If tax cuts for the top 1% pass

I'm done. This is my line in the sand. When we didn't get single payer or at least a public option I was pissed but I still continued to support Obama and the Dems. If they can't stand up and fight for the people I can not stand and fight for them. I'm fed up.
What good has the Bush tax cuts done? If tax cuts for the rich creates jobs then where the fuck are the jobs? I'm sick of all of the fucking compromises, I'm sick of the caving in. I could care less if someone in the top 1% can not buy a new yacht when there are people who can not afford to eat. I don't care if the rich are a little less comfortable when people are out of work or afraid of losing their jobs.
How many jobs has the Bush tax cuts created in America? Go ahead I'll wait. Those tax cut has destroyed our economy and they are on the verge of destroying our country. Dems get your act together and fight for the people or the people will abandon you in 2012 in greater numbers.

when he asked if we would support a disappointing friend or a deadly enemy.

However, if he doesn't veto this, I won't be supporting him in 2012. I'll be contributing and canvassing and trying to knock him out in the primary.

However, allowing my deadly enemies back in is not ever going to be my plan.

your dissapointing friend was actively helping your deadly enemy who wanted to destroy you?

What if that dissapointing friend was negotiating, without your approval with this deadly enemy by saying "Look I know you want to destroy this person, but how about if we agree to meet in the middle and you just maim or horribly disfigure them? Can we agree to that?"

And then what if that friend got mad at you for not thanking him for negotiating down your destruction to just a maiming or a disfigurment?

Would that still be someone you would support and defend? I sure as hell wouldn't.

He's just going along to get along instead of putting up a fight.

If I have a friend who is standing between me and a beating, and has the means and weapons needed to protect me, yet when that beating is about to commence he steps aside to give the person administering the beating easier access, that is actively helping them hurt me. When that "friend" is the only thing standing between me and a world of hurt and he steps out of the way, that is actively helping that person do the harm they want to do for me.

Yes, if that person was standing way off to the side, with no easy access to help or protect me, then you'd have a point. But when that person is standing, with exactly the same tools at his disposal that my enemy has and still chooses to step aside that's helping them.

You can be generous and see it another way but I suspect if your analogy were true to life you'd feel a lot differently.

I will not vote for Obama if he doesn't find out what he is and where he stands. He is no dem to me if this happens. He will be the most disappointing pres in my lifetime.

Especially when he has the complete support of the Democratic Party machine? Who would run against him? And would they win the primary? the general? For this time, Pres Obama is as progressive as we are going to get in the presidency.

We need to work for his reelection and elect more progressives to Congress to "help" him be more progressive.

That doesnt mean stop trying to convince him to be more progressive, but stop short of helping our enemies.

I just re-read my post and didn't say I thought he could be primaried. Doesn't mean I'm happy about that, but I also don't think he could be.

And no, I don't need to "work" for his re-election. I may vote for him, but as long as he keeps internalizing right wing talking points and giving them as much priority as he has the past 2 years I'm not going to work for that. I'll give my money and my time to the causes I believe in because it's quite clear that throwing time and money at the current democratic party is about as useful to advancing the causes I believe in as it would be setting it on fire or throwing it in the toilet.

And it's awful hard to elect more progressives when the president himself insists on getting involved and supporting more conservative incumbents against progressive primary opponents. I'm not saying he needs to support the challenger but he should stay out. Because the way I see it when he dos that he is part of that Democratic party machine that is holding our side back.

It will be the case of deadly enemies who masquerade as friends versus deadly enemies who clearly are.

If tax cuts for the rich are extended, it's goodbye to the Democratic Party, and possibly to DU, for me.

for the rest of us.

Agreed, this is screaming for a veto.

Of course, the salesmen to have a standard pitch for this whole thing; the Randian concept that the super-wealthy drive society and everyone else should focus on making them happy. We just came out of the Bush years, which utterly disproved that nonsense once and for all, of course... but there you go.

It seems like there are some for whom this will be the last straw. I can't say I know exactly which straw was my last but it definitely passed a while ago.

