Neither is Paul Krugman.

Do you think they will read him?

the table, but I have the feeling they don't acknowledge him.

But I'd like to wait and see it develop.

But the giving in rhetoric is kind of sad, a corporate media led thing, like Gregory asking if there was a role for Mitt in Obama's administration--WTF??

You have missed a detail here and there.

Despite rachel, MSNBC is not about liberialism, it is about managing liberalism to the point where it does not threaten the powers that be.

That does NOT mean, that they speak for us.

exactly what they are doing, and many posters telling us to shut up as well.

WE WON the election, but they still expect to have all the power.

writing my congressmen and women,and senators. My friends and family are doing the same we don't want to see what we saw last time Dems trying to play both sides of the fence especially Bluedogs. Now,I notice Evan Bayh is back pretending to be a Democrat again.

We need to make clear to our elected officials that we are watching them and that we are not going to sleep like in 2010 when these teabaggers start jumping out there we need to slap them right back down with their lies and rhetoric..

win something , and decisively , and right away the nay-sayers and booers and critics come out of the woodwork . NOTHING EVER pleases them ! Lets be realistic here : you can't please all the people all the time , period . We have to compromise on some things to achieve more harmony . We are the UNITED STATES of America .

Right now, Obama's still dealing with the old one.

Let the Republicans tell us what they will do?

Maybe I missed something following the election. There's all this about Generals and stuff, so I might have missed his concession speech. Do provide a link, if you don't mind.

then you'll worry a lot. People have been assuming that President Obama will "slash" SS and Medicare since 2009. He doesn't show any signs of doing that, but people are still saying he's going to.

I've emailed him and all of my legislators more than once, expressing concern that they not do that. Beyond that, I don't think they will.

Assume the best and communicate your concerns. That's what I do. They're not reading DU, so I think that works better than writing about it here.

Assuming the best has got us into this position, and in light of the constant test balloons floated (FICA withholding break, cat food commission, etc.), it is essential that we remain vigilant and loud.

I don't share it. Life's complicated enough without saddling myself with a bunch of "what-if" scenarios.

We both know that yours is the option selected by the majority. But also know that that it exactly what the founders of this nation warned us about time and again.

Ignore your enemy's movements at your own peril.

Who slashed the contributions to the Social Security trust fund while continuing to borrow heavily from it to finance the bloated military-industrial complex with no intention of ever paying it back?

Who appointed Supreme Court Justice let's-weaken-and-do-away-with-the-Miranda-rule Kagan? (Yes, she was the Solicitor General representing the Administration in Berghuis v Thompkins when the Supreme Court accepted her arguments and undermined the Miranda rule. See, e.g., Justice Sotomayor's dissent in Berghuis v Thompkins, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf)

Who extended the tax-cuts for the rich? How long will we have to wait before the next extension is agreed to?

Who signed three let's-send-even-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements? How long will we have to wait before the next one, the "NAFTA of the Pacific," is signed?

Maybe we just need to give him more time?

If it's the one I'm thinking of, they didn't agree on a final report and none was issued. If it's some other Commission, I wish you'd tell me what its actual name was.

It's been in the news. It's also been repeatedly covered on this site.

It's even been covered by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform

You are right, of course, that the Commission didn't agree on a final report and none was issued. With respect to "Cat-Food Commission" name, this was also explained by Wikipedia at a time when the Cat-Food Commission was still a viable one.

This one is "a treasure".

we were paying attention during his first term.

and House incumbents have a strong advantage. That said, the make up of both changed somewhat in the 2012 election. Notable, we have a larger majority in the Senate, with some quite notable replacements and some ugly faces are gone from the House. In my state, we tossed Chip Cravaak, replacing him with a Democrat.

If we blow it again by playing the 'compromise game' then we also need to rethink what we are as a party.

We gave it all away in 2006 when we had it all. Why? For 6 more years of Republican BS. It's time to do something this time around or form a new Progressive Liberal party.

elected representatives would do that for us. But I do think we need to participate more. To demand that they take action.

And stand up boldly against GOP gamesmanship and just insist-- We do not consider children in poverty as bargaining chips. We have already compromised on 800 billion in cuts to social programs. The health and safety of the poor and middle class are not little bargaining chips. They have already borne their burden. They sacrificed a lot last time to show our Democratic spirit but enough is enough.

