he's a five dimensional chess player, that he doesn't have a magic wand, that it's all the Republicans' fault, that he doesn't have enough votes, that you are a "purist," that your loyalty to the Democratic Party is questionable, ...

Have I hit all the high points. If I've overlooked any, there's no doubt that others can think of more.

It has nothing to do with Corn.

"he's a five dimensional chess player"

Yeah, he fucking won the election...despite the bullshit.

I would have used it frontwards and would have been BORING.

Reavis and Butthead aren't working out this year. Damn you, Corn!

that my Jet metaphor is beyond the intellectual abilities of some DUers http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/122

When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way.

acquisition & its consequent struggles than it is about more authentic issues or anything else.

Your antics are now mostly just amusing. Elect a state senator or assembly person first. You'dhave more leverage if your position was backed by even modest results.

it looks to me like we are gonna win that battle and lose the war.

How much of the Bush tax cuts will be extended? 78% like Obama wants? (With $163 billion going to the richest 20% and only $14 billion going to the poorest 20% http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321) Or will it be 85%? 90%?

I guess even the last deal, of extending 102% of the Bush tax cuts will be some sort of victory. Yet another "good" deal.

this battle, for those "earning" less than $250K, is not how much the 1% will get; but rather, how much we don't have to pay. Right?

On January 2nd, everyone's taxes go up without a deal, or if the House doesn't pass the Senate Bill.

I'd rather pay 4% more than letting the plutocrats run over us again.

If push comes to shove, let the cuts expire. Then perhaps they'll realize we're serious for once.

to absorb a loss that other cannot ... just to make a political point.

And, I'm not going to re-hash how strategically wrong-headed that position is ... I've posted it time and time again; posts that have yet to be refuted.

Here's your shot:

perhaps you don't realize that WE, the bottom 80%, could get tax cuts at least as large as the Bush tax cuts WITHOUT giving $80 billion in tax cuts to the top 5%.

Here are some proposals a Democratic President could offer. IF we actually had a Democratic President. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

ask yourself questions about whether you need/want authentically new/different relationships. Maybe you're hanging out with slave mentalities, not enough people who are actually working/fighting for individual empowerment & change . . .?

I should buy and read the latest book by Joel Osteen?

Individual empowerment? What the hell? I should join the Republican Party?

I guess if I did that though, I sure would be cool with Obama's Reaganomics.

a pass in their rants. They pretend that Republicans don't exist. They dismiss anyone who points out that Republicans have done nothing but obstruct for four years -- first by filibustering in the Senate, then by simply not passing legislation in the House once they had a majority there.

It seems they still haven't gotten a clue even after the last year of campaigning, where the GOP record of obstruction was hung out for all to see.

for four years.

But we can't blame Republicans. We have to attack Obama! Because he can do no right.

And yes, I know saying anything positive about Obama here is verboten to some. We can only criticize.

Lists of Obama's accomplishments are to be mocked; lists of his perceived failings are to be praised, +10000000!!1'd, and recced off to the Greatest Page.

They fought for their side - the haves and the have mores. That's what they do.

It is NOT their fault that Obama chose not to fight for our side. That he surrendered without a fight. That was his choice. He, himself, stood up and gave a speech where he said, essentially "some people want me to fight, but I am not going to ..." and then gave what I consider to be a list of lame excuses.

They also did not make him lie about his "deal".

Obama was the one who claimed that the accursed payroll tax cut was some sort of progressive victory, an economic stimulus. I still say it is a Reagenesque economic stimulus. Obama was the one who claimed that his deal only gave $114 billion in tax cuts to the rich, when even the amount to the top 1% was much bigger than that. Republicans are not to blame for that. Obama should not get a pass for that, just because Republicans are so awful. They are not responsible for his lies - he is.

Unless you would care to explain two things. First, how his number is accurate and second how my number (from CTJ) is bogus. Until that happens, my opinion is that a) Obama is spouting misinformation and b) Corn is buying it and passing it on.

We were outraged when Bush pulled crap like that, or we pretended to be. Why should we tolerate it from Obama just because he is supposed to be on our team?

I'm glad you say you're willing to give Republicans a pass in order to attack Obama. Thanks, because now I know exactly where you stand. Me? I don't give them a pass and I don't make excuses for them. Obama deals with reality, not some fantasy land where Republicans don't exist and if only he shouts a little louder or stomps his feet a little harder, all the obstruction will just disappear. Because that's what some really believe.

He's told by these people to "use the bully pulpit!" Yet when he does, these people cry, "Oh, it's just a speech! Actions not words!" When he accomplishes something great, or does something that really helps the American people, these same people are either silent or find some reason to complain about it not being "good enough". The DADT repeal was met by some of these people not with cheers for a major victory, but with either silence or even more complaints -- that DOMA and other bad laws are still on the books so it doesn't really matter. It is telling when any mention of President Obama's accomplishments is derided and mocked by these people, but any mention of his perceived failings is lauded and cheered.

