Thugs out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sydneyluv

        permanently', esepcially not when 40% are batshit crazy or their masters, enablers or parasites, the media makes everything a game and actively manipulates it to keep it close, and rigging the vote is an approved way of stealing.. er, 'winning' elections. See, 2000, 2004 and - boy they sure tried in 2012, eh?

        The result is that the best you can do is mitigate the damage while trying to steer the polity to a place where large enough majorities support liberal polices - and as importantly understand that they do - that the Thugs will have to change or die.

        Which is basically what BO's been trying to do from the beginning. For instance, the reason they chose chained CPI is that the harm is mostly in the future which means it can be fixed if we get thru the short- and mid-term without the systems completey collapsing - which is less than even money imo.  (And if we can't, chained CPI will be a picnic.  We'll be lucky to avoid corporate fuedalistic Theocracy.)

        •  We locked them out of the House for 60 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buzzer, kamarvt, Roger Fox

          friggin years.  Even when they took the majority a few times in the 50's, they had to run such centrist Republicans to get the seats that they wound up expanding Social Security, not cutting it.

          When we ran this country like Democrats, they had to run a candidate who was practically a Democrat himself to win the White House!  Even Nixon has to run as a  fiscal and economic "liberal moderate".

          It wasn't until we started turning into the party of deregulation under Carter that we started taking a back seat.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:08:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactamundo (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

               The Democrats' decline as a national party dovetails perfectly with the party's decision to abandon populist economics.

                If the voter has two Republican Parties to choose from, he'll vote for the real one.

            "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

            by Buzzer on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:24:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  different time, different media, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chrismorgan

            and a different electorate. Political literacy was much higher fifty years ago than it is now, at least among the smaller percentage of Americans who voted. Witness the resilience and popularity of all the zombie lies about everything from the efficacy of Keynesian economics vs austerity to the legacy of MLK and FDR. Murrow and Cronkite would not have presided over the stupidification of the American electorate like Ailes and Murdoch have.
            I am far from sure that we would see the same result now that we saw then; there is too much disinformation, and the bubbles are harder to break than they have ever been.

            Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

            by kamarvt on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:34:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Different Party. We owned the House until (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kamarvt

              we veered hard right in 1992 with Clinton.  It wasn't even a fight.

              The only people who watch Fox are the far right.  They've always been here.  They're not new.

              What is new is Democrats using their insanity as an excuse to move further and further to the right.

              You can say a lot of shit about LBJ, and I do, but the fucker never tried to play "Do you see how crazy the Birchers are?  Obviously, the intensity of the insanity of this small minority is going to make me cut Social Security!!!!".

              The public is on our side on issue after issue.  The polls aren't jokes, and they don't support the whimpering excuse that the people have been duped by Murdoch.

              But most of those who don't vote lean left.  They stay home because even when they elected Democrats, they got unpopular Republican policies.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:13:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I see a different dynamic in non voters (0+ / 0-)

                Many of the people i know, particularly the younger ones, are firmly in the "government doesn't matter to my life" camp. Even when I show them how the policies by and for the 1% do in fact impact their lives, negatively, i get shrugged shoulders. the post WW2 generation, the sixties generation, even my generation (70s) never adopted this view because we were raised in an age where the good that government can do was not questioned. Vanquishing the Nazis, landing on the moon, and the civil rights advances of that time made such a cynical or disinterested outlook almost impossible.
                Murdoch's dark empire hasn't always been exclusively for the reactionary fringe; i watched it up until 9/11 before the unbridled partisan dishonesty got to be too much (hey, those chyrons were cool, once). I know quite a few people, not wingnuts, who still watch it occasionally.
                I live in a rural area, which makes it likely my experience differs from more urban areas; RW radio is everywhere here, as well.

                Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

                by kamarvt on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 09:36:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What I hear from non-voters isn't (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  billlaurelMD

                  "government doesn't matter".  It's "it doesn't matter who I vote for".

                  In the last three cycles, my activism during the General has been all about propositions.  I don't have that hard a time convincing them their vote will have an impact on the outcome in those fights.  This isn't entirely a "what's my one little vote" thing.

                  They just don't believe that Politicians will do anything like what they run on doing.  They know Government has a lot of power, they don't believe they have any power over Government.

                  I live in an urban part of a moderately progressive state.   AM radio is dead.  Some minority language populations listen to FM radio for their basic news, but aren't that into getting tons of commentary with it.

                  Fox isn't tolerated in public spaces, and the only people I know who watch it are over 60 and are committed Right-Wingers (some of my former patients).

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:18:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Mostly bc of the same gerrymandering now hurting (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                billlaurelMD

                us, and the same folks doing it.  The pre-Civil Rights South was gerrymandered heavily for Ds.  As the racists fled to the Thugs, more and more southern state governments have become Thug and more and more Thug, so that now the gerrymandering is preventing a D majority - i.e., giving Thugs the same artifical guaranteeed seats Ds used to have.

                The reason the House didn't flip before 1994 has to do with hte life-span of incumbent Ds elected to the state and Congressional seats in the '50s and '60s (and sometimes long before, See e.g., J. Jake Pickle).