But the rest I can sadly see continuing to make excuses.

"Well it's just a temporary extension!" Because yeah, it's real likely Dems/Obama will be so bold and unafraid in the next election year.

"Well, Obama can't control the house and the Senate!!" Yes, he has the veto pen. Unless they pass with a veto proof majority he has no excuse.

will be temporary. If the cave in to a temporary tax extension the will cave in two years from now during an election year. It a trap.

He'll extend them to just after the next Presidential election. That way, they've got a nice election year scare tactic (vote for me or those mean Republicans are going to make the wealthy tax cuts permanent!). If he loses, the Republicans will make them permanent easily. If he wins, he'll make them permanent, or extend them for another four years at least.

So you won't be voting for the Democratic nominee in 2012? Because that's how the OP defined "last straw."

That's why that was put in quotes (as though the constantly spinning defenders on here were the ones saying it). My response to that was pure sarcasm.

That's why I'm as adamant about this issue as you are since if they don't stand up now then there's no way they'll be likely to stand up later. Just like there is no way in hell the promises of "tweaking the bad parts" of healthcare reform are ever going to happen.

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant in your last post.

Just kidding.

Bottom line: I agree with you. On all counts. I think a "temporary" extension will be just as much a failure/betrayal/cave-in as a "permanent" one.

I agree. Permanent in politics means temporary anywayz.

I will probably vote Democratic in local elections but I will be done with the Democrats for Federal Office...DONE...

Nader's supporters in 2000 thought they were DONE with voting for Democrats for federal office. 4 years later, the vast majority RAN to the polls to attempt to eject Bush from office.

Why? Because you can only be irrational for so long. Humans have a survival instinct -- perpetual irrationality is selected against. For example, if you attempted to stop breathing, you'll find you physically aren't able to. Likewise, if a child touches a hot stove, you will find that they (magically) don't try to do so again.

Eventually, you'll work to elect President Ben Nelson if that's what it takes to remove Republicans from office. Just because you are in denial doesn't mean it isn't true.

you have proof of that or is this just hopeful thinking...

THIS Nader voter sure didn't vote for Kerry the sell-out in '04...

When the decks are so stacked by your corporate capitalist masters there are only the 2 right-wings of the Corporate War Party that have any chance of "winning", there's really no choice...

Need to take a stand on this issue.

I don't see where we have much of a choice. Progressives don't have the balls to put one of
their own in office, and until they do it's just this slide downhill toward corporate dictatorship.

and if we have to vote for them no matter what they do what incentive do they have to change?

Now what?

The Republicans never left. We are still getting screwed over for the powerful few. The Republicans are getting everything they wanted with the added bonus of being able to attack the Dems for it while claiming that they didn't vote for it while reaping the benefits.

you think that we are EVER going to have different choices, no matter HOW much you wish for that to be the case?

The reason we only have 2 choices is because this country has been divided in to republican vs democrat. We can change that, if we truly fight for it.

It just means you live in an alternate universe.

"We can change that, if we truly fight for it."

Absolute bullshit. The reason we have two choices is because we have an electoral college with an absolute majority requirement (along with winner-take-all elections). You want to change that, then change the Constitution. Unless that happens, we will only have two choices, and this will be true no matter how much you complain about it.

States do not have the requirement that only (R) vs (D) appears on the ballot.

The reason we have a 2 party system is because of people like you that advocate we support a 2 party system no matter how many times we get screwed.

Let's say Nader wins not just a single state (and don't worry, he won't), but 269 electoral votes. Furthermore, Gore gets 135 and Bush gets 134.

You would think Nader would win, right?

WRONG. The election goes to the House, where each state's congressional delegation gets 1 vote. California's representatives get collectively one vote, and Wyoming's representatives get collectively one vote. Bush wins in a landslide. Even though he came in third place.

you ignored my point. Each states can have his or her way of determining their delegates. In fact some states are trying to pass laws that give their delegates to who ever got the majority vote in the country.