Need to ask my legislators to speak up about urgent human needs not being bargaining chips. Far better to get the extra where it is sloshing around in the privatized military budget for example.

All I see are posts about how Republicans, who got their asses kicked, will win and how Democrats are going to screw up.

Yes, the Repubs got their asses kicked. Why are we so quick to soothe their hurt feelings? Why are we acting as if the "fiscal cliff" is some type of ominous doom awaiting us? Why aren't we acting like the winners? Why are we trying so hard for a compromise whereby we get screwed? Where is the bright side to this picture?

Because we still need the House of Representatives to cooperate with us.

"Why are we acting as if the "fiscal cliff" is some type of ominous doom awaiting us?"
It kinda is, depending on the economist you listen to.

"Why aren't we acting like the winners?"
We won the Presidency but not the House of Representatives.

"Why are we trying so hard for a compromise whereby we get screwed?"
No compromises have been made. Not many have even been discussed yet.

People hate it when you talk sense instead of loyal rhetoric.

We now have a president who doesn't fear re-election. He'll absolutely appoint a couple supreme justices, and the course of the country is unchanged from his 1st four years. Compromise is not capitulation.

Clinton didn't build the greatest two term administration in my lifetime by shunning republicans.

And when a lot of what is represented as compromise is actually apologism.

"Depending on which economist you talk."

Not the ones who have been proven right over and over ahain.

who is one of the most awful repugs that there is. It can be done.

early in his first term.... They had already decided to prove him wrong and that just tripled their determination to stymie his agenda in any way they could. I rather imagine he is way too intelligent to make that mistake again.

But he has yet to prove it.

I fully expect half of DUers to begin wearing hats decorated with coffee beans or something as equally silly.

Honestly?

And it is the Democrats that seem to be breaking their backs to get a compromise with those that want it their way or no way. Wouldn't it be nice if they just shut the fuck up and let the Republicans do the compromising? They don't have to do anything until the first of the year. Go home. Stop trying to deal with the extortionists. Let the Bush tax cuts expire and you will see the Republicans gather rather quickly for some type of deal. Stop the frigging nonsense about the "fiscal cliff". There is no "cliff". It is a slow grade downward if they do nothing. Stop following the directions of the Republicans and start acting like Democrats with a backbone that will not be cowered by these criminals in the other Party. Is that asking too much?

I love you kentuck, but Obama told the Republicans that US voter want taxes raised on the wealthy. Then Harry Reid said to the Repubs no fucking w the SaFety net.

Who are Dems you are talking about.

Did you see the President already today say that he was ready to extend the payroll taxes? Obviously not?? Why don't they just shut the fuck up! Nobody wants them out negotiating with the Repubs right now. They have all the cards. They don't have to give away anything. You act as if Obama has never betrayed us in any way. He has before and there are no guarantees he will not do it again. Somebody needs to twist his balls and remind him he is a Democrat. Just my humble opinion...

What did Schumer say?

What it boils down too is I am more optimistic than you. The Republicans have nothing. This is not 2010, and Obama Reid et al know that. Much different political reality now.

In spite of Schumer, I still feel that optimism.

That is why talk about grand bargains and unsolicited compromise are so discouraging. I do not mean to be negative but I think this is a situation we all need to be aware of, instead of blaming Democrats for not going to the polls the next time around. We hope this is a different political reality? But, is it really? What makes you think that? Is it just your deep-seated optimism?

....of anything specific? What are they supposed to do, get up and talk like you OP?

They refuted EVERYTHING you whine about. Best to google it, watch (or read) what transpired, and then let us know how you feel about it.

Quite frankly, you're WAY ahead of yourself - see what's going on before you begin to criticize it!!!

Let's see... it's the 13th.... he was re-elected on the 7th.... 13 - 7 = 6.

6 days.

And the new administration doesn't start until Jan. which is 11/2 months away! Like in the future.

Exactly when is he supposed to prove it and how.... in 6 days (where he HAS drawn a line in the sand re taxes) and ... well the future's not here yet.

Do explain what you are talking about. Because you sound like one of those freaked out loser Repugs. "OOOOO! What are we gonna do??? We're doomed!"


Jesus!

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Who is worried about the ominous doom of a "fiscal cliff"? Haven't you been watching the news?

There have been NO Democrats "trying hard for a compromise", all I've seen is that they've said compromise, and hinted "sensible compromise", is not out of the question.