It's telling when RUMORS that Obama will be doing something "good" are met with instant suspicision and "Let's wait and see" posts, while RUMORS that he will be doing something "bad" are lapped up without a thought and hysterical outrage ensues without any concerete facts.

But those people -- the people who attack Obama from the "left", who yell and scream about him being "corporatist"/"DLCer"/whatever the current buzzword is, represent a very small sliver of the Democratic party, and even only a tiny fraction of the party's liberal base, over 90% of whom like the job he's doing.

President Obama has been working his ass off for US -- the poor, the working class, the PEOPLE -- for the last four years. If the last year of campaigning didn't wake people to that fact, then I suspect nothing will. For the last year we've seen Obama's accomplishments laid out for all to see and hear, and we've also seen it made very clear what the Republicans have and haven't done, and what they intend to do over the next 2-4 years.

It has been made crystal clear where both parties stand. I stand with Obama and the liberal base of the party.

Obama has been working his ass off for US.

Give me a break.

He CHOSE to NOT fight. How is that working his ass off? He was supposed to be our champion, yet he waved the white flag and made a "deal" instead of fighting.

I would have had more respect for him if he fought and lost, than I do for his refusal to even fight.

And that he spews a bunch of bullshit about how good his deal is?

That just adds insult to injury.

That most Democrats support him is puzzling to me. But in many ways it shows the power of mass media.

Those who support him from the left are in three groups

1. they are unaware of the lies and betrayals
2. they believe the lies about the betrayals
3. they make excuses for the lies and lack of effort

And you are wrong about DADT. Obama got praised to the skies when DADT ended, AND, I also believe that ending DADT quieted a lot of his liberal critics here. For the last year, this site has been almost ALL rah rah Obama, and fuck Rmoney.

Obama is rich and famous. You know who is not rich and famous? Me. You know who VOLUNTEERS 100+ hours a year for we the people to serve on the water board? Me. You know who spends his own money to run for office and donates money to others who are running for office? Me. You know who has spent most of his 30+ years of working life in the bottom 20%? Me again.

I am working my tail off, my heart out, and I would love nothing better than to get some help from people like Obama, people like Tammy Baldwin who keeps writing me asking for more money (as did Elizabeth Warren, and Sheldon (from Ohio, whose first name escapes me, okay it is Sherrod Brown, not Sheldon) and the DSCC and the Obama campaign.) I would love to see some effort from those people.

You know, the people who rallied around Lieberman when we, the people, wanted to defeat him in a primary.

Yeah sure, those people, even Lieberman, are working their asses off for us. Even Leonard Boswell is working his ass off for us.

Oh sure, I could tell you exactly how. But I'm sure that would be met with some dismissive sneer about how it isn't good enough. Because for people like you, it's never good enough. You're waiting for some savior to swoop in and magically make things all better, instead of dealing with reality. You'd rather bash Obama and Democrats than hold Republicans accountable for their obstruction and lies. It's quite telling. I have a newsflash for you: 60 million people in this country voted for Mitt fucking Romney. 60 million. So you can pretend all you want that Obama can do whatever he wants if only he would, what, shout louder? Stomp his feet harder? Sorry, but in the real world not everyone is a liberal/progressive/Democrat. That's the sad reality. So, you either work with what you've got and make as much progress as you possibly can, OR you put ideological purity above all else and fail over and over. Thankfully, President Obama is in the former camp.

It's amazing. You really believe that you alone are sincere in your beliefs. You cannot fathom that anyone could possibly think differently than you do. Only YOU arrived at your conclusions by looking at facts and using logic. Everyone else must be brainwashed or an idiot. It's precisely when Democrats adopt attitudes like yours and stick our noses up at anyone who dares disagree that we lose. Count me out. It is sickening that you would rather lose everything and screw over millions of people simply to maintain ideological purity, than to make some progress and continue to fight. Progress doesn't happen by stamping feet and attacking our own instead of the real enemies.

Oh, and yes Obama was "praised to skies" when he ended by DADT. But NOT by the people who attack everything he does for not being good enough. They were simply silent, moving on to the next outrage.

Obama said his deal only gave $114 billion in high income tax cuts.

How many people even know he said that (or care)?

I did calculations from trusted sources. You know, the same sources I trusted when they were blasting the Bush tax cuts, to show that $114 billion is a load of crap. From my OP

"Well, that seems to leave out the $80 billion in estate tax cuts, and also the $32 billion (over two years) going to the top 5% with the accursed payroll tax cut. But CTJ also says that the Obama "compromise" gave $108 billion PER YEAR to the top 1%. So that looks to me like $216 billion right there in "high income tax cuts". Unlike David W. Corn though, I also consider the rest of the top 5% (or as I call them, the top 4%) to also be "high income". They got $55.5 billion in tax cuts per year, for a total of $111 billion."

How many people are aware of that truth, that Obama lied about his deal?

Now, what is your own point of view about this?