                •  We got a massive swing in 1994 because of (0+ / 0-)

                  NAFTA, and because the recovery didn't include jobs with the same kind of pay and benefits people were used to.

                  Democrats deliver on those "kitchen table" issues, or the only people who vote for us are those who truly fear Republican social policies.

                  And those aren't enough to secure the House.

                  We didn't have 60 Democrats all just "age out" suddenly.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope. Not supported by exit data. Sorry, I (0+ / 0-)

                    know you want a simple answer that confirms your view, but life and politics is far more complex.  NAFTA was not even implemented by Nov. 1994 (it was signed in Jan. 1994), and was ratified with far more Thug than D votes (House-234-200: 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats;  Senate 61-38: 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats).

                    Failure of health care ('Harry and Louise'), gun control, the 93 budget (tax increases), D 'corruption' (Wright, Rostenkowski), ruthlessly and cynical exploitation of scorched-earth and personal-destruction politics by Gingrinch had a lot more to do with losing those seats not lost thru Ds losing the South in the decades after CivilRights, than NAFTA.

                    Not too mention that Clinton didin't win '92 so much as Bush1 lost it to a coalition that included a lot of rightwing voters who went for Perot.

                    BTW, you do know Clinton did not craft NAFTA, right?  That was Bush1, who delivered it to Clinton as an essentially done deal, and repudiating it would have had pretty significant consequences for US-Canadian and Mexican relations?  And even then Clinton added a whole bunch of side agreements which would have mitigated the labor and enviromental costs of NAFTA if Bush2 hadn't wiped his ass with them?

          •  New Deal lasted 50 years, '38 to '88 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            The Binary system argument held true thru 1932 and then it failed.

            ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:10:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Really? How many Thug POTUS? After FDR, an (0+ / 0-)

              anomaly due to 4 term incumbancy and WW2, it was Truman-D, Ike-R, Kenedy-LBJ-D, Nixon-R, Cater-D, Reagan-R, Bush1-R (really Reagan's 3rd term), Clinton-D, Bush2-R, BO-D.

              Pretty damn binary pendulum there.

              •  Ike was barely a Republican. Nixon was fiscally (0+ / 0-)

                well to the Left of Obama.

                But more to the point - all I've heard for the last 5 years is that the Presidency is so weak and meaningless that even one grumpy Republican left in the Senate can completely thwart anything a President wants to do.

                So, who cares?  It doesn't mean shit compared to Congress.

                income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:13:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not really on Nixon, he merely reflected his times (0+ / 0-)

                  Ike was a unique Republican - tempered in the fires of the Depression and WW2.  Most Republicans of that time fell into either the JoeMcCarthy or Dewey (repeal the NewDeal and piss on FDRs grave) camps.

                  You do BO a severe disservice by judging his predecessors and him out of their historical context, something you can neither blame nor praise them for.

                  •  Ike only ran as a Republican because (0+ / 0-)

                    there was concern at the time that Mac might.

                    Obama Re-appointed Bernanke.  His right wing fiscal views are his own.  They are not "the product of his time".  

                    He has repeatedly taken positions well to the right of public opinion.  These are not moves made to please the electorate.

                    There has to be a point at which your loyalty to the truth, to decency, to your party, and to your country trump this extremist blind personal loyalty to one man.

                    Somewhere.  That point has got to exist somewhere.

                    income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                    by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:35:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  These are your opinions, not facts. They hinge (0+ / 0-)

                      on assumptions about BO's motive on fiscal policy and the liberal-ness of voters which are at least disputable.

                      I could as easily argue that Bernanke was re-appointed bc 1) the need for continuity in the midst of crisis, and 2) he has turned the spigot wideopen on the only kind of stimulus possible after the ARRA, monetary.  It is my opinion that those are 2 of the correct reasons for this. As evidence I pt to the horns Thugs have painted on B for doing his job rather than joining them in sabotaguing BO's 1st term economy.

                      Likewise, while I sometime agree that his positions are not as liberal as they could or should be, I note that for many polls show support for the components which disappears once you identify it as BOs plan.  Racism, tribalism, religious and theocratism among other things trump reason, even rational self-interest, for far to much of the electorate.

                      And, oh btw, he only beat a walking plutocratic robotic charicature by 6 pts.

                      As for your ad hominem, go f-- yourself.  You obviously know nothing of my views.  Go read some of my comments since 2004.

                      •  He was re-appointed because he implemented (0+ / 0-)

                        policies which Bush and Obama both approved.

                        Continuity isn't what the people voted for in 2008.

                        He's done such a piss-poor job as President that only beat Romney by six points.  That's not because racism somehow massively increased in four years.

                        It's because he had nothing to run on but "this other guy is horrible".

                        I know everything I need to know about you - you have nothing to offer but defenses of the indefensible.  The President completely ignores poverty, does fuck-all to create jobs, continues Republican policies at home and abroad....

                        And all you've got is some half-baked notion that the same people who elected him on a moderate progressive platform in 2008 have turned into stupid slavering racists.

                        I don't give a fuck what you had to say when Bush was fucking this country over.  Right now, you're a right winger defending a right wingers pursuit of right wing policies.

