Every time you give in, it becomes all that easier to give in the next time

Part of the dynamic over the tax cut "fight" was the fact that the 'Pugs were manufacturing a crisis. They put their foot down and dared the Dems to cross it. Many people, here, out in the real world, in the media, all realized that this was a fake crisis, a manufactured crisis, and if Obama and the Dems pushed back, the 'Pugs would back down.

Instead, Obama did the preemptive faceplant cave, a cave without precedence, a cave without a fight.

Did Obama honest think that this would make things easier for him and the Dems in the future, this show of weakness? It won't. Already the 'Pugs are starting to beat the drums, scaring up another "crisis", this time over the debt ceiling. Word is being put out that they are going to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, crash the country, unless draconian spending cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other programs benefiting the middle class are slashed.

We can't give in on this one, nor can we allow our representative in DC give in. It needs to be made perfectly clear to Obama and the Dems that anybody who caves on this fight with suffer repercussions the next time they stand for election. If our leaders don't have the spine for the fight, then we must insert that spine for them, by force and threat if necessary.

As a party, as a people, as a country, we simply cannot allow the Democrats to back away from another fight. We've already paid a high price for Obama's folly the last time. We cannot afford the price we'll have to pay if he caves again.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

But I also have not fought.

Glad to have you, welcome aboard.

Welcome aboard to you also.

:D

There's a chance the debt ceiling will NOT be raised, in which case we are looking at immediate 40% across-the-board cuts in outlays. At the present burn rate, we hit the ceiling in March.

But if you honestly think that the 'Pugs will take us over that particular cliff, well, you're wrong. Mainly because their corporate masters simply won't allow them to at this point.

Don't fall for the scare tactic, don't fall for the bluff. That's what happened with the tax cut "crisis", and sadly, Obama fell for it. We can't afford the price we'll pay if he and the Dems fall for the bluff again.

dumb enough to try to take us over that cliff.

The corporate masters of those 'Pugs don't want to kill the goose that's still laying the golden eggs. Thus, when push comes to shove, they won't allow this country to be taken over that cliff.

But hey, let's do that two step cave one more time, only this time it results in the elderly and disabled being kicked out onto the street. But hey, Obama will have his "victory":puke:

they'll make the voters hurt, but rig things so in the end the big wigs do just fine. It;s what they always do.

Go do some historical research, start with the Weimar Republic. This Nantucket sleigh ride is just getting started. Unless we force our so called leaders to put a stop to it.

They would have enjoyed watching Democrats scream about unemployment benefits being extended -- and when, months later, the benefits were finally extended, the Rethugs would have taken credit for it.

They understand what many DUers don't: that the average voter at election time only cares how the economy is functioning. They don't know or care that the Rethugs in Congress are responsible for preventing the Dems from adequately stimulating the economy. They will blame whoever is President, which means Obama.

So the Rethugs' self-interest is to make sure that as many people suffer under Obama as possible.

In fact the President, no matter who that is, has many aces that they can play. This nonsense that the president is powerless, at least when it is a Dem president, is nonsense. What Obama could have done is what McConnell wanted him to do, namely pay for the UI extension out of the left over stimulus funds. Obama could have taken that gun out of the 'Pugs hands, but he didn't.

Instead, he caved.

We paid a high price for that lack of spine, we cannot afford to pay the price if Obama and the Dems cave again.

It is time for Obama to stand and fight.

poverty from losing thousands next year (assuming for the sake of argument that Republicans can be taken at their word to even pass a paid-for UI bill). Basic Keynesian economics says that would be a bad idea in the current economy (though the Bush tax cut debate has exposed many who apparently do not believe in basic Keynesian economics).

You have amply demonstrated, time and again, that you have absolutely no clue about Keynesian, or any other kind of economics for that matter.

And frankly, if you think that, deal or no deal, the 'Pugs are going to let UI extensions get passed next year, well pass that joint on over, I could use some could use some escapism tonight.

Sorry. Not gonna happen.

But apparently that's not going to happen, so by all means, keep making a fool of yourself, we need the entertainment.

If a post comes up that says tax cuts for the poor are not stimulative in a recession (or that tax increases for the poor are not anti-stimulative in a recession), I will point out that bit of economic quackery each and every time.

And that has been shown to actually cause more harm in the long run than stimulative value in the short run. But sadly, you don't think like an economist, if you think at all. You are simply about message, party loyalty, and short term thinking, the very things that greatly contributed to us being in the position we are now.

Congratulations, you're part of the problem.

"And that has been shown to actually cause more harm in the long run than stimulative value in the short run."