1. Is Obama wrong, or am I wrong?
2. If Obama is wrong, is it okay for him to spread misinformation? Is he doing so for the good of we, the poor?

Same with the accursed payroll tax cut. Obama calls it a benefit to the middle class, a benefit to progressives.

I say that it heavily favors the rich.

Am I wrong about that? In what respect?

If I am right, how many people are aware of the facts? If they are aware of the facts, then why aren't more people upset at Obama for pushing a tax cut that favors the rich?

I do not berate people for being unaware, but I do believe that many people are unaware. That's why I expend effort trying to bring the facts to light.

Do you expect me to believe that I am wrong just because I find myself at odds with Obama and Obama supporters?

I never said that other people were not sincere in their beliefs. They sincerely believe both Obama's excuses and Obama's lies.

Just like many people believed Bush before him. The fact of the matter is that you CAN fool many people much of the time.

Here these bush tax give aways to the uber rich were going to go away and Democrats had to do absolutely NOTHING for them to go the way of the dinosaur.

But out of the jaws of victory, a Democratic Lame Duck congress and Obama were able to give the uber wealth yet more tax give aways and a reduction (yet again) in the Paris Hilton estate tax. All the while the Democrats lost ground on unemployment benefits and upped the poor's taxes all during the 2nd Great Depression. It's just amazing. It's almost as if the Democrats were really RepubliCONS in sheep's clothing.

Obama promised not to raise taxes on those making under 250k. If he let all of the Bush taxes expire in 2010, he would have broken that promise.

So your claim he needed to do "nothing" is false.

If Obama broke THAT promise, he'd have never been re-elected. Google the phrase "read my lips, no new taxes".

The Dems in congress were afraid to have this fight, and so Obama delayed his promise to end the top end tax cuts so that he could keep his promise for those under 350k.

Shortly, Obama will end the top end cuts. Either through a deal or by letting them expire.

Oh, and the unemployed got extra benefits in Obama's deal. They did not lose them. I thought those RW arguements died when Romney lost ... guess not.

when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act,

I'm sorry ... Rightwing Argument Alert.

anything resembling the "truth!"

So please share us/me.

In the brief filed in the Supreme Court, for example, the Obama Administration argued

The Obama Administration argued before the Supreme Court that the "individual mandate" is constitutional because it is a tax. The Obama Administration argued that the Federal government has the Constitutional power to levy such taxes.

Most people already purchase insurance, and those who can't afford to do so will get subsidies. The only people screaming about it being a tax are Republicans.

You are going to have to try harder.

If Obama let the tax cuts for the middle class expire, he'd have been toast. Period.

Now he can let them expire.

Number one, is that it would be Congress raising the taxes, and specifically REPUBLICANS in Congress doing so - NOT Obama. He would have the bully pulpit to tell people so.

Number two, he never should have made that promise. Leave the anti-tax zealotry where it belongs, in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

Number three. Bush's base is comprised of many anti-taz zealots. Presumably, Obama's is not. Many people, like myself, voted for him with the hope that taxes would go up for people making less than $250,000. That that bullsh*t limit which was way too damned high, would be negotiated down by a Democratic Congress.

Number four. Things change. The economy crashed. The deficit exploded to a trillion dollars. A wise man would ADAPT to such changes. Would explain to the public why such changes required a change of policies. That because of the "deficit crisis" agreed to by so many politicians, that, yes Virginia, taxes need to go up even on "gasp" households making $170,000 a year. And considering that the vast majority of this country makes less than $90,000 a year, we probably would feel that such households could afford it.

Number five, what rightwing arguments are you talking about? The argument that the extension of the Bush tax cuts was a bad deal? That's not rightwing. That's just factual. That the extension of 78% of the Bush tax cuts is a bad deal? Again, just factual.
Unless, you think that progressives SHOULD support tax cuts that favor the rich. Just for fun, I will say it again. The extension of 78% of the Bush tax cuts (Obama's plan) gives $80 billion in tax cuts to the TOP 5%. If gives only $14 billion to the poorest 20%.

1) Obama would have been blamed. If you followed the media coverage before the deal was made, the media was already calling it a potential "read my lips" moment for Obama. They were gearing up for it. And it would have worked.

2) Who cares. He made that promise specifically because the GOP was painting him, with media help as one who would tax the hell out of everyone. You seem to think that all tax breaks are the same, or that they all have the same impact, they don't.

3) The majority is not you. Most Americans were for allowing the tax cuts on the top end to go up, but not if it also meant their own taxes would go up. The polling on this was very clear at the time. Most of the 98% under 250k did not support an increase of their own taxes just to get the taxes on the higher end to go up. Just a fact.

4) The impact on tax cuts on the economy is not uniform at different income levels. A tax cut for the lower income brackets puts money into the economy because they tend to spend it. A tax cut for the rich has no stimulative effect because that money does not get spent. This is also why extending unemployment benefits helps the economy.