                        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                        by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:08:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  The crash in '29 lead to the 32 election (0+ / 0-)

          and massive majorities.

          In fact Wisconsin, had been a progressive leader was way ahead of the nation when it came it to workmans comp, unemployment, min wage, etc -. But none of the Wisconsin Idea came to the national forefront until after the 1932 election.

          Massive failure of ones belief system leads to examining an alternative. -22% GDP $ 30% unemployment in 1930 was exactly that. -3.4% & 18% unemployment in 2009 was not.

          ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:08:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The quantity of death and misery - and WAR - that (0+ / 0-)

            a crisis comparable to 1929-41 would mean should simply be unacceptable if you are a Democrat.

            •  So we settle for how many more years of recession? (0+ / 0-)

              & gridlock in DC?

              5-10-15-20?

              DO we destroy an entire generation or two in doing so?

              I know its not very appealing, but it does get the pain over and let the good times roll.

              ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:14:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ask those taken to Auswitz about 'good times'. (0+ / 0-)

                Those who lost everything, including the lives of children and other loved ones during the 30s.  

                Now, of course, the stakes and scope of catastrophic consequences are orders of magnitude far beyond what they were then.  Nuclear war anyone?  Further radicalization of the Muslim world?  With nukes and bio warfare and acopalyptic politcs and religion.. and of yeah, a nice festering casus beli in Isreal to light the final fuse?

                The plan is obvious for anyone who'll look: Try to win 2014 whle mitigating the damage from the ThugNihilists - and even with luck getting a little stimulus thru creative legislative and executive action (tho the latter is far more likely).  Then try to win 2016 - hoping Hillary runs and gives us another 8 years of D POTUS.  And then make sure we win enough statehouses in 2020 for 2021 redistricting.

                Yes, its a long, strategic plan.  And yes, it doesn't mean immeidate relief.  And yes, it means a whole lot of suck short-term.  But its how the Clowns of St.Raygun and HisFoolishDisciple and DarthCheney got us into this disater over the last 30 years.  Not surprising that it'll take 12 or 16 years to dig out is it?

                •  GDP growth in 1934 was 11% 35-9% 36-14% (0+ / 0-)

                  There is no economic reason that justifies todays economy.

                  But I'm glad to see you have a plan.

                  ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:49:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Entirely different economy, large #s after a 4 (0+ / 0-)

                    year collapse.  Hell, much of the US was a 4th world country even in 1928.  And by 1932, the Depression was not the financial collapse of 2008: the financial dominoes had pretty much all fallen long ago in those 4 years so the primary problem was 'merely' stagnant aggregate demand.

                    And, while a case can be made (and is pretty well by Krugman, stiglitz et al) that our present problem has also morphed into one largely of demand, 1932 was a much simpler time, economically, societally, technologically, politically.  Heck, the nation was mezmerized by actually being able to hear FDR live in their homes, a revolutionary development.  And, of course, you should peruse the size of FDRs majorities - Thugs were practically extinct- versus Thugs controlling the House and Ds only nominally in control in the Senate due to the filibuster.

                    Not too mention that FDR didn't let the Depression just fester till the public was primed for radical reform - Hoover did that for him.  Do you really think BO being the new Hoover would have helped anyone?

    •  We let the drive the car off the cliff. What we (0+ / 0-)

      got when our party took over both houses and the White House were policies that could have come out of Bush 41.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:04:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  At some point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    We actually have to pay the bills.   I say screw it. Keep spending and let's have a good time....

  •  I don't disagree regarding the broken budget (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zinman, elwior, Naniboujou

    But:

    With the climate collapsing - Leaving things in "status quo" mode is a recipe for civilization's suicide.

    There are some decisions where compromise or waiting and leaving things alone not only aren't good enough - but result in catastrophe.

    How do you stop someone who will stop at nothing?

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:03:29 PM PDT

    •  Catatrophic climate change doesn't register (4+ / 0-)

      Obama really doesn't get it. I don't have an explanation, I only have my perception. Why else would he seem ready to accept the Keystone XL pipeline to climate oblivion?

      Eradicate magical thinking

      by Zinman on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 09:27:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What part of 'Riding the Tiger' do you not get? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aitchdee, sydneyluv

        That's what we've been doing, and will continue to for next few decades, assuming the tiger doesn't just eat us.

        The carbon-fuel industries almost killed wind this go round, and it only survived bc the 'fiscal cliff' deal was made by BO rather than Rmoney.

        Think about that: wind.  The most benign energy source presently possible.  With literally no enemies except greedy plutocrats who pretty much model themselves after movie villains.

        Keystone fits the model perfectly: BO has not approved it.  He delayed it.  Does anyone really think a Thug - or DLC - POTUS wouldn't have approved it a year and 1/2 ago?  Political realities will likely end in it having to be approved ( with some concessions - haven't they already changed the route some?), but BO didn't create that landscape, he's only trying to manuever through it.

        And the name for those who ignore politcal reality is roadkil.  Ask Jimmy Carter's second term.

        •  Obviously, Obama has to approve shit like (0+ / 0-)

          Keystone in order to get re-elected.

