home

The Budget And All That

Jeralyn writes about it. I just want to remind everyone that President Obama cut a deal with the Republicans in December to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Yes, today's budget fight is related to that. And yes, I expect Obama to cave again.

Hope I'm wrong. Another busy day for me. If the courts get shut down in 2 weeks, I'll have more free time.

Speaking for me only

< Republicans Still Blocking Budget Deal | Federal Courts, the Budget and Immigration Cases >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • December (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:24:12 AM EST
    is when he lost the argument about spending and taxes and everything else is just some kind of weird kabuki theater.

    December is when he didn't make the (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:57:37 AM EST
    argument.  You can't lose a battle you don't fight.

    Parent
    He shut down Schumer who had a (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:03:06 AM EST
    very good argument and proceeded to meet and exceed the Republican demands.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:30:48 AM EST
    said.

    Parent
    Caveman (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:28:33 AM EST
    And yes, I expect Obama to cave again.

    Hope I'm wrong.

    You can't go wrong betting on Obama and his propensity for caving in.

    Of course, that does assume that he isn't already in line with the republican position and this is all a charade. So perhaps, "caving" is not the right word. Perhaps it should just be this particular farce is over.

    There won't be a gov't shutdown (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:36:15 AM EST
    Not with the Great Bipartisan Negotiator in charge.

    The question really is how much will the Republicans win. 55%? 65%? The whole shebang?

    And then the next question is how far will "progressive" supporters of Obama go in defending the compromise. And how much more to the right will the definition of "progressive" drift.

    IIRC when the Great Bipartisan Negotiator (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:00:50 AM EST
    was in charge of negotiating "The Deal," he gave the Republicans even more than what they asked for or expected to receive.

    Then again, when both parties have the same objectives, how much skill is needed to reach agreement. The only required skill is to make it look like you had no alternative than to give away the store.  

    Parent

    exactly n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:03:47 AM EST
    I'm still shaking my head over (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:39:40 AM EST
    Jeralyn's post.

    With the big, scary specter of a government shutdown sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the attention - and the conversation/debate - have been taken away from where - excuse me, but I have to put it this way - real Democrats -  should have focused it to clearly define the differences between themselves and the Republicans.  The negotiations over The Deal would have been one way.  Revealing the utter dishonesty of this debt/deficit crisis would have been another.

    But when you spend more than two years blurring those differences in the interest of "getting along" and "getting things done," and now have the Democrats in agreement with Republicans that we have to - like it's some kind of emergency - cut spending and fiddle around with entitlement programs, just to a lesser degree, it's clear that the fix, as they say, is in.

    I hate to break it to Jeralyn, but these Democrats are not who she thinks they are anymore.  And it's just no longer possible to make them the righteous defenders of the average American, while saving all the blame and anger for the Republicans; where we are today is as much - if not more - the fault of Dems' decisions to abandon what has always set them apart from Republicans than it is that Republicans are all that much worse than they ever were.

    If Republicans want to deliver 30 lashes of economic pain to the American people, and the Dems want to settle for 20, I'm sorry - the Dems cannot sell themselves as the heroes, fighting the good fight against the brutal Republicans.

    I don't know, I read posts that continue to frame the politics in terms of us good-them bad, and I just shake my head trying to understand how we've come to the point where we're the ones who are settling for and enabling policy and action that have moved so far off the Democratic platform that I don't know how anyone can keep calling it Democratic.

    they are going to shut it down (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    and TVs all over america will be flooded with people celebrating the fact that it is shut down.
    whack job morans with party hats will be dancing in the streets.

    it wont last long.

    I'm so with you on this :) (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    And the Mr. came home last night just furious.  One of the civilians that he works with is a tea partier.  How is someone a tea partier and nursing on the government teat?  Someone splain that whack to me :)

    So this guy is all excited about this, he says if government is shut down in other areas he isn't coming to work on Monday.  Then my husband gets all fried and tells him that he is too, and he comes home all fried and I have to ask him how this will go down?  Is he going to drive to the guys house, break the door down, drag him out to the car and throw him in the trunk?

    When our daughter was a teenager she taught me a valuable lesson, you can't fight the crazy thinking winning is a possibility :)  Just let them hang their owned damned selves, and after these idiots ram their own car into a tree and everybody is walking we will have some crazy recovery.

    I can't believe this guy though that my husband works with.  First he argues that taxes should not be raised on anyone because he is sick and tired of our incompetent government wasting his money.  It's fricken priceless because his own job is then an example of our incompetent wasteful government.  But he got what he wanted.  Now he wants government to shut down and he doesn't come to work, and sounds like he will be partying like it is 1999 then.  Then we get lots more cuts, his civilian job will be one of the first to go too.  All he does is teach, he can't be jerked out of there and go defend the nation or anything....he's fricken dead weight by his own standards.  So he loses his job, and there is no social safety net to catch him and there are no other jobs for him to get.  Party on fools, I'm so sick of all of you and I'm just going to stand here and watch and laugh.  And maybe I'll make myself a relaxing margarita too and just kick back and party like I'm trying to survive the insane.

    Parent

    the best is when (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:36:02 AM EST
    the moran retirees realize they git no check.

    they are gonna be "HOOOORAYYY wait, what?!?"

    Parent

    The sticking point is Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    See, I told you guys, it is never really about the deficit.

    It can sometimes be about taxes.  But, the tax issue was "resolved" last December.

    Now, the issue is the philosophical jihad against government--at least some types of government.  Conservatives love big government when it enforces their social views.

    The Republican party is primarily a party of religion.  See how abortion comes up at the end of the Health Care debate last year, and now again on this "budget" bill.

    By religion, I mean the Republican version of it.  It is not really religion in a theological sense.  But the Republican version of Christianity that is really about cultural self-validation.  It is the reactionary's attempt to reject modernity.  It is about existential survival.  For example, they need to get rid of public school teachers because they teach evolution, which means their is no Life after Death and no God.

    They need to avoid European style socialism, not because Sweden is a hell-hole and Britian absolute purgatory, but because Europe is Godless Europe.  And atheists scare them.  Because they secretly fear the atheists are right, and they need the government to validate their religious views.....

    The Tea Party is about taking their country back--back from modernity and the atheists who are forcing modernity on them.

    Bachmann, Palin--and Trump's rapid rise.  Why?  Because they fight against the modernity that changes their culture.

    As Cheney said, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.

    You silly liberals, as long as you believe it is about numbers and deficits, you will never understand what is really going on.  

    Parent

    digby's opinion re Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    Last December, the Democrats gave us DADT repeal in exchange for the Bush tax cut and now they're angling to give us Planned Parenthood in exchange for massive, immediate cuts in discretionary spending. At some point you have to wonder if everyone isn't getting exactly what they want out of this deal --- except, of course, those who are already clinging to the lowest rungs of society and working people. link

    I think there is a good chance that she is right on this.

    While the Republicans campaign to appeal to the right wing religious elements, when the interests of big business conflict with the interests of their religious base, big business will IMO win every time.

    Parent

    If true, then big business (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    will pull the plug on the riders to defund Planned Parenthood.....but keep the rider defunding the EPA?

    We will find out soon enough....

    Parent

    Paul Ryan's straightjacket plan (none / 0) (#148)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    reinforces the growing evidence that the "economic argument" from the right is primarily a covering for a power battle to shrink the federal government as far back in time & size as possible (except DOD, natch.) The Repubs have been aiming for this battle since the day after the election...and, from time to time, have said so. We Democrats have our problems, certainly; but, just as certainly, the brand of overreach that loses--you know, the inevitable Gingrich circa 1995 type & the Wisconsin Governor Walker fiasco--is not what we practice.  A good bet: Repubs overplayed their November hand...they keep ponying up, and the political greed gets them every time.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:54:53 PM EST
    its actually worse than that.  please watch this segment from Maddow last night. I completely agree.

    Parent
    MT, I work with the same insanity (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    People who have never made a dime that was not provided by the government complaining about their taxes, etc. . I love to call them out on it, but it does get infuriating.

    I saw an article someplace yesterday about the tea partiers doing press interviews saying they do not want to shut down the government, all the wile carrying signs saying "shut 'er down". I know it is fruitless to argue with the crazy, but what do we do when the otherwise sane are catering to them?

    Parent

    We have a margarita (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:55:59 AM EST
    And stand back away from the tree these morans are barreling their car into.  Or we have a margarita and watch our fearless leader fold himself into an origami crane.  The only fact that I have settled on is that there should be Friday margaritas :)

    And if we get a paper crane and they still can't stop themselves from crashing the car, maybe pitchers of margaritas.

    Parent

    Ha! as long as there are Margaritas involved (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    I'm in! I was thinking just the other day that I just must not be drinking enough.

    Parent
    Depends on who's doing the ripping off (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    He sounds like a friend of mine that has two daughters (and a son-in-law) on Medicaid and public housing. She's constantly ranting about "those" lazy people ripping off the government and her outrageous taxes.