I'm so confused.

lit their hair on fire?

I don't like the way that there is no Democratic voice re: immigration reform. The republicans are taking over the narrative and the Dems are silent. Morons, all of them.

.....start their impeachment hearings just to eat the calendar for the next two years.

Talk to a Republican now and they throw that "Clinton was impeached" at you as a source of PRIDE as if they actually kicked him out of office. Doesn't MATTER that the public didn't support them for it. They did it, they call it a "victory" and they're STILL tone deaf that the public doesn't care and thought it was petty.

Rather than waiting for them to do something stupid and uncalled for. I do not have the blind faith of a partisan when such important issues are at stake. They had better get their shit in gear. That is where my rage is right now....not later.

If you need help with email addresses or something, just ask.

he had more of a mandate in 2008 than he does today.

with over 3 million more in the popular vote = mandate.

I'm saying President Obama had more of a mandate in. 2008 than he does today. Both his electoral college and popular vote numbers are down. Am I correct, or no?

He still has a mandate.

Both President Obama popular vote and electoral college numbers are lower than 2008! less of a mandate now than before.



you cannot deny that.

did. He has a mandate - why are you arguing about the degree of the mandate?

right wingers looking to nit pick?

That is what I am trying to say, do you not get it?????

and I wonder why it's so important to you. By-the-way, his margin keeps going up as more of the votes are counted.

Your histrionics are rather amusing though.

Obama and America win! Romney loses. Too bad for republicans.

yes Obama and America won. but it is less of a mandate than before. That's what im trying to get across!!!!! but no one is listening!




OBAMA WON!!!! WITH LESS NUMBERS THAN IN 2008!!!! can anyone tell me I an wrong on the numbers???????

Because bush said it you need to make sure Obama has the same thing bush thought he had?

Wow

when he won 50.7% of the vote. Obama currently has 50.75% of the vote.

Nobody but you seems to care that he got less votes in 2012 than he got in 2008. Turnout was lower in 2012 for a number of reasons but the fact remains Obama has a mandate.

If Obama had more of a mandate than in 2008 than I would think more people would come out to vote. That certainly didn't happen.

He has a mandate.

Twelve million people who enthusiastically made their way to the polls in 2008 didn't bother to go there in 2012.

his tainted 2004, <300 ECV squeaker.

both his electoral college numbers and popular vote numbers are lower than in 2008, that's just undeniable.

how's that?

You seem to have a real problem with the President having a mandate. Why is that? Just spit it out and tell us what the real problem is. You'll feel better for it.

President Obama has one? He had one in 2008. today, no.

we can both agree that both his electoral numbers and popular numbers are down from what they were in 2008 right? you cant dispute that.

He still has a mandate. He won with 51% of the vote - that's a mandate.

So what's your problem with Obama's mandate? You never did answer.

I hope we're wrong about that. But, I suspect, just maybe, we've been had.

There is no excuse for other Democrats to go along.

But, we should start listening to what the man actually says. He told us - the agenda is to reduce the federal deficit and to regime change Syria and push Iran over the edge.

He just isn't as grotesque and clumsy about it as the other fellow.

Your concerns are valid. However, there are going to be some new kick ass Democrats coming into Congress in both Houses in January. I think they will give both the President and the Tea Party something to think about before they try to give away the store again.

That we need to extend the Payroll taxcuts as if they are going to borrow that money and put it back into Social Security. It ain't gonna happen. That is the first concession.

and they will do some harm, hopefully, none of it irreparable . My hope is that during the new session, Congress will put things back on track. I don't think Boehner will have the stranglehold on the House Republicans that he has had in the past. Let's face it, the President can't really do much without Congress doing it first. He can veto legislation and if we get some good tax legislation through Congress and he vetoes it then all I can do is throw my hands up in disgust.

will try to unseat Boner. Cantor is rabid and extreme and will start impeachment proceedings.

they shouldn't have been done in the first place.

They are the ones who are forced to compromise with Democrats.

But why should we try to emulate them? You would think they would be the ones searching for compromise?

If the Democrats look willing to compromise while the Republicans do not, then the public will blame the Republicans for a failure.

Compromising with the Republicans needs to happen at the last minute, in order to get things done. Compromising right out of the gate, which is what some DUers are advocating, will ensure that the economy continues to falter.