5) Once again, you seem to think that all tax cuts are created equal. Now, I'll say it again. Very soon, the tax rates on the high end will go up. Its going to happen. As for how much of the cut goes to different income levels, you'll have to explain to me how you can cut the taxes of the poorest enough for their cuts to exceed the the cuts on the higher end. In other words, if you select an income level low enough, the people you are talking about already pay very little (in absolute numbers like you used) in taxes. I mean, if I make 20k a year, exactly how much of a tax break can you give me in the first place?

the whole trial is out of order!!!

1. Given the cult following of his supporters, the blame would not stick. After all, he betrayed his own supporters by extending the Bush tax cuts and his own supporters do not seem to care.

2. Actually no, the last thing I believe is that all tax breaks are the same. One of my main complaints with Obama is that he keeps promoting tax breaks - that benefit the wealthy. You know, like keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts. You know, like the accursed payroll tax cut. Both of those hugely benefit the wealthy. Now, the making work pay credit, which he originally campaigned on - that did not. But Obama quickly abandoned it in favor of tax breaks which were bigger for his donor base - the haves and the have mores.

3. The majority IS me. Or rather, people like me. 80% of us are in the bottom 80%. Thus if taxes go up on JUST the top 20%, then Obama might lose some support. Particularly among the 90th percentile and higher. But THEY certainly are not the majority and a majority of them, didn't support Obama anyway. It's a radical concept, I know, but maybe policies should NOT favor the top 20% at the expense of the rest of us. Such a change certainly would be "change" I can believe in.

4. which is precisely why the making work pay credit was a much better stimulus than the accursed payroll tax cut. Too bad Obama abandoned the former and embraced the latter, eh? At least I think so.

5. Once again, no. You think that taxes are gonna go up on rich people, but if you look at it another way, that is not true. First, let all the Bush tax cuts expire. NOW, look at the Obama proposal, and re-instate 78% of the Bush tax cuts (i.e. for all income below $250,000). What happens under that proposal? The top 1% gets $40 billion in tax cuts. The top 4% gets another $40 billion. The top 20% gets a total of $163 billion - over 50% of the total tax cut goes to the top quintile. I see the 78% Bush tax cut NOT as a tax increase on the rich, but actually as a tax CUT, and one that strongly favors the rich. Just because it will be passed before the Bush tax cuts expire, does not make it any less so. It's a crappy proposal, one not worthy of the Democratic Party. At least not worthy of a Democratic Party that represents the bottom 80% over the top 20%. A Democratic Party which no longer exists - if it ever did.

As for tax breaks that would benefit you and me WITHOUT being a windfall to the rich, there are many such proposals (which, for some strange reason, are not part of the conversation. Somebody pushed them off the table and so many people think they, or proposals like them, do not exist). I suggested four of them here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

1) Wow, that's a right wing talking point if I ever heard one ... "cult of followers" ... kind of like Sean Hannity screaming about Obama being the Messiah.

2) Ahhh ... so you are mad that the cut off is 250k. The first 250k gets a break, the rest doesn't. But you are bugged that it goes to 250k. You'd pick a lower number. Politically, that won't work. True or not, most Americans think that a small business owner makes that much, and they also think that they might someday make that much. Also, the political reality is that the Bush tax cuts exist. They have certain aspects. We can pretend that's not true, or deal with reality.

3) No, you are not the majority. LOTS of people in that bottom 80% did not want their taxes to go up if the taxes on the wealthy went up too. Again, the polls were CLEAR on this. You would have been fine if your taxes went up some. Most average people were not.

4) Again, political reality rears its ugly head. Obama put money in the pocket of working people. He did so using one of the few mechanisms he had available. You would have preferred he use another method, one that in the current political environement, was not going to happen.

5) Back to item 2 again. You are quibbling over the cut off. Even if you move that down, the rich still get some if it, no?
And as for your 4 points, as you correctly note in that thread, none of that can pass.

Oh ... and Obama may still let them all expire.

Finally ... you seem very unhappy with Obama. I'm wondering when you will start a Progressive Prez 2016 group here on DU.

Like it or not, Obama will be President for the next 4 years. So you might want to start planning ahead.

after all, look at point 4. You say "Obama put money in the pocket of working people."

Well, how did he do that?

By keeping the Bush tax cuts.

Therefore, logically we should have supported the Bush tax cuts since they, too, "put money in the pocket of working people". And, of course, they are not at all progressive, but under the political reality, they were the best we could pass.

Uhm, political reality sorta depends on the national conversation. Somebody could perhaps influence that if he used his bully pulpit to promote policies that would help working people without being a windfall to the rich.

Instead, that friend of the rich, keeps saying things like "let's keep most of the Bush tax cuts" and "people who make $240,000 a year are middle class."

and by extension on the working people of America.

Politicians like Bush, and now Obama.

Well, is he doing what I said, or isn't he? He keeps claiming he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts "for the middle class" and he apparently, just like Rmoney, defines the middle class as "couples making $250,000 or less".

