A TAX DEAL Only Ben Nelson Could LOVE?

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:


<>



" President Obama's tax package has elicited a fierce backlash from Senate Democrats, with only the likes of Ben Nelson—one of the caucus' most conservative members—openly welcoming the president's compromise so far. Liberal members are infuriated with Obama's concessions to the Republican Party over extending the Bush-era tax breaks, accusing the president of caving without a fight to the GOP. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) has already come out against the compromise, calling the extension of tax cuts to the top 2 percent of families "objectionable" and "unbalanced." "I'm opposed to this package based on what I know that's in it," Udall told reporters this afternoon. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the socialist Democrat from Vermont, has already vowed to filibuster the bill.*


The compromise has also raised the hackles of centrist Democrats including Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who slammed the proposal for raising the deficit and supporting the rich at the expense of the poor. "We're borrowing money from those with net worth of $5,000 or less to give families that have income of more than $1 million," Landrieu told reporters, striking an unusually populist tone. She called the bargain an "unprecedented" move that would hurt the poor- and working-class families in her state—"many of whom are African-American," she added. Landrieu also had strong words for Obama, accusing the president of taking Democratic support for granted. "He basically didn't think any of us cared much about this—well, I care," she added. "I can't imagine the president leading the country in that direction."


Both liberal and moderate Democrats have used the tax bargain as a way to seize the bully pulpit—perhaps for the first time since their "shellacking" in the midterm elections. Having all but given up on Republican support for any Democratic proposals, party members have put the conciliatory White House in their sights. To be sure, a good number of moderate Democrats could end up supporting the deal in the end: despite her vocal objections, Landrieu said she was still "undecided" about her vote. But, she emphasized, she would be kicking and screaming if she did come aboard. "If I end up voting for this package, it will not be silently—it will be being sort of dragged to that position," she said.


There was one Democrat, however, who seemed to stand alone in praising the negotations. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)—often described as the most conservative Democrat in the Senate—praised the tax compromise for "going in the right direction." While he described himself as an undecided vote on the package, Nelson said that extending the tax cuts was a sound economic move that would prevent a "double-dip depression." He told reporters:


It's a question of hard choices. Do you shock the economy more with tax increases than you do with adding to the debt?...Most economists it's a choice you've got to make...you'd vote for extending the tax cuts than not.


Nelson also praised the White House for intervening:


I agree that the president needed to step forward and talk and become part of the process. There's a difference between showing leadership and meddling.:rofl:


I don't think the White House is interested in meddling. I hope they'll show leadership when we get into these difficult areas where we're locked in gridlock.:rofl::rofl::rofl:


The Nebraska Senator himself has frequently been in the same spot: refusing to comply with the entire Democratic agenda while portraying himself as a moderate, non-ideological centrist. The president sugested as much today during his press conference, comparing the current fury of the left to the public option during the health care debate. Nelson was key to defeating the public option at the time and that the White House ultimately refused to fight to keep it in, despite Obama's stated support for the program. The president is going down the same Ben Nelson-like path once again and has consequently subjected himself to the same vitrol.


cont'

<http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/obama-tax-deal-ben-nelson>

.

anti-middle class watered down legislation.

They think that if those that think like I do, comment on them, they are taking the damage for a better good.

It is why they are opposites. They actually think they are correct.


If they were, why can't they explain why, why can't they make their argument as to why. If they are correct shouldn't they be able to explain why, but they fear that if they explain their positions, then people might gain knowledge from what they think is correct, because they think in ideas of hording. But if their argument was correct why would it matter if everyone knew it.



And why are they afraid of people knowing what they are doing. They think people are bad, and they are the smaller group that must hide.


So if they use 'religious' comments to defend that. In all comments what side is the side that had to hide, what side was the smaller side, what side always is the stronger when it comes to a discussion.



It is easy to explain, those that wont make their arguments, and can not defend their positions hide and try to deceive. Any actual discussion on the topic will defeat them.


It is so simple to explain. It is obvious, why they have to hide to have any chance to keep doing what they are doing.


Not specifically about people in that article, but about why some hide and deceive.



And to those that think it is against the idea of what Jewish people think, they were suppose to spread the ideas to many people, and they would not do that back then. So a group of Jews that would spread the concepts became where the ideas were given, not to those that were isolating and making their groups smaller and smaller, by consolidation for self. The Jewish faith is not separation in smaller and smaller groups, even when staying within a group only was the rules that was for it to grow in the beginning to have a starting strength, or for weaker members that are easily corrupted,

It was suppose to keep growing, as it has as new concepts were added after the Torah, although some got stuck in time on those teachings that also had a social context, and an interpretation through that lens.

If you believe in 'houses' and genetics, how could that concept spread if people only associated with other people of same group. I believe it is of spirit, since the ideas do not require genetics, but either way it says the same thing, the weak try to find bunkers to hide in, and do not share in the open what they think, because they are afraid they will be darkness, and some other idea light. Help and guidance did not stop thousands of years ago, unless you think God just quit or died or something. That is not what I believe.

Dad:"He compromised way too much on this."
Mom:"This may be good for us personally but it's horrible for the country."

My parents are the epitome of moderate dems. They are socially liberal and fiscally moderate. But the fact is they are also very well off. They are the ones who will benefit from this tax plan. They are also the last people that actually need the money or need the benefit. While they've never been a "I've got mine so screw everyone else" type at all (they are in fact very generous, very compassionate and rarely complain about their taxes (we live in super high tax NJ) they are also not rabidly political. They are very good about not getting suckered into the e-mail forward BS they get from their many republican friends, but they also tend to watch a lot of cable news so they also get a lot of misinformation and occassionally I'll see them absorbing and repeating a talking point.

So the fact that within a day of this their response was that it was too much of a compromise and that it was bad for the country is amazing to me.