    When it's you, it's ok. It's just the "others" that are the problem.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    Do these people hear themselves?  When was the last time they had an honest reality check :)?

    Parent
    When you hear these divorced-from-reality (none / 0) (#158)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:58:11 PM EST
    types--the "keep your govt hands off my medicare" types--it helps to remember the poet Bobby Burns who wondered aloud about such types: "Oh,  wuld the gift He gie us, To see ourselves as others see us." When I think about that, my favorite response is slightly different than a Margarits...I mean, what can beat a good Boodles w/a little vermouth Martini!

    Parent
    If they shut down... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    half of what will keep running, and keep running what they will shut down...then I'd be happy dancing in the streets.

    IOW, National Parks open, foreign occupations and bombing runs and DEA and Federal Prisons shut the f8ck down.  

    Oh happy day...

    I'd feel at home in Bizarro World...anyone got directions?

    Parent

    The states as laboratories of experiment (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:48:47 AM EST

    The eight states with no state income tax grew 18% in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8%.

    The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15% in the last decade. The other states grew just 6%.

    The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15% in the last decade. The other states grew 7%.

    Is Obama pro-growth?

    Business pack up and move to (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:52:11 AM EST
    where taxes and regulations are lower?  Huh, we never would have guessed that.  Thanks.

    Of course, the next thing you have to explain is how does the American economy as a whole create jobs (not just move them from state to state) without trying to compete with 3rd world countries on cost.

    Parent

    Only part is "pack up and move" (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:32:05 AM EST
    .

    The other part is that businesses and jobs grow slower in a high tax climate, and businesses and jobs grow faster in a low tax climate.

    California for example has thousands of government retirees whose pensions are north of $100,000 a year.  The cost to job creation imposed by those handsome benefits is part of the reason the unemployment rate in California is so much higher than the similarly sized Texas.

    .

    Parent

    Relocation out of state is a BIG (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:36:37 AM EST
    part of the story with California.  Does the state go too far?  Perhaps.  But what you are recommending as something Obama should see as "pro-growth" is not a sustainable strategy.

    We are never going to compete with a China or India on cost (taxes, regulations, social spending, etc.) unless we replicate their living conditions.  We must find other ways to grow jobs.  Listing stats showing states with lower taxes and regs vs. others have done better is not constructive for national policy IMO.

    Parent

    High labor taxes (none / 0) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:45:35 AM EST
    .

    High costs impede job growth at the national level as well.  The more of labor cost that is wage cost the better for workers.  The more of labor cost that is tax cost, the worse for workers.

    .

    Parent

    Here it is folks (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:24:31 AM EST
    right out in the open.  A Cheap Labor Conservative.

    That labor that's supposed to be going for cheap is ... yours.  And mine.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:32:13 PM EST
    The objective has ALWAYS been a DOMINANT, unchallenged, unfettered, privileged aristocracy supported by cheap labor.

    Ages old.


    Parent

    Thanks for sharing! (none / 0) (#118)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    I enjoyed the read.

    Parent
    Its good (none / 0) (#135)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:20:43 PM EST

    Its good for workers when a high labor cost is due to high wages.

    It is not so good for workers when labor cost is due to high taxes.

    The more that the fruits of a persons labor goes to that person and the less that goes to the employer or the state the better.  

    Parent

    Then the logical best cheap labor market (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    is Somalia, where one doesn't have to worry about taxes on ones' wage whatsoever.

    Parent
    As you note (none / 0) (#173)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:51:24 PM EST

    Low wages are not a good thing.  How insightful.

    It should not be too hard to understand, that raising labor cost without raising labor's wages is bad for labor.

    Somalia is no doubt bad.  It would be worse with the addition of a $10/hour tax on all labor.

    Parent

    Un, no (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    low wages are good for employers, not so good for employees.

    It should not be too hard to understand, that raising labor cost without raising labor's wages is bad for labor.

    Then let's tax wealth, not labor, and you don't have to shed any more tears for the oppressed workers of America.

    Parent

    You'd love it there (Somalia) (none / 0) (#196)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:36:50 PM EST
    lowest taxes in the world.

    Parent
    Texas is sure the place to be (none / 0) (#16)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:00:38 AM EST

    The Texas House started with a $164.5 billion budget and ended with the same total. But lawmakers spent the better part of a weekend making changes inside the budget for 2012-13 before giving it their approval on a largely party-line vote of 98 to 49 late Sunday night.

    The debate began first thing Friday morning, carried into the first hour of Saturday and then resumed late Sunday afternoon. The essentials remained the same, with an overall plan that's 12.3 percent smaller than the current budget; leaves public education and health and human services spending short of what it would take to maintain current services, especially given population growth and inflation; and requires none of the remaining $6 billion in the state's Rainy Day Fund or any new taxes (though it does include $100 million in new fees).


    Click or Texas Tribune Me

    Of course, there are those facts that despite 'high labor taxes':

    It's not true that businesses are fleeing the state, Henton said. Adding up the numbers of businesses that started up compared with those that closed or moved elsewhere showed that the state gained a net average of 58,500 new businesses each year from 1995 to 2008, the report said.

    California's leadership in green technology bodes well for its future, the report said. The state has attracted $11.6 billion in clean-tech venture capital since 2006, about one-quarter of all global investment in the sector. In the first half of this year it drew 40 percent of all global clean-tech VC. More than half that money was invested in Silicon Valley.

    California also had a disproportionate share of U.S. solar energy patents (39 percent of those issued from 2007 to 2009), battery technology patents (20 percent in the same time period) and wind energy patents (16 percent in that period). In 2007, the state generated 90 percent of the country's total solar electricity output.

    Click or Sfgate Me

    Parent

    Texas has high property taxes (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    Although Texas has no income tax, they still get ya on taxes--property taxes, in this instance.  The property taxes in Texas are much higher than in California....

    Parent
    I'm sure AAA is aware of that (none / 0) (#152)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    No - tax savings to to profit-taking (none / 0) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    not workers.

    Parent
    An interesting (none / 0) (#93)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:02:36 AM EST

    but unsupported assertion.  Virtually every economist on the planet recognizes that taxes on labor reduce take home pay.

    Parent
    But those taxes (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    also pay for public schools and colleges and social security for grandma....all things that benefit middle class people who have take home pay....and all things that Republicans hate and want to abolish....

    Parent
    Reductionist arguments (none / 0) (#111)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:27:35 AM EST
    based on a single factor don't explain why CA is kicking TX heine in regards to green jobs, clean technology, etc.

    Parent
    So California (none / 0) (#125)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:49:12 AM EST

    is more into expensive and unreliable electrical power.  Perhaps you have identified a reason to site jobs elsewhere.

    Parent
    Unreliable! (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:19:55 PM EST
    My god you're hilarious.

    I'd wager the sun will shine long after the last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground.

    Parent

    Didn't say that (none / 0) (#150)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:48:32 PM EST
    but thanks for playing.

    Parent
    Wind and Solar (none / 0) (#175)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:53:23 PM EST

    are both more expensive and more unreliable than coal, gas, or hydro.

    Parent
    That depends where you're living (none / 0) (#183)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:57:28 PM EST
    and what you need the power for in the first place:

    Brockman Farming wanted to reduce
    their consumption of resources and their electric bill for their citrus and pistachio orchards. At the same time, they needed to show a reasonable rate of return on the expenses. With that in mind, they chose to install a solar power system by Solar Technologies to power the main pair of irrigation pumps, totaling 140 hp, which are capable of supplying water to approximately 200 acres of orchards.

    Brockman Farming is a wholesale producer of 350 acres of Satsuma Mandarins, Mercots, Minneola Tangelos and Navel oranges. Additionally 40 acres of  Pistachios are grown at the site. A microjet irrigation system is used to water their orchards.

    The solar power system is comprised of 448 Mitsubishi 180 watt solar panels and a 95 kW Solectria inverter placed on a ground-mount in the middle of the citrus orchards. Solar Technologies designed and located the solar power system in order use it in conjunction with the farm's biggest and most productive well. "With a deep well pump operating at 100 hp and a pressure pump at 40 hp, it takes a lot of electricity to power these pumps," said Harold Brockman, President of Brockman Farming.

    Since Brockman Farming now qualifies for a time-of-use rate with Pacific Gas & Electric, the solar power system will be producing a significant amount of electricity during peak hours at the highest electricity rate, during periods when the well is not being used. The credits built up during these periods will offset the cost of the electricity used during off-peak hours when the electricity rates are lower.

    The farm is now able to use its best well 25% more at a lower cost. Mr. Brockman estimates that he is able to offset the $23,000 per year electricity bill at this pump site by $20,000. His internal rate of return on this investment is in the double digits. He also will be taking advantage of a federal business tax credit of 30% and an accelerated depreciation schedule on this asset.

    Click or Solar Technologies Me

    Parent

    The fact (none / 0) (#190)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 06:43:56 PM EST

    That other ratepayers and the taxpayers have had costs shifted on to them does not mean the electricity is inexpensive.  Cost shifting is not cost reduction.