          That makes sense.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:09:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The problem with climate change (0+ / 0-)

          is that you can't compromise with it. You either cut CO2 emissions by about 60% or the earth will continue to get warmer, extreme weather events become more and more likely, sea level rise floods low lying real estate everywhere, agriculture fails, parts of the globe become uninhabitable.
            Delaying Keystone -tar sands development buys time, but if it's eventually developed anyway, you have the same problems only a little further in the future.

          The problem with today's Democrat Party is that it's run by people who do not understand their own base - to the extent that to stand up for Social Security is to be a DFH.
            And the Dems, instead of making a bold stand on climate change treat it as a leftist special interest issue.
             They do some good things around the margins, but they have failed on the big issues.

          •  Ur correct on climate, but that boat sailed a deca (0+ / 0-)

            de plus ago.  Simply put, the cake is baked.  Catastrophic climate change is going to happen.  The coasts are going to flood.  The grain belts are going to collapse and, if we're lucky, move north where while others will get the $ and control, we at least will have food.

            Oh, and the wars will happen.

            At best, all we can do is mitigate the worst of it.  

            Which, of course, we should try.  But we also have to be realistic about it and what we can do and can't do.  If the economics and politcs mean more carbon pollution in the short-term - and they do imo, no matter how many folks claim to be eco-voters (and claim is the right word bc history shows most will compromise when its their job or cushy livestyle on the line), then we must be creative in finding other ways to reduce same (e.g., EPAs black soot rules) short-term while nuturing and deploying non-carbon energy sources so at least there's an end to the tunnel, albeit far too late to avoid much of the damage.

            I've been advocating on carbon-climate change since 1980 (yes, 1980).  Its one of the major reasons I despaired during the Great Theft of 2000.  I am coming to the conclusion that politcs simply is not able to deal with it.  What it takes - and what has/is happening - is a multigenerational change in atitudes about the signifcance and fragility of the Earth.  Call it The Revenge of the Big Blue Marble.  (E.g., very few people over 60 seem capable of comprehending that us little human can so f-- up the Earth, but the number who can grows with each decade younger.)

            •  humanity also forgets (0+ / 0-)

              that life got as comfortable for us in the so-called First World only over say the last 100 or so years.  They forget what life could easily be like, even though many in the Third World could certainly remind us if we were paying attention.

              How is taking a hundred dollars worth of food from hungry kids or from old poor sick people equal to taking a hundred dollars from billionaires? -- howabout, 19 Dec 2012

              by billlaurelMD on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 10:27:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  sigh ... Maybe it doesn't matter any more .... (0+ / 0-)

            please don't say DemocRAT when it's Democratic.  One of my BIG pet peeves.  And you're bringing in Right-Wing Framing when you say it.

            On second thought, maybe we SHOULD call the particular wing of the party you describe as DemocRAT, after all. :-(

            How is taking a hundred dollars worth of food from hungry kids or from old poor sick people equal to taking a hundred dollars from billionaires? -- howabout, 19 Dec 2012

            by billlaurelMD on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 10:25:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  My suggestion would have ended all talks (13+ / 0-)

    of cuts.

    Obama should have told the GOP when they want to cut something they can cut any new spending they created and passed under Bush.

    Have at it.

    Problem solved.

     

    If Conservatism was so great you would think they could find a sane person to represent it. Since the only people who represent it seem to be insane. I'm waiting for the day conservatism is labeled a mental illness

    by SharksBreath on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:09:04 PM PDT

    •  David Brooks and Cokie Roberts wouldn't approve (0+ / 0-)

         It would be just so rude and (gasp) partisan to suggest such a thing.

         And NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, is more important to Obama than the Village liking him. It's the centerpiece of his presidency, if not his whole human existence.

      "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

      by Buzzer on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:28:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They broke it, they should fix it. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psnyder

    "We see things not as they are, but as we are." - John Milton

    by Jasonhouse on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:17:56 PM PDT

  •  THANK YOU! This whole proposal is freaking (13+ / 0-)

    ridiculous.  How is it that the leadership of the Democratic Party has adopted Rethuglican economic positions lock, stock and barrel?  And they want us to suck it up and swirl down the drain with / for them?  I don't think so.

    This is complete insanity.  The Dems will be wiped off the map in 2014 if Obama keeps pushing this.  And, we will not be able to blame the other side for this self-inflicted wound.

    End this madness.  Now.  

    End the wars! Single payer now!

    by HCKAD on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:30:14 PM PDT

  •  No, Obama HAS this bro (9+ / 0-)

    Chained CPI will fix the budget.
    Plus with all the seniors starving, that will lower the cost curve of health care.

    And of course, he has the future of the party in mind.

    I thought electing Obama would end the Pete Peterson/DLC/ThridWay thugs, but I was wrong.
    Have I wasted my life?

    I haven't made a political donation since 2010, I think it's time to toss 1K to PCCC/DFA/MoveOn who are pledging to run primaries and negative ads to other dems who follow our president down this road.