So your argument that we have a 2 party system because of the electoral college is false. The electoral college has nothing to do with that. In fact, if anything, it would be easier to change the 2 party system on a state by state level than the national level because of the electoral college.

1 would be lots of states signing onto national popular vote.
However, you would also need basically every state to switch to instant run-off voting, where a vote for Nader isn't essentially a vote for Bush.

Think about this in terms of game theory. If everyone looks at past elections and realizes (correctly) that there are only two viable choices, then the rational thing to do would be to strategically vote for one of the two viable choices. Only a tiny percentage of people would be irrational enough to throw their vote away.

So yes, it is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy, but that does NOT mean it is somehow not 100% accurate. It is self-fulfilling because that's how incentives works in 3-way races.

The only way to fix that is to have most of the US (if not all of the US) move to instant run-off voting.

And if you want to put your time into that, then great. IVR would be wonderful. But UNTIL the day that happens, there is absolutely no chance of there being any more than 2 choices, so you should stop pretending as such.

electoral votes are more important in presidential races than anything else. If some of the big states with big electoral votes change the dynamics of our politics will change with that.

If you have states that are always red suddenly moving their support behind far right candidates and states that always vote blue move to far left candidates the candidates would have to adopt their positions toward that.

You are right in the sense that the house has the final say, but that kind of wrench in the system would cause huge change.

And finally, I will repeat. As long as they can't take our vote for granted they will have to fight for our vote. You keep advocating that they should take our vote for granted and as a result they have absolutely no incentive to change.

I'll try this one more time.

Let's assume that you are correct. They will have no incentive to change to the left if you blindly vote for them.

That does NOT logically imply that they WILL have the incentive to change to the left if you DON'T blindly vote for them.

To put it another way, you might notice that your computer frequently breaks, even when you don't hit it with a baseball bat. But that doesn't mean it WON'T break if you START hitting it with a baseball bat. It will actually just get worse.

Or in logical terms, A->B does not imply that !A->!B.

And as for your statement about the House having the final say, that basically means there are only two choices (regardless of how much change happens at the state level). Remember, it isn't just the House -- it's the House on a weighted system where each state gets one vote. So hundreds of representatives might want to do the right thing, but they will get thwarted each and every time by the few from Wyoming and Idaho.

you have a "choice" between which flavor of the right-wing Corporate War Party you want this time...

To pretend to operate the Empire...

And we'll never be given the opportunity to vote him out.

And, thanks for fighting the fight right here in this thread, rejecting some truly toxic arguments that we are powerless, consigned to our fate, constrained to act against our interests, etc. Nauseating stuff, and kudos to you for confronting it all.

with what they did with healthcare, the deficit commission, and the way they screwed up DADT I am sick of having to vote for them because the alternative is so much worse. If we have to blindly vote for them they have absolutely no incentive to change.

You say that bad things will happen if you blindly vote for them. But what makes you think that even WORSE things won't happen if you don't blindly vote for them?

What makes you think they won't just move further to the right next time to make up your lost vote with independents?

this is an obvious fact that seems to escape the democratic leaders.

Now, are you happy with the way things are? You don't think that it's unfair we cant import drugs from Canada, or that DADT won't be repealed, or that social security and medicare might get cut, or that the rich are about to have their taxes extended?

Because I am pissed about that and I'm sick of it. I want our democratic leaders to change. And as long as they take my vote for granted (as you advocate they do) they will not change. I say fuck that, if by 2012 they don't change of their own free will I'm going to do my best with my vote to try and force them to change. And I'm sure many others that feel the same way I do will also. And frankly, I hope you do too.

The more people like you withhold their votes, the more candidates will move to the right to pick up votes of Independents. It actually works out better for them -- an Independent switching from R to D adds 2 to the margin, whereas a non-voter (or third-party voter) switching to Democrats just adds 1 to the margin. So the more you withhold your vote, the worse it will get for you.

"Because I am pissed about that and I'm sick of it."