    If you were to pick up the tab for a Rolls Royce for me to drive, that car would not be inexpensive even though I paid nothing for it.

    Parent

    and yet, from the article you provide, CA grew 11% (none / 0) (#24)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:11:50 AM EST
    But the three Pacific Coast states -- California, Oregon and Washington -- grew by 11% in the last decade, just 1 percentage point above the national average, while the South Atlantic states from Virginia through the Carolinas and Georgia to Florida grew by 17%.

    Not too shabby considering all those greedy public retirees draining the system....

    Parent

    Calfornia enjoys (none / 0) (#94)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:16 AM EST

    Calfornia enjoys net in migration from other countries, but in a big change from years past there us a net out migration to other states.  

    Parent
    Please provide a link for your quote (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:20:41 AM EST
    Link (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:40:53 AM EST
    .

    Link

    .

    Parent

    While that link did not take me (none / 0) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:31:07 AM EST
    to the information in the quote, working with what you provided it seems clear that population growth is not an indication that people in a city or state are doing well. From your link:

    What's been happening is that people from the Northeast and the Midwest have been flocking to the South Atlantic states, not to retirement communities but to Tampa and Jacksonville, Atlanta and Charlotte and Raleigh, which are among the nation's fastest-growing metro areas. The South Atlantic has been attracting smaller numbers of immigrants as well.

    National unemployment was in Jan, 2011 was 9%

    The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Tampa rose 0.4 percentage points in January 2011 to 12.4% link

    The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Jacksonville rose 0.5 percentage points in January 2011 to 11.5% link

    The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Atlanta rose 0.2 percentage points in January 2011 to 10.4%. link

    The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Charlotte rose 0.4 percentage points in January 2011 to 11.1%. link

    The BLS reported that the unemployment rate for Raleigh rose 0.5 percentage points in January 2011 to 8.3%. link



    Parent
    Which are (none / 0) (#96)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:06:29 AM EST

    all at or below California's rate.

    Parent
    And much higher (none / 0) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    than in states in the Northeast and Midwest who are losing population as per  your link.

    Parent
    Of course they "grew", but the (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:02:11 AM EST
    economic growth in corporate terms is not the same as the growth at the individual level.  What you've presented is akin to citing the growth of the stock market since Obama took office as being the only metric for success when we all know that that growth is in a universe unto itself that has very little to do with Main Street or actual job growth.

    Parent
    Your link is talking about population growth (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    not economic growth.

    Parent
    or per capita income growth...or consumer (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:07:56 AM EST
    confidence growth....or any other kind of meaningful index about quality of life.

    Parent
    Quality of life (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    So the solution is that we become a third world country where everyone is working for minimum wage with no pensions, healthcare or Social Security. Sounds like a plan to me.

    How long do you think it will take before we can totally destroy what was the American dream? If people have no incentive to succeed, they'll fail. When they fail, so will the country.

    Parent

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:12:48 AM EST
    are SC and GA doing so poorly with jobs then? They apparently are your ideal situation and we have some of the highest unemployment in the nation.

    Parent
    Right there with FL (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:19:39 AM EST
    Not even any personal income tax here. You'd think we'd be spending money right and left, boosting the local economy. Oh wait, mortgage fraud. Never mind.

    Parent
    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    "Taxachusetts" in the meantime is doing relatively okay considering.  And we have sales AND income tax.  But we spend that money on education, so business comes here because they like smart people.  And they aren't bringing minimum wage jobs either.

    No, we don't have a lot of people, and yes, people are moving south (our population grew a little but we still lost a house seat).  But it's not because of the economy.  Here's a hint:  It's frikken cold up here.  If you don't want to put up with 3-4 months of serious winter, than you move south.

    Parent

    Spending money on education? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    Why do we need to spend money on education?  Teachers hardly do anything, stay inside all day in the air conditioning, get weekends and summer off.  They are lucky we pay them anything at all, now that I think about it....I think they should pay us for using the taxpayer paid for air conditioning.  We will have no taxation to pay for education in the South if we can help it damn it, that's just wasteful and they are already wasting my money on air conditioning for teachers!

    Parent
    I read somewhere that (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    we spend more money on education per student than any country besides Switzerland.

    So who is to blame for the failure???

    Parent

    More information too Jim (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:43 AM EST
    At my son's grade school...starting in 2009 teachers get no money for classroom supplies.  The area that his school serves isn't considered impoverished either and they get no federal funds so our kids had one computer per class last year.  Do you know how far behind and unable to compete that is putting our 5th graders?  A bunch of parents approached Fort Rucker and thank god Fort Rucker donated a bunch of old computers and IT people to get 2 to 3 computers up and running in each classroom this year.  And the school does something called a funrun where we sponsor our kids to run laps and this money goes to buy classroom supplies and hopefully to keep getting them some of the tech components to use that will dominate their adult work environments if they get middle class jobs.  Do you know how much money my husband and I paid to the school via this funrun thing where we try to have a good time dealing with the facts of how phucked our kids are? We paid in about $850 total.  Want to know what is even scarier?  A couple of other families...not a lot but a couple...paid in more than that.  AND I PAID MY PROPERTY TAXES TOO.  This state is so fricken broke though because of the constant tax cutting legislation that these freaks insist on over and over and over again it is literally intubated right now.  These people are killing and destroying themselves and they can't even see it and have little chance of ever being educated enough to ever see it.

    Parent
    First off (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:42:14 AM EST
    you can't compare a single country with a nation education system with the 50 states which each have their own systems for using tax money for public education.

    Take TX, vs. other states:

    n a Jan. 19 press release objecting to possible state budget cuts, state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, said "education funding should be our highest priority."

    "Under current funding levels, Texas is already near the bottom in education funding per pupil (Texas ranks 44th nationally), " she said.

    Responding to our request for backup, Davis spokesman Anthony Spangler pointed us to "Texas on the Brink," a 2009 compilation of Texas statistics prepared by then-state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso. One entry, citing the National Education Association, ranked Texas 44th in per-student education expenditures. The Legislative Budget Board's 2010 "Texas Fact Book" similarly quotes the analysis placing Texas 44th.

    According to a December report from the association, which describes itself as the nation's largest teachers union, in 2009-10 Texas ranked 37th among the states and the District of Columbia in state and local funds spent per student in public school, averaging $9,227.

    But the state ranked 44th in 2008-09, according to the report, averaging $8,610. That year, the top-spending state, New Jersey, averaged $16,253, and the lowest-spending state, Arizona, averaged $5,932. The national average: $10,313.


    Click or PolitFact Texas Me

    So saying that the national average is like that of Switzerlands' may be true, but it's  a useless factoid that really doesn't mean anything.

    Parent

    No Child Left Behind? (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    Give me a link for that (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure they pay just about what we pay (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    And they get so much more bang for their buck, but I'm sick of Southerners getting to lump themselves in with the rest of the United States that does pay for educating their kids.  I want to see a state by state break out and the stupid conservatives working hard to make sure the next generation is just as stupid as they are stand on their own two feet.  Here's a link, and take a look at where the South is.

    Parent
    so true. I laugh at Orlando's attempts (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    to lure highly educated workers down here from California and Boston to work in the new biotech park they are trying to establish. Oddly enough, people were not willing to leave La Jolla, even if it meant no income tax. The city boosters tried to tell them we have a beach too - yeah, a coastline so over-developed that in most places you cannot see the ocean at all. CA people were not fooled. The companies had to give up the attempt to relocate most of their employees, and hire locally. Which is harder and harder due to the lower educational standards around here.

    So we will be relying on the theme park service economy for a while longer.

    Parent

    You couldn't get me to move from ca to fla (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    humidity and hurricanes :)

    Parent
    My dad (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:48:39 PM EST
    taught me years ago about the southwest corners of continents....They have low humidity, sunny mild, and not too hot, not too cold climates....

    Southwest corners:  Southern California, the French Riviera, Perth.

     The Southeast corners:  Alabama, Vietnam, etc.....

    Parent

    Don't (none / 0) (#197)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:06:49 PM EST
    forget sinkholes, tornadoes AND hurricanes, insects, lousy water.

    Parent
    well, we do have to give credit to (none / 0) (#199)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    the hurricanes, they come with a couple day warning  ;)

    I've only been to FLA in Feb/March for photo shoots and it was nice to get out of the snow, but I don't fancy spending any time there during their humidity 'season'.

    I'm digging my Ca roots in my new NoCal micro climate these days. No extremes :) I made it through last summer with no AC! And the water be good ;)

    Parent

    A WSJ poll (none / 0) (#7)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:49:33 AM EST
    (I know it is a right leaning paper) shows that 56% of Americans want the GOP to not compromise and 68% of Americans want the Dems to commpromise with the Republicans.  While 37% of Americans would blame the GOP for the shutdown vs. 20% for Democrats, another 20% would blame Obama.  So it is 40% Dems/Obama vs. 37% GOP.  Again, this is a WSJ poll and these numbers could change as events/speeches/etc. unfold over the next week, but as of now, I am not so sure a majority of the American people is going to blame the GOP for this like they did 1995-1996.