  •  I was reading Yahoo news (12+ / 0-)

    this morning. There was an article about Obama putting SS on the table. Same old shit he's been saying. Then I read the comments. Holy Shit. Everyone was talking about how they didn't want SS and Medicare messed with. Bt what was shocking was the amount of posts that were blaming the Democrats for wanting to make cuts! No shit. One poster said if you want to see SS go away vote Democrat. Then another agreed and went on about how the Dems are wanting to destroy their safety net. It makes my head hurt to think there are this many people who believe this shit.

    I don't think these posters were 'plants' either.

    "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

    by fugwb on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:38:54 PM PDT

  •  "Right now we have divided government." (16+ / 0-)

    No, we don't.

    We have 535 bought and paid for politicians whose first priority is raising an average $3,000 every week of the year of private political contributions for themselves and for their DNC or RNC national organizations.

    And then we have about 3,500 to 4,000 highly paid lobbyists, about seven for every member of Congress, who are the people who hand over all this private money and keep careful track of who got whose money in return for promising what.

    The lobbyists write most of the bills, or lawyers for their corporate clients do, and the lobbyists tell the Congressmen and Senators how to vote on them. Those poor buggers don't have time to read all the hundreds of pages in a typical bill. They're too busy getting money so they can afford their next campaign to get themselves reelected.

    Lobbyists even insert paragraphs into bills that no one in Congress ever read, saw or talked about -- like the recent "Monsanto is above all Federal laws" paragraph anonymously inserted into the recent budget extension bill. Obama signed that into law without reading it. No one in the White House read it.

    Saying we have a divided Congress is like going to a game between the Mets and the Cardinals and saying, "Wow. We have a divided ballpark right now." Of course you do -- but what's really happening is that every player on the field is playing for plenty of money, and for no other reason.

    There is no other reward than money in our Congress. Working for principles, honor, democracy, justice, liberty, prosperity -- doesn't pay, doesn't get you promoted on committees and doesn't get you reelected.

    It's a ball game for a bunch of millionaires, that's all. They all have the same agenda -- right now it's forcing austerity on the entire American populace.

    So they and their friends can be even richer than they are.

    Play ball!

  •  from your lips to the President's ears. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    on the cusp, blueoasis, elwior

    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

    by temptxan on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:59:09 PM PDT

  •  Make it obvious (4+ / 0-)

    That one party wants the government to function, and the other doesn't.

    If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

    by Bryce in Seattle on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 07:08:08 PM PDT

    •  Its been obvious for years, enough voters don't ca (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aitchdee

      re that Thugs can keep fucking things up every off-year - with a little help from Reid and those too afraid of the short-term risk to reap the long-term reward of filibuster reform.

      •  That's important. (0+ / 0-)

        But what power do you have to change it?

        If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

        by Bryce in Seattle on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 12:31:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Education, advocacy, activism. What else? (0+ / 0-)

          Basically what BO's - and lots of others to be sure - been up to for years.  What you can't do is join the 'I don't like this, so to hell with them' crowd.  

          Giving up means losing.

          Which is why I don;t have any problem with the oppostion to chained-CPI.  Its the doom-and-gloomers and the 'here's an excuse to push my demoralizing Ds are secret Thugs bs', etc., that I object to.  If I didn't know better, I'd think they were all just Thug sockpuppets (instead of some).

          OTOH, tho, that means the opponents have an obligation to both present reasoned arguments and to address the questions and arguments of critics.

          Example: I am still waiting for someone to point to (if it exists) an analysis of what chained-CPI actually does when you factor in, e.g., the biggest driver in CPI-U for seniors is drug and medical costs but out-of-pocket for those has fallen drastically bc of part D and ACA.  If the net is that  seniors other than the poorest (supposed to be held-hamrless by present chain-CPI proposal) simply don't get a windfall, I don;t have a problem with that.  I supported Medicare covering their drugs so they would not have to chose bt e.g. food and medicine, not so they could get more $ at the expense of younger folks.  IOW, if chained-CPI is structured so the costs fall on wealthier seniors, I don't have a problem with it - nor should Ds.  Seniors don't have a right to spend everyone else's inheritance.  

          (And btw, I'm 55, so will take some of the biggest hit from c-CPI.  Of course, Ryan's coupon-abolish Medicare plan would likely literally kill me too, albeit in 15 or so years.)

          •  Nope (0+ / 0-)
            Education, advocacy, activism.
            That has only worked in the past for social justice issues like women's suffrage, civil rights, and marriage equality.

            That won't work for economic issues. Imposing chained CPI on seniors is just one more form of class warfare from the rich. How do you propose that we educate someone out of their corruption?

            If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

            by Bryce in Seattle on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 05:15:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Make it *true*. Right now, it isn't. (0+ / 0-)

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:10:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Right on (8+ / 0-)

    And the whole fiscal conservatism from the Republican every time a Democrat holds the White House is just a Two Santa Claus scam anyway. How many decades does it take for the Democrats to figure that out ?

    Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too – spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes!
    ...
    There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They'd have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.
    Obama is playing a useful stooge in this Republican scheme, isn't he ? The moment there's a Republican president then all Republicans will instantly learn the new wisdom "Deficits don't matter" like the last time they did with Dick Cheney.
  •  Tell that to traitorous fucktards like Rendell (10+ / 0-)

    The man from fix the debt had the brass balls to actually argue we need these cuts to create jobs.  Fuck you Rendell.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 07:40:28 PM PDT

    •  Rendell's just a useful idiot (0+ / 0-)

      He doesn't know wtf he's talking about. They just feed him some talking points and he spouts them, which he's paid well to do. He's a shill, like Rivlin, Bowles, Simpson, Brooks, etc. Some of them know they're lying, some are just morons.

      In 1836 Andrew Jackson balanced the budget for only the second time in US history. In 1837 the US experienced the worst economic downturn in its history to that point. There was a direct and substantial correlation between the two.

      Only economic fools, the obsessive-compulsive, and self-interested liars fixate on balancing the budget, which is utterly unnecessary and quite dangerous.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:50:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gallup: 72% say Massive Federal Jobs Stimulus (7+ / 0-)

    http://www.gallup.com/...

    The deficit be damned!

    If you want to corner the Republicans on being uncooperative, you do it on the basis of "We offer the Updated New Deal, they offer nothing. Elect Democrats: see Jobs created, the deficits fixed, the safety-net protected and even expanded."

    Victory. Recovery.

    Internalizing the Republicans Austerity and lipsticking it with the tag "Superlative" is objectively Economic Suicide.

    Politically, defenders of the offer say it's kabuki, but they've reached for the wrong Japanese phrase: what they mean is "seppuku."


    If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

    by Jim P on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 07:42:25 PM PDT

  •  Good Point (5+ / 0-)
    "balanced approach" to Women's rights? Looking to meet Todd Akin halfway?

    -approaching Curmudgeonry with pleasure

    by Calfacon on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 07:53:05 PM PDT

  •  My tea party buddy commented yesterday (7+ / 0-)

    that "both parties do it".
    Try as I might, I could not argue with this Limbaugh/Beck/ prepper.
    I teared up.

    •  The forest firefighter and arsonist both set fires (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aitchdee, sydneyluv

      Your buddy doesn't get the difference bc Limpboy/Faux have turned his brain to mush.  Your job was to understand and explain that there is a difference.

      I.e., Thugs want to destroy SS/Medicare.  Abolish.  Coupon it.  And have since their inception.

      BO is talking about starting a backfire to stop the conflagration Thugs want.  IOW, a little pain to the least immediately harmful and most easily fixed part - its no coincidence that almost all the cost of chained CPI takes place a decade plus from now.

      Its easy to understand why Thugs win, when you see so many Ds ready to surrender strategy for any immediate shiny object.

      •  How the fuck does chasing policies that hurt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dallasdunlap

        seniors and drive away tens of millions of voters serve as a fucking "backfire"?

        How the hell does "SS cuts are ok" serve to protect Social Security?

        At long last, have you NO fucking loyalty to your Nation, your Party, or your People that is not superseded by your devotion to one fucking politician?

        Have you no goddamned higher motherfucking goal than to polish a statue of some fucking idol?

        What the fuck is wrong with you?  Who the fuck taught you to believe that your duty as a citizen in a fucking republic was to publicly twist yourself into an obscene corkscrew in public rather than recognize plain truth and fight for the right?

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:16:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did your tantrum make you feel better? 'Cause (0+ / 0-)

          that's all it accomplished, except to be make me ignore your future comments on this.

          •  You're already ignoring decency, sense, and reason (0+ / 0-)

            You've made it crystal clear that there is nothing the President can do that will shake your irrational devotion to him personally.

            income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

            by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:38:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Give it up, Chris: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        It's not a "backfire." THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN 2012. There is no need to appease the T-Pubs on Social Security. The Republicans don't give a shit about Social Security one way or the other. And they clearly don't seriously give a shit about deficits.
          This whole thing is a political game and Obama is playing to lose. Offering up chained CPI is Democratic suicide.
          There is no way in hell that I'll vote for a candidate or party that supports this.

        •  And yet Thugs run the House and most States. (0+ / 0-)

          And, since politics is as much about the next election as the last, the D Senate seats up that will decide partisan control are in the red States, it does not matter that Ds won more than a million vote margin over Thugs in the House.  Nor can the D Senate majority work its will bc of a little thing called spineless capitulation on the filibuster - which BO had nada to do with.

          And, of course, you do know POTUS is not a dictator.

          I understand the desire for a 'do nothing' policy.  We do not get the luxury of doing nothing.  If we do nothing, Thugs win. Beyond the fact that appropriations must be passes, the voters expect things to be done.  If nothing is done, in the short term, enough voters will either buy the Thug lies (remember 2010, 'Where are the jobs!"?) or simply not vote on the belief that nothing will change.  And in the long term, more and more voters will continue to become every more cynical about politics and governance and Thugs will win.  

          That is why this is deemed necessary by BO, imo.

          And that it is intended to be a backfire is demonstrated by its being contingent on tax increases.  The elites are in love with deficit peacock-ism.  To the extent that only long-term debt is considered, there is some merit to concern, which both feeds their fear and makes them look reasonable.  BO is trying to take the deficit off the table as a legitimate issue or failing that (most likely) position Ds as both the adults and party of fairness.  