Back in the primary, there was a difference between Obama and Hillary. Hillary was claiming people making $97,000 a year were middle class, and Obama jumped on her. He said "6% is not the middle class, it's the upper class".

Hmm, $97,000 a year is well below $200,000. Suddenlly, Obama is defining the middle class upwards - just like Hillary.

This isn't an attack on Corn, so much as a chickensh!t attack on President Obama.

in a short sentence. I would say that's a concise and true answer. He could have explained himself more, I suppose.

I believe he once was a Progressive ...perhaps even populist when he started out...but like all of them they compromised to keep their jobs as print and news magazines began to die out in the internet age.. Shrinkage of newspapers and magazines means they compromise themselves to fit who pays them and if the Third Way or DLC rules then that's what the more Dem leaning of our reporters will fit themselves with in their reporting.

Compromising themselves away because they have to earn a living, too. Indie Media has to beg for money constantly. Who can make a decent living reporting for the few Progressive online news sources?

is not nearly as important as getting GOOD stuff done. Getting bad stuff done does not impress me much.

And I have no idea who Roubini is? Is he a progressive hero like Nader? Or is he some rightwinger espousing rightwing ideas as being good for America?

Looks like the latter to me.

And I am more than happy to shoot at traitorous progressives who get rightwing "stuff" done.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/93

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/86

They see Democrats and Republicans fighting each other instead of fighting for the American people"

Except that is how elected Democrats fight for the American people - BY FIGHTING AGAINST REPUBLICAN POLICIES. Republican policies which are harmful to the American people.

For example, from my Journal #19
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...

When Joe Lieberman complains that "partisanship prevents things from getting done" I said "IT SHOULD"


When you look at the things Republicans want to do

* eliminate civil rights in the name of security
* goto war at the slightest hint of possible provocation
* gut social services
* give massive tax breaks to rich people
* allow corporations free rein to pollute, swindle and exploit
* lie about their goals, motives and actions
* etc.,etc., ad nauseum - see the Wage Slave Journal's "scorecard of evil"

That is exactly why some 56 million Americans try to elect Democrats - to stop that bullsh*t from "getting done". Lieberman didn't want to do his job. Connecticut Democrats had three words for you last night - "YOU ARE FIRED!"


Joe Lieberman says that "We can count on John and Sarah to fight for you, the American people" and yet one of his key proposals is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Tax cuts which primarily benefit the top 10% - not ALL the American people. 70% of the benefits of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts goto people making over $500,000. 80% of the benefits of eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which McCain proposes to do, 80% of the benefits of that goto the richest 10%.

Lieberman also says, like W said of himself, that "even if you disagree with him, he will tell you where he stands."

So, back to those tax cuts. In 2001, McCain voted against them. Now he is for them. Which time was he taking a principled stand? In 2001, when he opposed Bush, or in 2008, when he caved in to the Republican base - "the haves and the have mores"?

That speaks volumes, none of it flattering.

But, I guess people who think that George W Bush's political benefactor is a 'progressive hero' . . .

what a shame that I know more about policy than I do about people.

Whoever Roubini is, his article was a load of crap. America needs corporate tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

Sure, that's not rightwing. Ooookay. Whatever.

Must be a low bar set for 'genius' these days.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Yet, omigosh, I am a fool for not knowing who certain people are.

I probably should pay more attention to the icons, eh?

Must be a real low bar set for iconoclast these days.

The political landscape is what it is. We can't wish it away with dreams of ideological purity. I would say ideological purity went the way of the dodo, but that would be wrong, because we human beings cannot exist in a state of ideological purity.

We have to deal with the fact that not only were these tax cuts very popular across the board, but that Republicans are putting stuff on the table that is really going to hurt working people: mortgage deductions, extended unemployment...all of which will vanish if the very real issue of those tax cuts is not addressed. Many of us who could see down the road opposed those tax cuts from the get-go. But now they are fact, and they are history, and we, who live in the real world, have to deal with them as such.

This wasn't the landscape when those tax cuts were proposed, but it was in 2010, and it is now. The Republicans pressed their advantage when they could, and they won that political ground. Now, you can blame Obama for not fighting hard enough, and you'd be right. But that political ground will not be won back any time soon, given the composition of the House. It's over. It's a fight for another day, and another, friendlier Congress (if that ever comes to pass).

I sincerely hope Obama will cut the best deal he can with these people. I think he owns enough political capital to push them...but how far is an open ended question.

Trashing the President, and David Corn, is not particularly constructive. Let's work with what we have, and not with what we wish we had.

Obama and Corn have two choices

they can fight on MY side

or

they can get my steel toed boot up their a$$.


I consider the latter to be very constructive. It's a strong incentive for people to fight on my side.

"He better do what" some random guy, with apparently no concept of political reality, posts on a internet bulletin board.