How is "whether or not you are sick of it" relevant? If you have a choice between A and B, and those are the only two possible choices that have a chance of governing, why is it even relevant that you don't like A or B? Just because you don't like a choice doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist. Life is full of unpleasant choices, and part of being an adult is making them.

"to try and force them to change"

Oh, you'll get them to change. You'll just get them to change to the right. The idea that you can get them to move to the left is fanciful. It is borne out of cognitive dissonance. That's it.

Name some issues specifically.

They are already for all of the following right wing policies:

- DADT
- Tax cuts for the rich
- cutting social security
- Romneycare
- Denying reimportation of drugs
- Not for legalizing marijuana
- Against gay marriage
- Against gun control
- For the 2 unpaid wars

These are just what came to my head. These are not democrats, these are republicans disguised as democrats.

Now again, I ask you. Are you okay with this? Do you not think this should be changed?

"Are you okay with this? Do you not think this should be changed?"

Of course I wish it were possible to have a more progressive government. But unlike you, I acknowledge a logical difference between wanting something and getting something (a difference that most people realize by the age of 5).

Be specific.

that any self-interested politician would obviously make. Luckily, there aren't that many people like you who would consider throwing your vote away, so they don't have to move too far to the right to make up for your votes. Kerry for example decided he had to support the Iraq war.

But if more people decided to throw their vote away, they would have to keep moving to the right. There would really not be much of a limit in practice (other than limited by the number of irrational voters that would throw their vote away).

The point is simply that while you may think you have "leverage" to force Democrats to the left, all you really have the ability to do is force them to the right. How far right is an open question, but it is certainly not to the left.

because they assumed that the left wouldn't care. And actually in 2004 they didn't care. So what did they do? They moved further to the right.

So just to clarify you won't give me any specifics on how much further to the right the democrats can move and still be considered democrats? What if all the democrats make the calculation that they all need to be like Scott Brown. Would you be telling me I need to vote for them?

The Democratic party moved to the right. Not to the left, like Naderites wanted -- to the right.

"So just to clarify you won't give me any specifics on how much further to the right the democrats can move and still be considered democrats?"

As I said multiple times, it DEPENDS on how many irrational "progressives" decide not to vote for the Democrats. There is not just a single answer to that question -- it is a FUNCTION of how many irrational progressives don't vote for Democrats.

You ignored my second question to you, let me repeat it.

So just to clarify you won't give me any specifics on how much further to the right the democrats can move and still be considered democrats? What if all the democrats make the calculation that they all need to be like Scott Brown. Would you be telling me I need to vote for them?

The answer depends on how irrational you are (and how many other like-minded irrational people there are). There is no single answer -- it is a function.

And as for Nader, I think no one would dispute that the Iraq war wouldn't have happened had Nader dropped out.

only irrational people would not cast their vote for Brown?

And yes, Nader. That evil bastard! It was all his fault that Clinton, long before 9/11, kept the drums of war against Iraq going. And it was Nader's fault the majority of democrats voted for the war without asking any questions. How many hundreds of thousands of children died in Iraq because of actions Clinton took? Oh yeah, only crazy irrational people would ask that question. The only difference betweeen Bush and Clinton on Iraq was that Bush had 9/11 which was a convenient excuse to invade.

And you don't even try to deny it. You just bring up bullshit other excuses that have little to do with the topic at hand.

If Scott Brown won the Democratic primary and was running against a more conservative Republican, then yes, it would be irrational to enable the conservative Republican's victory (by definition). However, he would only win the Democratic primary if enough irrational people decided not to vote for Gore before Brown, Obama before Gore, Franken before Obama, etc.

So it likely wouldn't happen. People with your views would come to their senses LONG before the Democratic party had to drift as far right as Scott Brown to search for votes.

the funny thing about democratic primaries are the democrats are professional liars. In the primary they lie about how liberal they are. Once the general election comes they are suddenly centrist. Finally once it's time to lead they become conservative. Your suggestion that the democratic primary would stop a Scott Brown is laughable. And if the person we voted for turned out to be a scott brown we would have to blindly support him. I say fuck that. I'm not willing to throw my values under a bus for the team, I'm not a cheerleader.