    That poll was co-sponsored by NBC, (none / 0) (#163)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    and reported on the network news last night. Some further facts from the survey: The point that NBC made was that the high average reflecting the desire for compromise stemmed from @76% Independents wanting compromise and 68% Democrats surveyed wanting compromise...the percentages refect that both Democrats & Independents surveyed wanted compromise (not that the general respondents wanted more from the Dems.) Conversely, the bind that Boehner finds himself in is that his own Republicans, when surveyed in the WSJ/NBC poll, did not favor compromise (@56% Repubs wanted Boehner to hang tough.) So...it seems that the dilemma of the tiger Boehner chose to ride is that strong majorities want compromise for both sides...yet Repubs in the survey disagree. Fascinating.

    Parent
    Thanks. I did not understand the details (none / 0) (#184)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 05:09:21 PM EST
    behind it.

    Parent
    The ship is sailing (none / 0) (#9)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:53:49 AM EST
    Obama's track record bode well for Democrats that are gearing up for any kind of battle. I've yet to see a principle that he hasn't run from! Whether it was Fisa (on the campaign trail) to the bail out or healthcare.

    If he doesn't have the fire to stand up for his convictions, then he has no business holding the office. Politics is a dirty game. There's way too much money at stake. There's no room for wimps. The GOP and their spinners will never be satified with anything less than a 100% roll over.

    Unfortunately for Democrats, Obama is more concerned with his image as a "uniter" than he is about the future of the country.

    C'mon, he is just keeping his powder dry (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:13:36 AM EST
    for the really important stuff.

    Parent
    Oh, he has convictions - they're just (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:22:51 AM EST
    not particularly recognizable as Democratic ones.  And, his need to please his opponents overrides everything, apparently.  

    All this theater we're being treated to was totally avoidable, had there been any real leadership by Democrats, and had they staked out a different position than the one they have; when all you're arguing over is how much to cut, and not having the argument they should be having, which is whether cutting represents the best economic and fiscal policy for where the country is now, it's hard to formulate a credible rationale for why the Dems can't agree to cut as much as the GOP wants.  

    GOP: We have to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order.

    Dems: We have to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order.

    GOP: We need to cut spending by $100 billion.

    Dems: We need to cut spending by $30 billion.

    GOP: If you're serious about getting the budget in order, you need to cut spending by $100 billion.

    Dems: We are serious.  We just think it won't take $100 billion, and besides, that would be too painful.

    GOP: This crisis calls for sacrifice now, to safeguard the futures of our children and grandchildren; I guess you don't care about them.

    Dems: Of course we do.  And we've already frozen federal worker pay to prove how serious we are.

    GOP: Why stop there?  If spending cuts are the right thing to do, how can you argue that we can't cut as much as is needed to bring things in line with reality?

    Dems: Okay, we'll go another $10 billion.  But that's it.

    GOP: So, I guess you're not serious about getting the government's spending under control.

    Dems:  We are too serious!  We just think $100 billion is too much.

    Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.  

    Imagine if the argument from Dems had been that there is no crisis, that austerity is the wrong way to go.  Sadly, your imagination is the only place you could play that out, because we have a president who has completely bought into the "crisis," except when called upon to act in any way that would involve the wealthy.

    And this is why we are going to hell in a handbasket, accompanied by the usual breast-beating, wailing and gnashing of teeth of a Democratic caucus that has, by its approach and rhetoric, completely bamboozled itself into what is going to be a very painful corner - for us.


    Parent

    A tightrope, mmc9431 (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:28:31 PM EST
    As the WSJ/NBC poll shows, most Americans want compromise. If there is a political "winner," it is the person or party that earns or is viewed as the "want-to-meet-you-halfway" proponent. So, yea (& unfortunately) the way these things tend to be reported furthers the dance & play-act from everyone. Indeed, it is a not-nice tradition.

    'Agree about the high stakes positioning. At what point does Boehner risk his party's future prospects by being viewed as overplaying "firm" so that it appears to the public as "stubborn" or "bull-headed." At what point does President Obama look, to the overall public, like a "give away the farm" type rather than a "reasonable" man trying to govern all the people. My guess is that--like it or not--the media will get the first obvious crack at it. Ultimately, in the event of a shut-down, what may define the whole episode is how concerned or inconvenienced that public feels (or even tired of it.)

    Parent

    Compromise (none / 0) (#170)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    Isn't in the Republican vocabulary. They call it "my way or the high way". Even when they get an agreement they move the goal posts.

    Hopefully our media which should be looking out for everyones interest will point this out.  (snark)

    Parent

    Had the Bush Tax cuts been allowed to expire (none / 0) (#26)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    IMO I believe the following would have occurred:

    1.  In January 2011 the first new bill that would have passed overwhelmingly out of the new Rep controlled house would have been a carbon copy of the Bush Tax Cuts (maybe even worse and maybe for another 10 years)

    2. The Dem controlled senate would have caved in and passed the new tax cuts since they saw what happen to their Dem controlled house in Nov and were afraid of what would happen to them in 2012.

    3.Let say  Obama veto's bill (because he knows the tax cuts hurt the economy)

    1. Veto is overwhelming overturned and bill is passed and new tax cuts become law.

    2. Republicans get all the credit for the new Bush Tax cuts and Obama get none and is in serious trouble for his veto in 2012.

    IMO Obama visioned all this and got a compromised extension of the Bush tax cuts along with cuts in SS taxes for one year and continued unemployment benefits.  That was the trade off in order to get some political credits.

    Was the extension a bad deal for the economy you bet.

    Was it done strictly on political reasoning you bet.

    However the good thing that the extension was only for 2 years and not for a new 10 and that credit goes to Obama.

    Come 2012 if the economy is much better, Obama will get the credit for this.  Also I not so sure that the Rep House will not lose any Rep to Dem and same in the Senate.  If this is the case he will push for no more tax credits for the rich.  He just might win that fight.

    Have you looked at the Ryan Plan? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:16:29 AM EST
    All you said and more is coming down the pike this year in the Ryan budget. "The Deal" did not prevent one iota of it.

    Parent
    He is dreaming (none / 0) (#32)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:20:49 AM EST
    Most economic and budget people interviewed recently on TV say is bunk and will never happen.  Plus it's the strongest ammunition for the Dem in 2012.  Ryan Plan a Rep stance against elderly people vs Dem for the elderly.  Bring it on.

    Parent
    Not quite accurate IMO (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:50:50 AM EST
    It will be the "Ryan Plan a Rep stance against elderly people" vs the Obama Cat Food Commission stance against elderly people. Obama Cat Food Commision, a Dem initiated commission, with Democratic Senators Conrad, Durbin and Warner dedicated to sell the recommendations to the public.

    Parent
    Part of it is making the bush tax cuts (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:29:08 AM EST
    permanent. You just said that will pass easily and require a veto.

    Parent
    Ryan plan will not happen before 2012 (none / 0) (#41)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:32:31 AM EST
    It's a joke. Like I said Ryan plan is the best ammunition in 2012 for Dem to win.

    Parent
    Kabuki (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    The Ryan plan is out there to pull the frame rightward so that the Simpson-Bowles plan becomes the new reasonable center. It's already happening.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:18:37 AM EST
    The Simpson-Bowles plan was what was going to happen all along. The Simpson-Bowles plan cuts SS benefits, cuts corporate tax rates and lowers taxes for the wealthy while eliminating things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is a draconian plan that will be sold as completely necessary to save us from the Ryan plan. I could write the columns and posts now that will rationalize and justify Obama's and the Dems actions.

     

    Parent

    I do agree it should be the best ammunition (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    As Pelosi said yesterday, it provides the preview of   what Republicans will do if left to their own devices.

    It it the year 2012 budget, but it will be debated all this year. The Deal did not take making the tax cuts permanent off the agenda. Anyway, yes, we will have a good long time to make the case. I'm just not convinced anyone but Pelosi will make it.

    Parent

    All that stuff is just your belief (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:20:18 AM EST
    I believe something different.  But thank you for stating it as your belief and not as fact.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#35)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:24:18 AM EST
    The majority of stuff posted in blogs are based on beliefs just like your beliefs.  

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#40)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:31:44 AM EST
    most blogs anyway.  

    This one tends to attract a much higher number of commenters who back up their statements with research.  But still an awful lot of what we have to say is based on our beliefs.

    Mine are different from yours.

    Parent

    Please state your belief (none / 0) (#42)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:33:49 AM EST
    I believe Donald Trump (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:39:33 AM EST
    is running for president.

    Parent
    I believe he is not (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:09:15 AM EST
    I believe he is made of marshmallow patties (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    And I am convinced his hair is a sedated/comatose/dead animal of some sort.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    let me hope

    Parent
    sj (none / 0) (#124)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    That's a completely unfair statement.  When BTD argues that standing firm on the deal would have resulted in a better outcome, what data is he providing for that.  He's making arguments based on assumptions and possibilities just like anyone else.