YOU WANT TO AFFECT CHANGE THE CHANGE YOU WANT ... RUN FOR AN OFFICE, GET ELECTED; THEN INTRODUCE YOUR MAGICAL LEGISLATION THAT WILL WOO BOTH DEMOCRATS AND THE OBSTRUCTIONIST GOP!

I thought I was helping to make the change I wanted by helping to defeat Hillary in the primary.

The political reality that I continue to see, is that we have a Democratic President who refuses to represent the bottom 80%.

I make no apologies for trying to rally the bottom 80%.

I say that "he better tell the truth" or I will call him out for his lies.

That goes for both Corn and Obama.

You have a strange concept of American Democracy. Where citizens and voters must shut up unless they can be elected to office.

I responded to somebody who said it was not productive for me to attack Obama and Corn. Well, if they don't want to be attacked by me, then they can start telling the truth, start fighting on my side - on our side.

But you seem to feel that since the "political reality" is that the Democratic Party has been bought by the rich, that those of us who are not rich should just shut up and accept that reality.

It would fit in well with the tea party.

Anybody who doesn't agree with your notions of ideological purity is a tea partier; is that it?

Your sarcasm is lame and juvenile.

Seriously. I am most inclined to agree with you but this post is just ugly. It comes off to me as being incredibly whiney. Honestly when I read this I find myself almost feeling a little sorry that I'm a liberal, and I love being liberal.

Is it ugly to call lies "lies"?

Is it ugly to demand that journalists stand up for the truth instead of promoting lies?

Is it ugly to point out that famous people probably make more money than the rest of us, and that that might have something to do with whether they fight on our side or not?

As I watch the Obama presidency and the supposed "liberal" reaction to it, I am not even sure what being a liberal means.

It sure does not seem to mean "strong support for progressive income taxes".

Maybe Obama could mention that in his next SOTU - "the era of progressive taxation is over."

How about the righteous indignation? That might be it. Or maybe it's the sanctimony? Or perhaps it's the fact that a lot of us are giving a lot of yourselves to make these thongs happen only to be told we are this and that and just not good enough to care and try to help?

I am sure that I missed some of the ugly. I just love it when assholes try to lecture to me and condescend.

Which part do you consider to be condescending?

When did I ever say that anybody, besides Corn and Obama is "not good enough to care and try to help"?

Do you see my OP as an attack on you because you, like David Corn, are part of the top 20%?

What I said was that I just love when some asshole tries to lecture me and to condescend. Do you like it when some asshole tries to lecture you and condescend to you?

Since I didn't really name you, and only spoke in general terms about something I disliked, I could rightfully take your comment as an admission that you are being an asshole, trying to lecture me and condescend to me. Is that what you intended?

The fact that you used David Corn and President Obama as your targets doesn't mean that I don't understand that you're lecturing me and condescending to me. I am a supporter of Democrats and President Obama. When you insult the efforts of Democrats and President Obama you are very much insulting me and what I'm trying to do.

I favor constructive criticism hfojvt, but there is a certain element here who are most definitely not constructive.

You asked me. I gave you my best answer. That is my opinion.

first you aren't talking about me, then you are.

What do you consider to be condescending in my original rant? Which part?

And what is Obama trying to do? He's trying to extend 78% of the Bush tax cuts. I do not think that is a worthy goal. I desire a better outcome. I would like a champion to fight for a better outcome.

You don't want to understand hfojvt.

does not mean I don't want to understand

but there certainly are points of view that I do not consider to be valid or reasonable.

Unfortunately I am only human and that means my knowledge is limited. I have to lump you in with a certain element here that simply doesn't like President Obama and goes out of its way to attack him and other Democrats. You are not monolithic, no one is, but you are an identifiable group.

I am fairly certain that members of this group is of the left but not necessarily liberal. You may be to the left of liberals. You may have some other agenda that I am not going to get into here because those discussions open other cans of worms. But you all tend to militant, aggressive, self-righteous, and condescending.

A lot of people here know exactly what I am referring to. Some people, like you personally, claim to not understand. I have to say that I am not going to believe you when you tell me that you don't understand. I have been here before and done this. I don't really want to play this game.

this is one of them....

What seems insanely stupid to me is for the Democratic Party to embrace Reaganomics.

What REALLY happened to the boy who said the emperor had no clothes?

What is really insanely stupid is Obama's embrace of Reaganomics.

What are the principles of Reaganomics?

1. that tax cuts are good. - check out Obama's first state of the union, where he brags about cutting taxes. Witness his stubborn insistence that all income below $250,000 should keep their Bush tax cuts.

2. that tax cuts should mainly help the wealthy (although nobody should ever admit that, just call them "middle class tax cuts&quot - Obama supports keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts. That plan gives $163 billion to the top 20% and only $14 billion to the bottom 20% http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

3. that tax cuts create jobs and stimulate the economy - remember Obama's big "jobs plan"? What was it? A big, big part of it, the only part he actually fought for, was (drumroll -----) payroll tax cuts. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160

4. that tax increases (but also deficits) will kill the economy -Obama seems to be spreading the hype about both the fiscal cliff and the deficit.