Also, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear that I denied your suggestion that Iraq wouldn't have happened if Gore got elected. I really didn't want to leave any ambiguity about that. I have no doubt it would have happened. It was Clinton, not republicans, the drummed up support for the Iraq war before 9/11 even happened. Here is Gore in 1998 who sounded exactly as Bush did in 2002:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc

As I said above, the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration on Iraq was the fact that Clinton and Gore didn't have 9/11 as an excuse to invade. But that didn't stop them from upholding sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children in the first few years of those sanctions. Then when Bush had 9/11 as an excuse the democrats happily went along with him. And you blame Nader for the war, give me a fucking break.

believe Bush "made 9/11 happen on purpose." So it really doesn't surprise me that there is also a person who believes Gore would have invaded Iraq.

they were also willing to campaign on what a grave threat Iraq was to our security. They constantly said that Saddam was developing weapons of mass distraction and in the lead up to the war Gore never once disputed this fact, in fact he repeated that Saddam was a serious threat with weapons over and over again. He also felt that the united states had the right to attack Iraq if the UN did not approve a resolution.

This is the party that you want us to blindly support. Half a million dead Iraqi children? "Democrats". Voting for the Iraq war? "Democrats". To vote against this shit in your world is irrational.

So you are right.

there are people who deny evolution, people who deny global warming, and people who believe Bush "made 9/11 happen on purpose." So it really doesn't surprise me that people believe Gore didn't want to invade Iraq even if he sounded exactly as Bush did on this issue during his administration and that we the people have absolutely no power to change the system, instead we should encourage it. Like I said, fuck that. But you do what you wanna do.

Denial and cognitive dissonance are powerful forces, so I don't blame you as much as I feel sorry for those that share your view on Gore/Iraq (if there are any).

And I don't belittle people when I don't have an actual argument.

So i'm good. But thanks for the concern. You're probably good too, I'm sure there is a career at fox news in it for you.

says the person who believes a President Gore would actually invade Iraq.

:rofl:

I should have believed what Gore was saying after the war turned out to be a huge mistake.

Like I said, Fox news would be proud.

There is nothing to suggest that everyone who voted for Nader would have made it out to vote for Gore, had Nader not been running.

Oh yeah, remember this, Gore won Florida.

House Vote

Dem yes 87 no 126 abst. 1
Rep yes 215 no 1
Ind yes no 1

Senate Vote

Dem yes 29 no 21
Rep yes 48 no 1
Ind no 1

will move to the right. If the left abandons RW dems, the party moves to the right.

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE?

Passing good, progressive legislation moves the party to the LEFT - so let's be sure to NEVER do that.

You are basically saying "we have a choice between bad and worse -- how could this be?"

But how could it not be? Life is FULL of choices between bad and worse. This shouldn't be that surprising to you. The way to get a progressive candidate is to get a majority of the Democratic party to nominate one, and a majority of the country to elect one. Anything other than that will just push the party to the right.

vote for the lesser of two evils.

It's about time we re-booted the whole system.

You say "we will never do so long as you and yours continue to insist we vote for the lesser of two evils."

But why do you think that you will get anywhere even if we STOP insisting?

The truth is, if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, we will simply get the greater of two evils. That is so obvious that it should go without saying.

So you do have the power to "reboot" the system, if by "reboot" meaning pushing it further and further to the right (relative to where it is now). But I have no idea where you get the idea that you have the power to "reboot" the system to the left by enabling the greater of two evils.

after things went so far in one direction that the only course left was rebooting the system - and that's what we did. The depression hurt a lot of people, but really, in the long run, the reforms that came out of it helped a hell of a lot more than the depression hurt.

At some point, as any counselor will tell you, you have to stop enabling, no matter the withdrawal pain. If the politicians refuse to draw us back toward the left it will be up to the people to do the job - and that will only happen when the people realize that voting for center right over far right is still movement toward the right.

because if everyone stops enabling a drug addict, the drug addict will have no choice but to stop using.