    There is no "fact" that he is relying on.

    We are all stating opinions, but the standard for supporting those opinions is not consistent.

    Parent

    That's not true (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    There are real world consequences to actions, and when you roll over and allow them to continue tax cuts that are destroying our fiscal responsibility you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes time to cut spending.  That's just common sense, something enormously lacking by many many people at the moment and also at the moment when everyone was told by our Dem leaders and a bunch of talking head Dem pundits to BUY the DEAL.  They screwed up in such a huge way and put us squarely in this boat.

    Parent
    No ABG (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Politalkix on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    Every parent should teach their kid to stand up to bullies. The Republicans and Tea Partiers have turned into bullies now, there is no reasonableness in them anymore when compared to an earlier generation of Republicans. At some point we have to confront them even if it gives us a little bloody nose or a broken bone from the confrontation.
    What is so difficult to understand here? It is time to stiffen your spine. And people do like the kid who fights back a bully!

    Parent
    Bullies (none / 0) (#130)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    these days often have guns.  I've changed the rules I have given my daughters about bullies accordingly.

    Parent
    A person who compromises (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Politalkix on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    upto a certain point, looks reasonable. However, beyond a point, that person looks weak with more compromises. Americans (and even those much sought after independents) do not like weak people in general. This is something you may want to consider if you keep thinking about the President's re-election.

    If bullies have guns, you treat them as hostage takers. Surround them with snipers, just do not give away the store. Distract them with a useless shiny object and when their attention has wavered, kick them in the crotch, take the gun away and arrest them.

    Parent

    In case you missed it, there was a (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:12:44 PM EST
    dollar figure attached to letting the Bush rates expire both overall, and just on the wealthy, and the reality of what would be realized from letting them expire on the wealthy alone would have taken all the wind out of the sails of those screaming about debt and deficits and the debt ceiling.

    Can these kinds of numbers be manipulated?  To some extent, sure - but there was no way to argue with the fact that not extending the rates to the upper income limits was going to increase revenue.  A lot.

    I guess you will say and do anything to keep from having to admit that Obama made a terrible, terrible deal; that he didn't even get anything for it with regard to the budget or the debt ceiling made it even worse.

    And if you are still dreaming that the extension of unemployment benefits would never have happened without The Deal, it's time to wake up.

    Parent

    There are times to fight for principle (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    The Republicans are like sharks in the water that have smelt blood. They beat the Dems down on the stimulus bill, healthcare and the tax cuts. They see no reason why they can't win again. The word compromise doesn't exist in their vocabulary.

    Until Obama and the Democrats stand up as one and push back, the Republicans will continue to steamroll their agenda through.


    Parent

    Yeah right (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:07:31 AM EST
    That is delusional.

    It really is.

    Parent

    Is it a fact (none / 0) (#95)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    that we are delusional or is that an opinion?

    Parent
    In most cases it's an opinion (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:18:42 AM EST
    But I believe that in your case it's a fact.

    Parent
    And if he weren't already planning to cave on (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    the tax cut extension next year, why aren't they using that increased revenue as a great argument in the battle over the deficit?

    Parent
    You got to make sure you got reelected first. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    Saul (none / 0) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:43:55 AM EST
    Brother I have been making this same analysis for months and you'd have thought I was speaking Martian.

    That's exactly what I think would happen given the players and the dynamics. There is this pipe dream that a GOP-controlled house would have resulted in a better outcome if we had just showed them our progressive angry faces and wished really hard.

    We would have been in the same or worse situation with no ability to take credit for any of the positives of the coming economic recovery.  Because the economy is going to recover and although it will be the result of a million factors, the party who receives credit for it will have a legitimacy that will matter greatly in future fights over the coming decades.

    People are always talking about the big picture and the long term, and the long term is greatly impacted by perceptions, the politics, etc.

    Parent

    you want to see what really (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:45:57 AM EST
    happens when we show our "progressive angry faces"

    check out wisconsin.

    Parent

    That's all you got? (none / 0) (#53)
    by me only on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    Sounds like Judean People's Front.

    Parent
    I have no idea (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    what that means

    Parent
    'Life of Brian' reference... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    From wikipedia:
    T
    he film also significantly pokes fun at revolutionary groups and 1970s British left-wing politics. "What the film does do is place modern stereotypes in a historical setting which enables it to indulge in a number of sharp digs, particularly at trade unionists and guerilla organisations".[21] The groups in the film are all opposing the Roman occupation of Judea, but fall into the familiar pattern of intense competition among factions that appears, to an outsider, to be over ideological distinctions so small as to be invisible, "ideological purity", as Cleese once described it.
    The 'People's Front of Judea' harangue their 'rivals' with cries of "splitters"; their rivals being The 'Judean People's Front', the 'Judean Popular People's Front', the 'Campaign for a Free Galilee,' and the 'Popular Front of Judea'. The infighting among revolutionary organizations is demonstrated most dramatically when the 'People's Front of Judea' attempts to kidnap Pontius Pilate's wife, but encounters agents of the 'Campaign for a Free Galilee,' and the two factions begin a violent brawl over which of them conceived of the plan first.

    One of my favorite movies...always quotable..

    Parent

    For an A/V reference.... (none / 0) (#200)
    by EL seattle on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:35:34 AM EST
    ... nothin' beats a film clip. (Rated R)

    Parent
    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:48:14 AM EST
    If it votes for Obama and the Dems in 2012, I'll concede the point.

    But right now, the law in question will eventually pass one way or another and we may have elected a dem judge.

    That's success in a way I guess.

    Parent

    And your are delusional too (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    The Democratic  Senate was going to override the President's veto?

    You two are nuts.

    You now how hard it is to override a Presidential veto?

    You know that it almost never happens?

    Parent

    Yet is has happend (none / 0) (#71)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    like in 2007

    Parent
    It never happens (none / 0) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    because the President is always smart enough to see what a disaster it would be and concedes a point here or there to avoid it getting to that point.

    And the circle of argument is complete.

    Parent

    Some of the times it does not happen (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    because the legislators know enough not to test the president and create a lot of extra work for themselves, so they concede a few points. Admittedly it does not happen that way in this administration.

    Parent
    The biggest difference is (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:10:31 AM EST
    that Saul knows that what is stating are his beliefs.  You continue to make those same arguments but state them as fact.  And you don't back up your assertions with documentation.  You just assert and assert and assert.

    Oh, and insult and scorn and sneer at liberal ideals.

    And then you assert and assert and assert.

    Parent

    Facts/Beliefs (none / 0) (#80)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    C'mon though.  Everything I state is my belief.  I am not God.  Anything anyone says here comes with the implied caveat of "IMHO".

    If I need to add that tag line to the end of everything I say, I'll do it, but I thought it was assumed.

    When Anne says "Obama will cave" I don't see any complaints on this chain or any other about her stating it as fact.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#98)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:08:42 AM EST
    in liberal principles. No one is scorning them.

    The disconnect is in what two liberal people believe can be accomplished in this environment.

    The fact that the two concepts are interwoven (you can't believe in liberal ideas and also believe that we won't be able to get the implemented in the ways we would like) is evidence of the delusion on our side of the spectrum.

    You can be very pragmatic and very liberal at the same time.

    I think that's what I think the dems are,for the most part and people here can't fathom it or are so angry at the situation that they can't acknowledge it.

    IMHO of course.

    Parent

    This is an assertion (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    I believe (none / 0) (#98)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:08:42 AM EST

    in liberal principles. No one is scorning them.

    Your willingness to toss the ideals overboard is evidence to the contrary.  In fact, if you're not willing to overcome obstacles for something it's not an ideal.  Only an idea.  And a vague one at that.

    Parent

    SJ (none / 0) (#132)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    I keep saying this and you won't acknowledge it:

    There is a difference between believing in a principle and believing that you can get that principle enacted.

    I believe in a single payer system.  I believe we should pull troops home tomorrow in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that we should raise the tax on gasoline immediately. I believe that all drugs should be legal.

    Etc.

    But I'm under no illusions that our leaders should behave as if those goals were a realistic possibility. It is a waste of resources and capital.

    Parent

    Pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    Do you know anything about negotiating -- at all???

    You pretend you care about liberal principles, but always end with "we must be practical and take what we can get." You're such a phony and a troll, it isn't even worth responding to you. But it's too easy to expose your b.s. for what it is.

    ABG, the die-hard liberal.

    Parent

    What's the point of "believing" in or (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    having "principles" about anything if your starting position is "not gonna happen - no point in even trying?"

    Seems to me that when that is your position, you're on defense all the time against those whose much-different beliefs are not deterred so easily.

    And I have to say that this constant refrain from you, that since it wasn't ever going to happen, there's no blame for those who had the ability to at least try, is just you protecting Obama from the criticism he absolutely deserves.  

    I mean, who just wants a "leader" who gives up from the get-go?  Oh - you do, apparently.

    Parent

    You don't believe (none / 0) (#143)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    in principles to make or prove a point.  You believe in them because that is what you believe.  I believe the liberal agenda is the right way to lead a country.