Outside of posting on DU, how are you helping President Obama fight for you? Are you calling and writing your Congresspersons? Have you thought about starting an org with others who feel like you do? He's one man, and millions of Americans are clamoring for him to wave his hand and fulfill their agenda's. Not to mention the millions of Americans whose hatred of him is so fierce they simply make shit up. I'd say you were on the cusp - it's a fine line. He needs help. Granted, he should be held up to scrutiny and each and every one of us should be utilizing the tools the Obama administration has provided us to let him know how we feel, but honestly, how many people are doing that, and how many people are sitting at their computers complaining in a forum where it does little to good?

I think I'm not out of line saying that David Corn has done more to further the progressive agenda up to this point that you have. Your calling him a liar is beyond the pale. Again, WHAT. HAVE. YOU. DONE. to help yourself?

if he, is in fact, lying?

The cave in 2010 was a pile of excrement. For Corn to paint it as an ice cream sandwich is just beyond the pale.

You think calling and writing my Republican Congresspeople is gonna do a damned bit of good? Puh-leaze.

You think sending him an email is gonna do some good?

In fact, I already did that. After he caved back in 2010, I unsubscribed from his email list and told him why.

Major fail.

Get used to it DU, they'll be a lot more of this crap coming down the intertubes.

other labels.

It's sad, because I actually do agree with some of their principles. It's just that there is a sub-cohort that is trying to OWN that stuff NO MATTER WHAT IT DOES TO *A*N*Y*O*N*E* else, even "their own".

I propose an assessment, the first step of which is to ask these people, some of whom are above: #1. Are you employed? & #2. Do you have "health" "care"?

Thanks FSogol.

While Democrats need every single vote we can muster ... at the risk of hurting someone's feelings, everytime I see one of these "President Obama/the Democrats better or else ..." posts, I get a vision of a 4th grader stomping his feet and holding his breath because he got the G.I. Joe WITHOUT the Kung Fu Grip and life-like beard, when he specifically asked for one with both.

I, also, get that yawny feeling and seriously question whether President Obama/the Democrats ever really had their vote, in the first place?

After all, I spent two years attempting to defend Obama against the left on DU

for example

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/127

and

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/131

and

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/121

"How do progressives get disillusioned? They come to DU where they can read about how bad the Obama administration is.

Did I say bad? That's not nearly a strong enough term. The Obama administration is not just bad, according to many threads and front page articles on DU. The Obama administration is corrupt, sold out, just like the Bush administration. Worse than worthless, because instead of accomplishing nothing, they accomplish giant giveaways to the corporations. Plus, they lie all the time."


*****

But, at this point there is no need for discouragement. My point is that Obama betrayed us in 2010. For Corn to lie and pretend that Obama did not betray us, is just an invitation for Obama to betray us again.

For myself, I feel that anger at that first betrayal should be a motivation to demand that we not get fooled again.

Maybe if we keep our guard up, Obama won't be able to sucker punch us again. Instead many here seem to be leading with our chins and saying to Obama "hit me baby one more time".

I wanted to elect somebody who would fight against the Bush tax cuts, instead of extend them.

I guess though, that I am supposed to be prepared to cheer another surrender. That when a grand bargain is made which extends 85% of the Bush tax cuts and makes cuts to medicaid and medicare that we will be told (again) that Obama got a "good deal".

Guess what? The people who didn't get their UE cut off abruptly, probably care less than I do, who you "wanted to elect". Get over it.

UE benefits were extended twice already. I don't believe Obama needed to give away the whole show in order to get that again.

That just seems like a Bush tactic. Throw a nickel, or $20 billion to the bottom in order to justify $641 billion to the top.

Who the fuck thinks that is a fair trade? A "good deal". Just dickheads like Corn who were part of the group that got the $641 billion. The deal was much better for him than it was for me, or for the unemployed.

Oh, and I happen to only personally know two people who collected UE. One was my lazy co-worker. Working the same part time job that I had, always happy to get free money that he didn't have to work for. Another was my supervisor's wife. Married, of course, to my supervisor, who besides getting paid to make my life hell, also got military retirement and benefits.

But I hear you. I am just a serf, a member of the canaille who doesn't count. Doesn't matter, I should get over it. I should quit griping and cheer for our wonderful leader who cares even less about me than you do.

they really, really suck.

you're a Jet for life http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/122

What a pathetic lot Jets fans are.

but not as much as the Sharks http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/122

Unfortunately, Obama is operating in a world where he has no choice but to deal with Repubs. And, in that context, I agree with Corn that he did better than most people realize.

He didn't have to cave in to them. He held the trump card, the Bush tax cuts were gonna expire. Republicans absolutely did not want to see that happen.

Obama had an option to fight. To stand up and say "this is what Democrats stand for."

Instead he stood up and said "Republicans are right."