That is definitely not the case here. If you stop voting for Democrats, they'll just seek votes further to the right.

and then begins the road to healing.

I say bring it on. If the party does not purge the right and empower the left, we will have only a right wing party anyway, so what difference is it if it calls itself Republican or Democratic?

Continuing to inch to the right is not much of an improvement over running to the right - it merely prolongs the pain. In the end we will still see Social Security privatized, Medicare and Medicaid eliminated, the VA privatized, unlimited corporate money buying elections, and a permanent stratification of a tiny Uber class and a sprawling permanent underclass, with not a sign to be found of the middle. If THAT is the result you are looking for, keep voting for conservadems.

In other words, what if a majority decides that the problem that brought the withdrawal wasn't that we were too far to the right, but rather that Republicans and Democrats were both too far left?

For that matter, why do you assume that what you consider a "violent withdrawal" won't be considered GOOD POLICY by others?

You have yet to answer this fundamental question in any form. You keep assuming there is SOME scenario (violent withdrawal, etc) after which people will elect a candidate that satisfies you. But why do you assume that?

Withdrawal is not just some mild discomfort. It is PAIN. And after the pain of the far right crazies taking power the country will have done with that delusion.

I can deal with pain. It is pussies who are afraid of pain that are bringing on the pain.

YOUR misbegotten strategy leads to the teabaggers, the fascists taking over. It is inevitable. Faster, or slower, it WILL happen if we keep moving to the right. That can be forestalled by voting for, supporting REAL progressives, REAL liberals, NOW. If the liberal loses in a head to head match up with a fascist, we have a fascist to oppose. OTOH, if a blue dog wins in a head to head with a fascist, we have a fascist to support.

It really is as simple as that. Either you support the right, or you support liberalism. It doesn't matter if the right is their right or our right. If you support them, they win. If you fight them, they just might lose.

But of course, that is false in general. If everyone considered the same policies as "painful," everyone would vote for the same candidate.

what pain is.

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) there is tremendous pain for everyone. Why do you think they would all of a sudden vote for someone that satisfies you? Why wouldn't they simply vote for someone like Obama, or someone slightly less progressive than Obama? Someone who would enact policy you would consider painful, but that others would be fine with?

Our assumption (for the sake of argument) implies that they might be less likely to vote for someone far right again, but it does not at all make it likely that they would vote for someone you would prefer.

When it comes to the kind of pain the teabaggers - and the corporate dems who enable them - are taking us to the solution will not be found in the ballot box.

By disabling the left, abandoning social justice in the name of Moloch, and continually reinforcing the far right by always moving toward the right, we are making a truly violent culmination inevitable.

You really don't get the concept of the pain that I'm talking about. I'm talking about real, literal, physical and emotional damage to great numbers of people not some teenage angst. I'm talking about burning cities, starving citizens, riots, gunfights between ad hoc militias and the government.

We are all frogs and the water is coming to a boil - and you don't even see it.

If, thirty years ago, the right took the stands they take today they'd have been banished as far extremists. The very attitudes that Buckley, the premier intellectual conservative of the time, deplored when he said the John Birchers had no part of the Republican party now dominate the republican party. Are we now to combat the RW extremists by co-opting 'only some' of their positions?

There is only one way to finish this at the ballot box - that is to leave the RW extremism to THEM and ONLY them. If the only way a Dem can win a seat against a wingnut is to become one himself, then let him change parties and keep the insanity corralled on their side of the fence.

Do you really think that what has been happening is 'business as usual'?

as a way of dealing with cognitive dissonance that arises when they don't get what they want. Since, well, FDR left office. When your prediction has been made and proven wrong for decades, it might be time to reconsider the basic premises driving your prediction. Just a thought.

So it's not so much I don't understand the concept -- it's more that I think it's fanciful bullshit, of similar magnitude as "Bush made 9/11 happen."