          It may not work.  It may be misguided.  But fact-free screeds and rants devoid of critical thinking and even the barest acknowledgment of self-fallibility will not help and just waste bandwith and energy.  

          And make us look as juvenile and irrelevant as the 'get government outa my Medicare' crowd.

          •  Why the fuck do you think people in Red States (0+ / 0-)

            vote for fucking Democrats?

            Ever?

            Because of Social Security and Medicare.  The safety net is the only reason we get Democrats out of states like Montana.  

            Repeating OFA talking points is not an argument, it's just an admission that you haven't got one.  

            Two stacked Commissions designed to recommend SS cuts, five years of the President saying he supports cuts, and you still insist he's just a liar who's playing games and being deceitful about his objectives.

            It makes you look like a thirteen year old with a crush.

            income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

            by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:42:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I repeat since you seem not the read: (0+ / 0-)

              "It may not work.  It may be misguided.  But fact-free screeds and rants devoid of critical thinking and even the barest acknowledgment of self-fallibility will not help and just waste bandwith and energy.  

              And make us look as juvenile and irrelevant as the 'get government outa my Medicare' crowd."

              When you learn this lesson and stop insulting me, I might again respond.  As of now, all you've done is prime me to dismiss your position.  The opposite of what you ostensibly intended.

          •  "It may not work." It seems that if the (0+ / 0-)

            President's apparent 'plan' doesn't work would mean that thousands of disabled, veterans, and seniors will be subjected to dire hardships, if not an early death, is completely acceptable to you??  It makes it appear that you are sufficiently wealthy enough that SS won't constitute at least 50% of your retirement and ambivalent to the needs of those less fortunate than you.

            The very fact that the President officially offered up what amounts to cuts to SS makes every Democrat fair game to being described as wanting to not only cut SS, but dismantle it by their political opponents.  The polls have demonstrated time and again that the American public does not want ANY cuts to SS.  Yet, here's the President offering to do just that.  You know that the Republicans WILL hang this around the neck of every single Democrat running for office.

            The Republicans have also clearly demonstrated that any compromise offered by a Democrat is a non-starter.  They demand and fully expect full capitulation to their wishes.  By compromising at some middle point between current policy and what the Republicans want only moves the country further to the right.  This will lead us to the abolishment of not only SS and Medicare, but anything else that might have a chance to help someone that's not of the 1% sooner than later and no chance of reversal.  How many times have Democrats said, we'll give a little on this and when we get back in power, we'll fix it.  They never have.

  •  You're going to have to talk to Obama about this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin, nchristine

    Cuz this equation: "If you want your benefits cut, then vote GOP. If you don't, vote Democrat" - that ain't working at present.

  •  Look, BBB, we have a crisis in America! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brooklynbadboy

    There is an N-word in the White House! In the White House!! That can't and won't be tolerated by us lily white TeaPublicons! No way, no how! And, until order is restored and Mitt or Newt or Reince (or one of them other cute Republican names) has properly ascended to and taken his rightful seat upon the throne there will continue to be a disturbance in the Confederacy ~er America. And, as much as we would hate to do it we may have to tar and feather his black ass to, you know, set an example, show who's boss, just to... huh? what... ? BBB is an N-word? ~er black bas... ~er African American?
    BBB, we have a crisis in America! The Economy is in the dumper and president Obama isn't helping. We hope you will join us in our efforts to restore America to its former glory...

    [Triple B, we hope you are going to NN13, and we hope we can get you for a few minutes on the radio there! I couldn't agree with you more!]

  •  The thing that gets me is this fixation on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, JesseCW, kovie

    the budget, and wanting to balance it. What happened to fixing the economy first? Today's economic numbers were brutal. If, Obama continues to not focus on the main issue, Democrats will get clobbered next year.

    People are getting restless, with this so called new normal of high employment.  

  •  Balanced approach to women's rights? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin, JesseCW, kovie

    You bet.  Did you see the Plan B restrictions Obama put in that got smack down as illegal?  Or the compromise about religious commercial institutions?

    He compromises big time on the enviroment as well

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 12:54:07 AM PDT

    •  He's a co-dependant political enabler (0+ / 0-)

      He desperately wants to be liked, by the people who'll never ever like him. The adoration of his base is something he takes for granted and isn't enough. It's quite pathological, Clintonesque really. The more they hate him, the more he needs them to like him, and the more he'll embarrass himself by running after them with more and more concessions. They know this, and are playing it for all it's worth. He's selling out the party for an pathetic illusion.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:40:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your frame just perpetuates the problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin, nchristine

    Sorry, but starting this diary off by saying "Why are we doing this" and "us Democrats" would seem to ignore the facts on the ground. Don't count me (or a lot of us) in the "we" who are doing this. It is Mr. Obama, whose name you did not mention once in this diary.

    "Our" Democratic leader and standard bearer, Mr. Obama, has been clear that he wants to in effect drive a stake through the heart of the New Deal. Thus he has decimated the Roosevelt/Kennedy/Johnson base of the Democratic Party. What other base was there?