    I also believe that most of that agenda can never be implemented here. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#147)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    You're not talking principles.  You're only talking theories.  If you're not willing to walk the walk in spite of opposition it isn't an ideal. It's only an idea.  

    Parent
    That isn't a principle at all (none / 0) (#139)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    and you won't acknowledge it.

    There is a difference between believing in a principle and believing that you can get that principle enacted

    When you're not willing to hold fast then it's not a principle.  It's just a theory. Or a concept.  Same as any other theory or concept.  It allows you to give up without even trying and then causes not a single pang of the conscience.  

    I swear, sometimes I picture you with a powdered wig*, taking a pinch of snuff and tsking about how it's a shame people are suffering but, you know...

    -----
    I've always rather liked the look of a powdered wig on a <SomeAdjectiveHere>BlackGuy, but I also think it's rather sad.  Such an attitude of "I expect I'll get to keep mine, but too bad about you."


    Parent

    This is completely wrong (none / 0) (#146)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    You can believe in a principle (all college education should be free, for example) but also know that there is no way to implement it.  Belief in a principle does not require disregard for reality and practical considerations.

    In fact, it does not even take into account the fact that certain principles are prioritized over others in different situations.

    Take healthcare:I am a firm believer in choice and wanted the Hyde Amendment terminated once and for all.  However, I wasn't willing to give up my higher priority, covering as many men, women and children as possible, for that principle. So I was OK with leaving the status quo to pass HCR.

    No wonder you folks think Obama is a republican.  You don't think he believes in the principles we're talking about because he compromises.

    That's crazy.

    Parent

    No wonder you're so ready to (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    excuse Obama.  You have no idea what a principle is.  

    It is either principle or expediency.  When you choose expediency it isn't a principle.  How hard is that?

    Parent

    IMHO, framing a central issue (none / 0) (#167)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    --insofar as a number of back & forths in months of threads here suggest--as "the disconnect is in what two liberal people believe can be accomplished in this environment" is on the mark.

    For me, the frustration occurs when one is castigated for stating a belief and the castigator then somehow claims to be stating a fact. IMHO, very few arguments involve more than rudimentary facts to spur discussion in opinion blogs anywhere. I include myself in that conclusion as well. The frustration is heightened when the adjectival negatives about person/character/disposition dominate any discussion. The "you are so...." etc. is defeating not energizing to discussion.

    In many cases--other than the interchanges about something done, read, experienced, or gen'l info--we are all engaging in roll-out of beliefs with supportive arguments as to why, logically or otherwise, we believe what we do.  Shouldn't the questions really revolve around the "whys" and not who is saying what?

    When someone tells me during a political discussion that he/she regards himself as a liberal, I accept that statement. The issue shouldn't be a political ph test; rather it is far more compelling to explore avenues for attaining mutual goals (without taking insult when the methods and even the precise goals differ from time to time.)

    My real question...to everyone, including myself...What does tolerance mean to Democrats/How big should the tent be?

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#172)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:50:41 PM EST
    with everything you've said.

    An issue you highlight is the distinction between liberal and a democrat, if there is one.

    Most democrats believe that we should not fight to the death.  They believe that we should compromise.

    That view is not one which can be squared with liberalism according to this forum and you end up in a situation where people here are arguing, in essence, that most democrats are not liberals.

    I think that structure destroys much of what it means to call yourself a democrat or a liberal. That's why I am constantly pushing for a distinction between believing in a principle and believing in a course of action in the real world.

    As to your question of how big the tent should be, it really comes down to a slightly different question I think:

    How many viable parties do you have in a system.  In a bi-party system, you want the tent to be as big as possible, particularly if the other party has a monolithic set of ideals and can unify easily.

    In other words, liberals of all types have no choice in the US system but to gather in the big democratic tent. To do otherwise would kill any chance of making ideals a reality.

    It is ironic that those who claim that the ideals are important are advocating an approach that will make their implementation less likely in many cases.

    Parent

    Oh, for the love of all that is good and holy... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 03:59:48 PM EST
    Most democrats believe that we should not fight to the death.  They believe that we should compromise.

    So, there's been one poll, and now, it's settled: democrats believe we should compromise.  Period.

    I do not believe that, when an issue that matters to someone is put on the table for compromise, most democrats, much less people in general, want those who represent them to compromise.  Put someone's Social Security on the table.  Put Medicare there.  Put privacy rights there.  Reproductive rights.  Pick a policy that matters to someone, and ask them how far they are willing to compromise.  Ask them if they have any fear that, once compromised, the door is open to more changes that will weaken that policy past the point where they're comfortable.  And then see if they still feel the same way about compromise.

    I can't speak for most Democrats, or most liberals - I can only speak for me - but I can tell you that yes, I do want the Democrats who represent me to fight, and to lead on the issues; I don't want them to have the attitude that fighting is a waste of time.

    That view is not one which can be squared with liberalism according to this forum and you end up in a situation where people here are arguing, in essence, that most democrats are not liberals.

    I think it is entirely safe to say that most democrats are not liberals, not anymore, if even they ever were.  I think there has been a real shift to the right within the Democratic party, and I think that's in large part due to the push to elect anyone with a (D) after his or her name, especially in red states, even when those candidates, if they were to run in a solid blue state, would be instantly recognizable as conservatives, if not flat-out Republicans.  What kinds of voters are attracted to conservative candidates with Republican-like positions?  The kind that share that world view.  It grows the party, but not the liberal base.

    I think that structure destroys much of what it means to call yourself a democrat or a liberal. That's why I am constantly pushing for a distinction between believing in a principle and believing in a course of action in the real world.

    So, you're really just a pragmatist, who's more concerned with process than substance; for some of us, the substance matters, and the action should be in service to that substance.  Is it always successful?  Of course not.  But it puts ideas out there, it brings them into the conversation, it evokes possibilities, it encourages small-scale experimentation.  Movements aren't just born out of thin air, they are grown.  You keep saying that you believe in a single-payer health system, but you were okay with Obama taking if off the table.  The man who wanted to hear all the good ideas didn't want to have that one out being discussed and you were okay with that because...it was never going to happen anyway.

    Imagine if that's what people thought about women's suffrage, civil rights, slavery, equal opportunity, gay rights; do you think we would have made as much progress on any of these things if people had shrugged it off as impossible to attain?

    Where does that start?  With someone else, someday, when the time is right?  No, it starts in the moment, with people who care about the issues and want to work to make progress on them.  If it's going to be incremental and take years to achieve, why would we want to waste time waiting?

    As to your question of how big the tent should be, it really comes down to a slightly different question I think:
    How many viable parties do you have in a system.  In a bi-party system, you want the tent to be as big as possible, particularly if the other party has a monolithic set of ideals and can unify easily.

    A bunch of people in a big tent turns into a three-ring circus without leadership.

    In other words, liberals of all types have no choice in the US system but to gather in the big democratic tent. To do otherwise would kill any chance of making ideals a reality.

    Of course we have a choice, ABG.  We can vote for select candidates within the Democratic party, we can vote third party, we can withhold our vote if there is no one worthy of it.

    As for killing chances of making ideals a reality, after you've weeded out anything that might be too hard to achieve, what's left?

    It is ironic that those who claim that the ideals are important are advocating an approach that will make their implementation less likely in many cases.

    Oh, brother...what's ironic is that you see no point in having ideals, apparently.


    Parent

    A little comment (3.50 / 2) (#180)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:14:45 PM EST
    The only "facts" we have about public sentiment vis-a-vis compromise and the budget to date is the latest NBC/WSJ poll (an earlier Gallup poll indicated similar results about compromise.) In politics, these "facts" could morph in the next months...or not.

    You state your beliefs well & urgently, and with passion. That's good. Of course, the question is always: When does compromise make sense, and when not...most of the time that would be in the eye of the beholder. So, the opinion of the public eye will render that verdict soon enough. (In the case of this act of the budget negotiations, my eye sees nothing to be gained for people, position nor party in compromising further in any significant way.)

    Parent

    The issue is (none / 0) (#65)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:24:53 AM EST
    the lameness (lame-inosity) of Congress and the President in not pushing for the Obama tax cut package, which ended tax cuts for the rich but extended them for the middle class.  It would've been a great issue for the midterms; we got slaughtered anyway so I would think its effect could only have been positive.

    It's not like there weren't other options.  The Democrats are just good at pretending there aren't.

    Parent

    From what I read (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Politalkix on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:24:20 AM EST
    Senators like Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray pleaded with the WH to not touch the Bush tax cut issue before the midterms.
    Ofcourse, after the midterms, the WH should not have made the "The Deal".

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:10:25 PM EST
    and disappointing.  I know Boxer was in a tough race but this just seems like such a political winner to me.  I guess that suggests that the DNC is still the DLC at heart.  No guts to be found anywhere.

    Parent
    I'm willing to bet Boxer was against him touching (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    it
    after
    the midterms also, and would have been fine with letting the tax cuts expire.