So you just keep convincing yourself that what's going on isn't simply a majority of the country disagreeing with your political views each and every year, but rather an impending French revolution. As each year goes by where your prediction fails to come to pass, rather than revising (or scraping) your prediction, you will just say it is more likely in the next year. And in your old age, when your entire life went by without any such "revolution," you'll just blame that on, well, I don't know, you'll come up with something.

won't get ya' anything but more evil? :eyes:

evils?

Of course, that is bullshit. There are many issues for which there are differences. If Nader dropped out in 2000, we would not have had the Citizens United decision for example, which will affect our campaigns for at least a generation. You may not like the current wars, but how would you like another 2 or 3 on top of them? Basically, you name the issue, and more likely than not there is a huge difference.

Bwa-hahaha!

They'll get it all without fail.

the top 2% was my line in the sand.

lazy to make the case. Observers know that the tax cuts didn't work at saving the economy. The dems have created more PRIVATE SECTOR jobs in two years than the bushies did in eight years. The Obama tax cuts of 2009 were bigger than Bush's or Reagan's! The Obama tax cuts on the bottom 95% were the biggest tax CUTS in American history, yet few people even know this. The Dems know that the repugnants will run non-stop commercials saying that they raised taxes during a recession (even though we're not in a recession) and even though it's widely know that giving money to millionaires and billionaires help the economy very little if at all. I'm now to the point where I'll feel lucky if they would just not cave to making the richs'tax cuts permanent. That's the weasel word they're using now. The sad part is that the dems COULD put the repugnants on the spot, make them vote to give tax breaks, that don't work, to the rich, while widening the deficit. the dems will do no such thing though.

at a time when the government is essentially bankrupt...

builds community...

Now if he'd increased the taxes on the rich, not given them a trillion along with 12 trillion more in "guarantees" and THEN cut taxes on the lowest classes -- the ones who got hammered over the last 35 years (well, forever, but especially the last 35 years here in the Empire), and cut the war budget instead of increasing it...

Then we might have something to talk about...

And, then tell the poor that it's good for them.

Just because you are in denial about it doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. You'll come running back after you see the real difference between the two parties up close and personal. It might take a few MORE wars, but you'll be back.

"just as Nader's supporters were in 2004"

Prove it. I don't know any...

Kerry lost by 3 million votes.
Apparently the Nader voters weren't kingmakers after all.

btw - it was Lieberman who cost Gore the WH, not Nader.
There are 49 other states besides Florida.
Examine the vote in Tennessee and you'll see how Gore really lost the electoral college.

the election was stolen...

And finally gift-wrapped by that good Arizonan Sandra Day O'Conner...

But even if Gore had been installed as pResident, not much would have changed over the last 10 years...

Even in the absence of Iraq, the MIC would have found some other way to rip off $15 TRILLION...

Wall St. would have still melted down - to be bailed out by us (another $13 Trillion)...

Debt would still have been created and called "money"...And the Ponzi scheme continued...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9569053

It doesn't seem to make too much difference who is the spokesmodel for the Empire...

That was a signature issue for the D. party since Truman and they blew it. The reforms that passed won't cover everyone and and they will be repealed before they are effective anyway.

I've said it before on this issue and I'll keep saying it: the Democrats win this fight in the short term by simply doing nothing. Some of you may have noticed that is a specialty of Congress: doing nothing.

By doing nothing the Democrats achieve several things:

* They get to return $700 billion to the treasury next year and take credit for it;

* They get to take the credit for a return of the middle class tax cut in 2011, and for the retroactive refund checks which will be issued if they succeed in getting it passed;

* They get to split the rich person's handout from the middle class tax cut, which gives Democrats a chance to vote against the 1%ers (and win), while forcing Republicans to vote against a middle class tax cut (and lose, because they will surely take a both-or-none stance);

* They get to run against the Republicans in 2012 on the platform that the GOP opposed a middle class tax cut, which is a death-kiss issue that will put those bastards straight to bed for a decade if they don't cave in.

And the Republicans can't cave in on this issue because they actually attend to the wishes of only one tiny demographic, rich people, and this is the one issue rich people care about.