    If this kind of compromising on the values I thought we held dear is the New Democratic Way Forward, then count me out.

    So all those who still hold these values dear, the former Democratic base, have been exiled to Siberia; fractured, scattered, leaderless.

    "We" are not doing this. They are.

  •  They won't do it. (0+ / 0-)

    They want the Democrats to do it for them so the next time they(republicans) control the Presidency they can go on another tax cut and spending spree like they did after Clinton "balanced the budget". What the republicans really want is a constant shifting of the burden of running our country and military onto the backs of America's remaining workers.

    "Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down." Bill Clinton

    by irate on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:45:57 AM PDT

  •  Like the Democrats want tax hikes on the rich? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dallasdunlap, nchristine

    Or to save the citizens from benefit cuts?

    Exactly how many times does the Obama Administration have to propose of their own free will cutting Entitlements and NOT propose any of the increases on the rich that they ran on (such as lifting the SS cap) before we fucking get the picture around here as to what the ACTUAL platform of the ACTUAL Democratic Party is?

    *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

    by Rick Aucoin on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:14:13 AM PDT

  •  That's politically impossible (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, dallasdunlap

    If the Democrats don't at least pretend to stand up for their voters then why would their voters vote for them?

    ¡Cállate o despertarás la izquierda! - protest sign in Spain

    by gjohnsit on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 05:14:31 AM PDT

  •  The concern for the deficit is a ruse. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dallasdunlap

    When you want to destroy something, first you demonize it.....

    Obama is the poop in the pool.  With NAFTA/deregulate the banks Clinton and cut SS/Med Obama, who the hell needs Republicans.   They are exactly what's wrong with the so called Democratic Party.

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 05:29:22 AM PDT

  •  Things Dems can do to be more popular (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dallasdunlap, nchristine

    on the basis of the meet Repubs halfway triangulation strategery that's worked so well in the imaginary past:

    --Raise the voting age for women to 25
    --Sell the USPS to FedEx
    --Make Ronald Reagan's birthday a national holiday
    --Ban Shariah Law every other Friday
    --Appoint Rush Limbaugh to the FCC
    --Eliminate the EITC and estate tax (what's fair is fair)
    --Name Ted Nugent as the US Poet Laureate

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:34:29 AM PDT

  •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

    Because the republicans are just dumb enough to run the country like the EU.  Democrats should keep trying to put real Democrats into office and get rid of these Federalists.

  •  Amen. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

    by luckylizard on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 01:08:31 PM PDT

  •  How Come (0+ / 0-)

    When Republicons controlled everything deficits didn't matter (Dick Cheney even said this in an interview) but all of a sudden they do?  Even if it doesn't pass, chained CPI and reductions to Medicare will be a black mark on the Dems and may cause us to not win back the House in 2014 and lose the Senate also.

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

    by Rosalie907 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:25:13 AM PDT

Ed in Montana, ferg, Liberal Thinking, Geenius at Wrok, Gooserock, theboz, karlpk, MouseThatRoared, ThomJeff, LeftHandedMan, Bryce in Seattle, expatjourno, hubcap, Dave G, fugwb, bluesteel, CalvinV, roses, ctsteve, Iberian, Noodles, Boppy, chickeee, Timbuk3, lcrp, outragedinSF, zerelda, rolet, sebastianguy99, NoMoreLies, ichibon, irate, KnotIookin, mike101, basquebob, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, majcmb1, Dem Beans, where4art, lotlizard, Steve in Urbana, SBandini, Savvy813, mightymouse, Alan Arizona, ChuckInReno, Jim P, begone, third Party please, Showman, detroitmechworks, Medium Head Boy, cybersaur, smokeymonkey, fou, blueoasis, Rosaura, NCJan, real world chick, sceptical observer, kurt, SD Goat, Aaa T Tudeattack, DBunn, Habitat Vic, SpecialKinFlag, Positronicus, Van Buren, rantsposition, HCKAD, Aunt Martha, Rosalie907, JML9999, on the cusp, TomP, CroneWit, Roger Fox, JeffW, MikePhoenix, Sixty Something, dadadata, bythesea, elwior, jamess, CenFlaDem, RandomNonviolence, Jeff Y, petulans, luckylizard, ht dave, Karl Rover, LaFeminista, MufsMom, Lura, banjolele, maryabein, JesseCW, younglady, geebeebee, oxfdblue, winkk, Former Chicagoan Now Angeleno, LookingUp, awcomeon, NMDad, flitedocnm, indie17, eXtina, estreya, Eddie L, gulfgal98, elginblt, DiegoUK, ericlewis0, ZedMont, annieli, CoExistNow, Late Spring, molunkusmol, muddy boots, floridablue, sofa turf, Andrew F Cockburn, JoeEngineer, cailloux, DataMonster, quill, extripsix, anodnhajo, ahumbleopinion, Eric Nelson, Horace Boothroyd III, BusyinCA, Had Enough Right Wing BS, T C Gibian, Kayjay, Chaddiwicker, Illinois IRV, Icicle68, IndyinDelaware, oslyn7, RUNDOWN, nancyjones

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site