    Parent
    oops, sorry there, meant italics, not quote (none / 0) (#160)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    Hey no worries (none / 0) (#165)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    block quotes gave it even
    more
    emphasis :)

    Parent
    Just to make sure (none / 0) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    I understand what is being expected, by demanding that Obama not "cave" we want him to allow the government to be shut down until such time as the republicans concede to our core issues, correct?

    We are not concerned with the consequences of the shut down or the fact that the GOP is suicidal and would tank the economy for the sake of winning.  

    The goal is to concede nothing and if the GOP never caves, we never cave.

    Is that what we are asking for here?

    the democrats are offering (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:42:28 AM EST
    to cut more than Boners original figure.  when they came to that number the teabaggers moved the goalposts.  are you suggesting we should allow the party that controls 1/3 of the government to dictate their terms and see them met completely?

    shorter version, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CAVED.  we want them to not cave any further.

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    We offered 10 bil in cuts. Boner said no, 30. we said 'twist my arm...Ok'.

    Where is the part where we did not compromise? The original offer of 10 was already a compromise with the left wing of Obama's own party.

    Parent

    In December is when the cave happened (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:06:51 AM EST
    This is a continuation of The Deal.

    Parent
    I am asking specifically (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    What are you asking the Dems to do.  Say they demand what you suggest and the GOP says no.

    Is your position that we allow the shut down of the government indefinitely until they concede to our demands?

    This shouldn't be a hard question and one that we should set out right now so that the actions of the dems can be fairly judged.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    that work?

    Parent
    One brave soul (none / 0) (#115)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:30:38 AM EST
    That does indeed work.

    What that means, of course, is that the current job situation and economy are not your No.1 concern. It means that you are willing to have the pay of soldiers, hundreds of thousands of government workers and thousands of contractors stopped cold, in the middle of a recovery in a way that is sure to cause the termination a a large chunk of jobs.

    And you are willing to do that for weeks until the GOP completely caves.

    That goes completely against what I believed was the No.1 priority (jobs) but at least you took the step forward.

    I hope that Obama allows a shut down for a week maximum and then cuts a deal because jobs and the short term economy remain my no.1 priority.

    Luckily for me, and I think the economy and thousands of federal workers, I think my side will win the day.

    Parent

    Hmmm...if jobs and the economy were (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    the president's and the Dems' No. 1 concern, maybe we would have had a larger stimulus, maybe we would have had an actual jobs bill, but, gosh - none of that happened.  If jobs and the economy were the No. 1 concern, maybe the Bush tax rates should have been allowed to expire.

    The too-small stimulus, no jobs bill, The Deal, the freezing of federal worker pay - and now, the slashing of spending - you think these things are going to create jobs, spur demand, get things moving in an upward direction?  You think thousands of people just giving up looking for work is going to change when the effect of all these spending cuts begin to be felt?

    Apparently, my president and my Congress are willing to sacrifice my economic health and the economic health and futures of many, many more people, on the altar of phony fiscal concern, but you want to blame us for wanting someone to show some leadership on this issue and stop giving in to endless demands to cut more and more and more?

    "Luckily for me...I think my side will win the day?"

    Holy moly.

    No one's winning anything in this debacle - it's really just a matter of how badly people will lose.  And I wouldn't count on there being much reward coming for any of the politicians involved in this mess, not when people start to realize just how badly they've been taken advantage of.


    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:32:52 AM EST
    what it means is the republicans are willing to do it in order to ram through their radical agenda.  

    Parent
    and (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:44:08 AM EST
    as in wisconsin if democrats explain this and show some spine the pubic will be with them.  

    Parent
    The public (none / 0) (#133)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:15:16 PM EST
    was with us in wisconsin because the public generally likes unions.

    There is a bigger political divide on the issues at stake with the budget.

    Strategies are not one size fits all. The dynamics of the issue have to be factored in.

    Parent

    WI wasn't just about unions (none / 0) (#140)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    and even if it was, it should be leveraged to be about something more.  The GOP acted like Scott Brown's election was a mandate to completely scrap the health bill.  Politics is a game...our side just tends not to play.

    Parent
    ABG doesn't wanna hear 'bout Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    Wisconsin does not exist in ABG land. Quit harshin' his mellow.

    Parent
    ABG (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    the white house agrees with me on the budget.

    see open.

    Parent

    Which statement (none / 0) (#166)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    we've discussed a great deal.  What specifically?

    Parent
    shut it down (none / 0) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:06:49 PM EST
    ABG: Wisconsin is bigger than you think (none / 0) (#169)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:23:11 PM EST
    Initially, there was every indication that Governor Walker would win the day. What happened was a combo of deft organization in opposition and luck. IMO, the organization involved not just the size of the protests but also the reinforcement from the Dem state senators, the national labor org. and funding nationally from Dems & others. The stroke of luck that focused a number of people/media was the recorded Governor & buddy "Koch call." Each step bought time and the time was masterfully played to show that these were all regular people (teachers, public workers, firemen and policemen even, etc.) The protests became a story of the middle-class vs. the interests and buddies of big $$ that the Governor represented. And, I strongly believe that the national Dems giving space to the local interests--staying physically away, i.e.--promoted the story of the people as opposed to national Dems v. local Repub governor. It could not have been strategized better.

    My point: Wisconsin is real and it is larger than it began. As a metaphor, it works. Very well. It can & will be used by Democrats of all stripes in many areas to illustrate the differences between the parties in the year to come.

    Parent

    none of that had much to do with luck (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    it was about some brave democrats who went into hiding and gave others time to get the attention of the media.


    Parent
    Yes. Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 05:48:38 PM EST
    If it wasn't for the WI-14, the bill would have passed without a murmur. The time they bought gave unions and liberal groups the opportunity to educate the public about just what was in the bill and how we'd gotten to this stage. How many people didn't know that the budgetary compromises Walker sought from the unions, the public workers' unions had already given him before he introduced the measure to strip away bargaining rights? And how many people knew about the proposed no-bid sell-off of public assets? That last bit only came to light once people had time to read the bill, and they only had time to read the bill because the Dems were "vacationing" in Illinois.

    The WI-14 stood up for their principles, knowing that a lot of people were going to call them names for going out of state to prevent quorum. They did it knowing that they most likely weren't going to stop the bill from passing, but look at what came of it! A nationwide awareness of what was going on, protests spreading to other states, recalls in progress, one Democratic win in an election for Walker's previous post, and a supreme court win -- no matter how slim -- for a Democratic judge who was so far out of contention a few months ago that the Democratic national leadership refused to go out on a limb for her. Yes, the bill passed, and things are still dire, but the war ain't over. If the WI-14 hadn't stood on their principles, the war would be over.

    Please excuse me for getting a bit wordy here. Having stood outside the capitol building with my little sign in the freezing cold, and seeing what could come of it, I'm a bit passionate about this. After the past few months, I just can't understand the attitude of, "Well, we won't win the fight, so we might as well give up now." It's like there's something undignified about a noble defeat.

    Parent

    Thank you, huzzlewhat, for (none / 0) (#186)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    acting on your beliefs. I have nothing but gratitude for the protestors in Wisconsin that brought their state and--I believe--the whole country to a potential turning point away from the drumbeat against working families.

    This was truly a situation where principles & practicalities could and did go hand in hand. The strategies were focused, superb.

    Parent

    Sheepish (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:44:08 PM EST
    I'm a little embarrassed at being thanked -- I did protest, but I was just a weekender, and there were so many people who did so much more that I don't want to even suggest that I deserve a spotlight. It's just so frustrating, after something was actually accomplished by fighting, to be faced with a "nothing would be accomplished by fighting" argument. How can anyone look at what happened in Wisconsin and think it's not worth even trying to dig in our heels? I don't understand.

    Parent
    Well...situations can differ (none / 0) (#192)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    Myself is difficult to be sure. I have always been an idealist & a Democrat...and, I've been there (& will continue to be) for demonstrations, strikes, protests that come close to the heart. As a child, I remember two very hard times when my dad--a sole provider for my sister & myself--confronted near tears how he would provide for us as he went on strike with his union. Later, I would come to emulate him as best I could. (Frankly, one of the more scary incidents involved lying down on the road to block trucks delivering supplies to the university food services. We were supporting striking food service workers; and, part of that encounter involved trying to block entry on behalf of the service workers. Luckily, the trucks stopped...the drivers, being Teamsters, honored the pickets.) Many other stories about unions & more.

    What I want to say and request: Please consider that there are times when liberals can & do disagree over the individual battles. I support President Obama in large part because--in my view--incremental movement far exceeds getting nothing in the name of principle. Sometimes I come to see that I am wrong and should have fought harder; other times, I have come to know that a compromise--while not making sense to me--made sense in the broader scope. We will see things differently at times. For example: I find it sad that some are so disillusione that they look at all matters White House with a jaundiced eye...for we cannot know what the ins & outs of the internal budget process have been...we can surmise and speculate, but we cannot know except to project our own fears, letdowns. For me, I choose to have more belief in the Democratic Party that will deliver from time to time.