The rich people who own the television news outlets are the ones flogging this issue, which wouldn't otherwise even be open for discussion in the middle of a recession, a financial crisis, and two effing wars. But because it touches directly on the personal profits of the owners and actors (oh, I'm sorry, "newscasters"), they're gonna flog it till it's deader 'n hell.

In the meantime, the President gets to play a little bit of rope-a-dope, feigning a moment of apparent weakness at a time when such a play was expedient, then getting a free chance to posture and look tough by claiming he'll veto a bill which will never, ever make it through Congress in the next six weeks.

Then, when Congress reconvenes in January, they'll make a middle class tax cut a front-and-center item of business, and we'll get to kick the Republicans' asses on the very same issue again, and make it stick to all of them.

You guys can laugh at me all you want, but here's what my theory predicts:

1) No extension will pass Congress in this term, which ends in December;

2) The issue will return early in January;

3) Despite Republican efforts in the House, the Senate version will not have a tax cut for the rich;

4) Republicans in the Senate will be forced to vote against a middle class tax cut, because the provision for the rich will not be included, and they'll pay for that in the next election.


Edit: Think of an alarm clock ticking away. We want the alarm to go off, and they don't. We're closer to the clock, and stronger than they are. Either we reset the alarm to a time that's even better for us, or we let it go off. What we're not going to do is let those fools set the damned clock back to Asshole:30. We got up every day at that time for eight years, and it ain't gonna happen again.

However, it is imperative that the Obama administration make the case crystal clear to the middle class voters. I am afraid that it could be muffled by the corporate controlled press that willonly emphasize the Republican argument that tax increases for the wealthy would destroy any hope for recovery.

It's pretty easy to cast this as a good versus evil story, because we have history on our side. In 1993, without a single Republican vote and Al Gore delivering the tie-breaker in the Senate, taxes were hiked on the wealthy and the economy soared. The moment the taxes were cut, we went into the dumper again and have stayed there ever since.

So the Republicans blocking this move really are standing in the way of the recovery, and they know it, and they're harming Americans anyway just to score political points, and they are getting away with it. How come we never see someone say that on CNN?

Giving the rich tax breaks on the premise that it will "trickle down" to us less-affluent folks is idiotic.

All "trickle down" means is that the rich get to pee all over us.

And what a 'line in the sand' means for you?

to speculate on mortgages, commodities, & other non-productive uses.

for the rest of us, the cuts brought us:

1. 10% unemployment
2. increased debt
3. foreclosed homes
4. government austerity policies, as the same rich fucks demand we pay to make them whole on their gambling losses.

the citizens pay -- twice.

Meaning the lesser of two evils.

If the Democrats can't even do this simple thing, when there are several ways they could get it done, they're pretty much worthless. I'll start supporting third parties because it will be too pathetic to even vote Dem anymore.

for pResident any more...

As is my right...

and I'm starting to feel like George Carlin more every day. It's a big party and "the people" aren't invited.

Of course, it doesn't help that many of "the people" vote against their own economic interest.

I really don't see how "we" can win with the corruption in government and folks voting against their own economic interests to boot.

We're the United States Inc. I'm about done myself.

I fail to see anyone to vote for that has the interest of the worker at heart. We need to stop voting, and start marching.

... discernible difference between the RESULTS, whichever of the two worthless piece of crap, major political parties holds power, voting third party is the last civil means left at our disposal. When that doesn't work, which of course, it likely won't, all bets are off. It's gonna get REAL effen ugly. Count on it.

Millionaires are now part of the "middle class". Now that is what is called effective negotiating. But, not by our side.

who really believe that the top 2% are the job creators. They have heard that meme for so long they believe it no matter how high unemployment goes. Not that the very supreme of the 2% is behind half this corrupt system in the first place.

TOMBStone

ALL of the BUSH tax cuts will be extended.

and if they do, I am changing my allegiance to the Green Party. I can't sit around and wait for a bunch of pro-corporate con artists to act like Democrats. I'll still support the *real* Democrats that pop up on occasion, but I'm not blindly supporting the party any longer.