Republicans have always said

1. tax cuts create jobs
2. tax cuts for the rich are really middle class tax cuts
3. tax cuts are always good
4. tax increases are always bad

In waving the white flag, Obama basically said "I agree with Republicans about that."

It was kinda funny during the campaign when Romney got blasted for saying that the middle class is "people making $250,000 or less". Funny because he was getting slammed for agreeing with what Obama has been saying for four years.

Not funny though, because we apparently turn around and accept it from Obama. If it was wrong when Romney said it then it should be just as wrong, or more so, when Obama says it.

Both to help those people -- who otherwise would have been screwed -- and to act as a further stimulus to the economy. Which worked, by the way. We would be much worse off today without it.

Unemployment benefits were extended by this same Congress on 6 Nov 2009, and on 22 July 2010. So why should we believe that agreeing to an extension of the Bush tax cuts was the ONLY way to get another extension of unemployment benefits?


Why should I believe that the only way to get another extension of unemployment benefits was by caving on the Bush tax cuts?

Funny how two other extensions were passed without any such incentive, isn't it?

And much worse off? Even Obama claimed very little stimulus from the unemployment extension. It was about $22 billion of his supposed $200 billion in stimulus. The vast majority of his claimed stimulus was the accursed payroll tax cut - a Republican trickle-down stimulus.

gotten extensions passed without giving up something and/or having 60 votes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05krugman.html

http://www.risesmart.com/blog/can-unemployment-benefit-extensions-go-on-forever

Relief for the millions of Americans out of work could be on the way on today, after more than a month of maneuvering in Congress. Federal extensions for unemployment insurance expired on June 2, and have been shot down in three votes since then by Republican lawmakers who say more extensions for the jobless will add to the federal deficit. During that time, an estimated 1.3 million Americans have run out of benefits, out of some 14.6 million unemployed.

The new authorization for extensions is expected to pass today, as it will be taken after the swearing in of Democrat Carte Goodwin, who’ll replace the late West Virginian Sen. Robert Byrd and give the party the 60 votes they need to win.

but giving up $641 billion in tax cuts to get $20 billion in unemployment extension still seems like a very bad trade to me.

And when that article said 60 votes, I do not believe the Democrats had 60, because we lost that IIRC with the victory of Scott Brown. Cloture was reached with two votes from Maine Senators - Republicans at the time.

Presumably they could have been extended again without giving away everything.

Olympia Snowe indicated that that kind of conflict was why she was leaving office -- she was sick of it.

There is No excuse now for the bashing from the left. They can't even claim that Obama has the House like they could 2009-2011. If it was illogical to help elect a Repuke House in 2010 as "punishment" to the Dems for not being progressive enough, it is not just plan clear, that anyone who wants a more Repuke house for 2014 is just a right wing troll. How is the current House going to pass anything progressive and in fact not pull to the right? And those who wanted to punish the Dems in 2010 can look in the mirror.

1. the Obama surrender of 2010 was a horrible betrayal - by Obama
2. for David Corn to paint it as a victory is also a horrible betrayal - by Corn
3. if we accept these betrayals, we will just get betrayed again

The Medicaid expansion expired six months later. It was not renewed by Congress.

The deal included extended unemployment benefits. Without a doubt, Republicans would have allowed them to expire or at the very least trim them significantly, holding them hostage for something else.

Obama is smarter than his critics who believe they know all the details about what he and other members of Congress are thinking. It's arm-chair quarterbacking in hindsight.

As for the Corn piece (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021883996) that sparked this nonsense, he is likely correct.

Van Hollen takes Medicare age increase and Social Security off the table
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021891741

Sanders Applauds White House for Taking Social Security Off the Table in Deficit Talks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014319000

based on the idea that he would change things. That he would at the very, very least eliminate the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250,000. I thought they should be eliminated for incomes over $80,000 but was pragmatically sorta willing to settle for $250,000.

But then Obama did not even FIGHT for that? When all he had to do was NOTHING and they would expire automatically?

And I am supposed to believe that $30 billion in unemployment extensions (which had previously been achieved without huge sacrifices) and a little bit of medicaid expansion is worth another $641 billion in tax cuts for the rich? Tax cuts which are likely to be extended AGAIN?

Yeah, the medicaid expansion expired, That sorta makes my point. 6 months of medicaid expansion for TWO YEARS of tax cuts for the rich is NOT a good deal. They got two years and we got six months. Hurrah for the deal maker! He's so awesome.

As for armchair quarterbacking in hindsight. No, way, way back in February of 2010, I was insisting that the Bush tax cuts should expire for the wealthy. That we should make our case to the people against tax cuts for the wealthy.

Instead, Obama keeps embracing them.

For some reason, I still feel betrayed, even if some sheep are going willingly to slaughter, I still feel betrayed.

No amount of you calling me silly and calling the traitor a genius is gonna make me feel any less betrayed. $641 billion in tax cuts for the rich is a failure. And as I said at the time, quoting Biden, the real failure was that Obama refused to even fight.