    Don't misunderstand. I'm not oblivious; I have been there. We all draw lines that are important to us. The important thing is to follow through on your beliefs as you have done (and will probably do in future.) The other important thing is to recognize that--even in our differences--we can be sincere. And, once in awhile, we will meet on the picket line or in sadness or in celebration. (BTW, you do deserve "Thanks.")

    Parent

    The expose of the "Koch call" (none / 0) (#178)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    was the luck that came at the right time & to which I refer, Capt. Out here, a number of people--chance acquaintances et al--casually commented "did you hear about...?"  But, you are so right...kudos to the exiled Dem senators and to everyone who played their part. The story (at some point) should be studied by serious would-be organizers, politicos. The new model (or, more accurately, the revived model.)

    Parent
    Good points christinep (none / 0) (#174)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    Oh, gosh, no; what we want is for (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    Obama and the Dems to keep going back to the Republicans with new offers to cut more, as they have up to this point, and when the GOP changes its wish list - again - have the Dems meet their new demands.

    Because then we can claim that we didn't stand in the way of "getting things done" for the American people - although I suspect it wouldn't be long before the American people would realize all this cooperation was about getting things done to them.  We can be sad about it.  We can look serious.  We can be the saviors/heroes at the 11th hour!  We can claim that we - sigh - really had no choice.  Alas.

    The time for hanging on to core issues was back when we had some political muscle and a greater majority behind us; that opportunity is gone.


    Parent

    If the GOP demands (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:05:59 AM EST
    anything and everything or they will shut down the government (or whatever other threat is handy), I suppose you can cave to them every time.

    That's what happened in December and that's what will happen now and that's what will happen in the future.

    You seem pleased by this approach.

    I have written about political bargaining for years now.

    My position is there to be read by any who wish to see it.

    Google "Madman Theory of Political Bargaining."

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:53:55 AM EST
    Not going to look up anything because the question is fairly simple:

    Shut down the government indefinitely until the GOP cries mercy or don't shut down the government indefinitely?

    Parent

    Even when I disagree with you the most (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    you are always entertaining :)

    When your five year old demands the keys to the car or he's going to hold his breath, do you allow him to hold his breath or just hand the keys over?  If....God help us you allow him to hold his breath :) for how long do you do this?  Indefinitely?

    Parent

    I have now read all (none / 0) (#108)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:26:06 AM EST
    of the Mad Men Theory posts and they do a wonderful job of not answering the fundamental question.

    Do you take the suicide route or not.  Lots of talk about how the dems are wrong and have it all backwards and such.

    OK.  That's all well and good to say.

    Then that means we are willing to accept the disaster and all political blow back that could occur from a prolonged government shut down.

    That's a fine position to have, but I want those who claim to believe that jobs are the No.1 priority to say as much right now, not when disaster strikes later and we're looking for someone to blame.

    Step up people. Say clearly what all of the complaining about the current strategy translates into in real world actions.

    Parent

    So seriously (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:33:47 AM EST
    Is this what passes for critical thinking these days?  

    I'm just asking because it's been a while since I've been to school.  But if this was an outline for a student essay when I was in HS, it would have had red teacher's marks all over it.

    But then again, I remember some of my son's teachers, so maybe this kind of thinking is representative.

    And oh, yeah.  Jobs are the No. 1 priority.

    Parent

    Simply stated, it's this (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    There is NEVER a bad time in American political life to be more imaginative, creative, visionary, intelligent, informed, witty and active than your opponent.  To be pleased at sitting on one's political hands, and for years it seems, IMO, is like not only waiting for Godot, but expecting him to bring a posse.  

    Then again, if we really believe that we can't easily cut these fools to rhetorical and political ribbons, well, that's a pretty sad and damning statement.  Actually it's complete phucking nonsense.  In a country where a satirist (Steven Colbert) could stand next to the President of the United States and roast him incomparably and unsparingly during wartime, it should be abundantly clear that any excuse the Dems have of being fearful of politically attacking the Repubs is bullsh*t.  They are either incompetent or complicit or both.

    Parent

    Using your logic (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    Obama and Congress might as well adopt Ryan's plan right now. If the "GOP is suicidal and would tank the economy for the sake of winning," Obama might as just quit pretending that he won't adopt any Republican plan if the Republicans stand firm. They will be just as suicidal and just as willing tank the economy for the sake of winning with Ryan's plan if Obama continues to reward their behavior.

    "We are not concerned with the consequences of the shut down...."

    All actions have consequences (short term and long term) and often effect different people or groups in different ways. Would a shut down have consequences and hurt the least among us for a short time? Yes. Would drastically reducing domestic programs that poor people need to survive have long term consequence? Yes. Short term consequences or long term effects of eliminating safety net programs and establishing once and for all that the Republican "small government" for the benefit of corporations and the rich is the type of government the U.S. should have.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#86)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    No one will answer the question:

    Shut down indefinitely.

    Do not shut down indefinitely.

    Choose one.

    Parent

    I think that the reason no one will (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    that question is because it IMO is nothing more than a strawman.

    Long term consequences of increasing poverty, lowering food security, allowing people to freeze in the winter, increasing our infant mortality rates (rank 30 now) by reducing WIC, reducing education expenditures and on and on and on., will be a real consequence of the continuing reduction or elimination of domestic programs.

    You have said those consequences are regrettable. I think that they are unacceptable and should not be something that a Democratic president should be proposing to offset his overgenerous tax cuts to corporations and the rich.  

    Parent

    I answered it (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    shut it down

    Parent
    How does the (none / 0) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:36:09 AM EST
    preferred negotiating strategy work in an environment where Dems get the blame?

    "Forty-two percent would blame President Obama or the Democrats in Congress and 37 percent the Republicans in Congress in the event of a shutdown reports a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll."

    In any event, just a small reminder about the difference between left leaning blogs and the average democrat:

    "A Gallup poll finds similar results on the compromise question; over six in 10 Democrats and independents prefer a compromise budget plan, but a bare majority of Republicans want their representatives to "hold out for the basic budget plan they want, even if it means the government shuts down."

    Parent

    omg, do we have to make every decision based (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    on short term popularity polling? It does not matter who 'gets the blame' temporarily if the end result is advantageous to the most people.

    Of course the advantages of a reasonable amount of spending cuts, as apposed to the Republican draconian measures, have to be explained to people effectively by the president so I can understand the concern.

    Parent

    not only that (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    the polls were against the wisconsin dems until they EDUCATED people.  that dem was more than 30 points behind for the SC just a couple of weeks ago.


    Parent
    By the way, I am compromising my ideology (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    here, in the sprit of getting a budget passed. I was against even the initial WH proposal of 10 billion in cuts. But I have the President's back on standing firm and allowing a shutdown, even when he is willing to settle for Boehner's 30 billion in cuts.

    I am resisting making another point about who I believe the most effective living political 'explainers' are.

    Parent

    Representatives (none / 0) (#176)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    pay attention to what their constituents want.

    I tend to agree with that concept as a general rule.

    Parent

    Representatives to Congress also protect (none / 0) (#181)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 04:23:38 PM EST
    the interests of their constituents, not just reflect their every opinion.

    Parent
    In a Jan. gallup poll (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    55% do not think that Obama is a strong and decisive leader, 59% do not think that he understands the problems they face, 59% believe he puts his own political interests ahead of what the country needs and 70% do not believe that he is bringing about the changes the country needs.

    Maybe he needs to "change" his strategy and start actually implementing policies that help 98% of the people instead of the top 2%.

    Parent

    The polling is bad now (none / 0) (#138)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    because Democrats haven't attacked the Ryan budget or even the GOP "compromises."  Instead they've played it like they are the great sacrificers and so when it appears that they're not going to play that role the public is miffed.  I think they can change the narrative but they're going to have to actually make an effort.

    Parent
    We are asking Boehner to honor his own bill (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    that called for around 30 billion in cuts.

    Parent
    7.4 magnitude earthquake hits Japan (none / 0) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 09:56:10 AM EST
    Tsunami alert issued.

    Epicenter is Miyagi.

    Link.

    There's a chance of an 8. quake (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:16:33 AM EST
    still I believe. Saw some data on how many quakes/aftershocks at various mags could be expected after the 9. one.

    Their nerves must be shot. I can't even imagine . . .

    Parent

    So sad (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:26:06 AM EST
    Too, too much being inflicted on them.

    Parent
    horrible (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    Oh no... (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    dammit.... n/t (none / 0) (#113)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    The Donald is speaking about it right now (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    on CNN.  He says that our President is not leading on this and is only making accusations.  I will tell you what there is never enough margaritas fix for me, and that is when my President has previously had his own reality T.V. program.  If that happens, if I wake up and the Donald or the Bachelor or Leif Garrett is President forget the margaritas and just shoot me.

    I'll (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 11:23:13 PM EST
    just ditch the tonic and keep the gin.

    Parent
    Unless you survive (none / 0) (#189)
    by SOS on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    from paycheck to paycheck you probably won't need to worry about a Court Shutdown.