Actually, no. No progressive economist alive today that I know of actually thinks that a 2 year extension causes more economic harm in the long run than stimulative value in the short run. The economists opposed to the deal that I know of are opposed to it because of political considerations or because of their predictions about extensions in the future -- not about some mythical damage to the economy that the bill that actually passed will do.

Or you don't know them very well.

Meanwhile, as our debt grows, Moody threatens to downgrade our credit rating, the Russians and Chinese go off the dollar for bilateral trade, oil exporting countries are shifting off the petrodollar to a basket of currencies in the oil trade. Yeah, that's all just mythical damage:eyes:

passed will be harmful to the economy? (I.e., not some predicted future situation about some future bill that hasn't been written, but actual economic damage due to the bill that passed?)

Surely if you are claiming "I don't know many economists" you could come up with a reputable economist that backs up your view.

The Moody's threat was a direct result of the passage of the extension, they said so themselves. The retreat of the dollar as the world's reserve currency is a direct result of the debt. This is going on now, right before our eyes. Wake up, look around, educate yourself.

that passed (and not some predicted future bill) will be negative.

Surely, if I am as wrong as you say I am, you could come up with a reputable economist that agrees with you, and not avoid the question.

But no, like a small child, you want to be spoon fed.

OK, here you go, this one time.

"Moody's warned on Monday that it could move a step closer to cutting the U.S. Aaa rating if President Barack Obama's tax and unemployment benefit package becomes law."

<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BC32L20101213>

This is real, this is happening now, but your head is stuck in the sand.

Good night, I have better things to do than argue with somebody who doesn't even know the facts.

" Moody’s Investors Service Inc. said an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts agreed upon by President Barack Obama won’t lead to a downgrade of the nation’s Aaa credit rating.

“The extension of the current tax rates is for a temporary period of two years and we think that if that’s all there is to it — it does not have ratings implications,” Steven Hess, senior credit officer at Moody’s in New York, said in an interview today. “We have a stable outlook. We don’t feel it will get changed downward in the next year or two.”
. . .
“We think it will be positive for economic growth in 2011 and 2012,” Hess said.

“That helps government revenue growth. However, it will not nearly offset the reduction in revenues coming from these measures and therefore it’s a negative for government finance if nothing else is done,” he said. “It would not be favorable for any effort to reduce the deficit and reverse the debt trajectory.”"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/moody-s-says-extension-of-tax-rates-won-t-lead-to-u-s-downgrade.html

So apparently, while he obviously agrees that it increases the debt and is therefore not good for the debt, he is saying it does not have ratings implications.

Then again, what Stephen Hess says isn't really relevant to what progressive economists think, unless you consider him a progressive. There are scores of conservative economists that hate the fact that it isn't paid for with deep spending cuts to SS/Medicare. Perhaps your inability to name a single progressive economist that agrees wtih you indicates that progressive economists actually don't agree with you? Perhaps what you are saying is actually economic quackery, rather than what I am saying?

from the nasty one. not even the usual lame personal insults. well done.

I understand why you don't, but most of us do.

even for one day? somehow it;s not a big suprise, this narrowminded negativity.

If you're sane and rationally observing what is going on, no, probably not. Especially not in an election year.

Meanwhile, I see you still have yet to address what is going on with the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. Do you understand what it means when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency? Do you know your economics that well?

Do you understand what happens when you monetize your debt, which is what the Fed is currently doing?

Or are you simply going to continue to parrot what you learned back during the Clinton years, you know, the president who helped dig us out of the Reagan/Bush debt pile and got our economy humming.

Similarly, they believe that the problem is that China is buying too much of our debt. If China stopped buying our debt, they would cheer:

"HEY, CHINA, STOP ACCUMULATING DOLLARS — IT’S TIME TO REVALUE YOUR CURRENCY

But does the United States dare put pressure on the Chinese to do that? People constantly say that we can’t risk it — that we’re dependent on China to keep buying our debt. Yet this is all wrong under current circumstances."

--snip--

"But now ask the question: what would the effect be if China decided to sell a chunk of its Treasury bill holdings and put them in other currencies? The answer is that China would, in effect, be engaging in quantitative easing on behalf of the Fed. The Chinese would be doing us a favor! (And doing the Europeans and Japanese a lot of harm.)"

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/americas-chinese-disease-not-quite-what-you-think/

So far, you have made clear that your understanding of economics is precisely the opposite of the economic understanding of progressive economists (on the tax bill's economic effects as passed, on the Fed printing money, on the "threat" of China and other countries not continuing to buy dollars, etc). A rational progressive, when faced with the fact that their economic understanding is basically the exact opposite of the economic understanding of progressive economists, would try to figure out why that is the case. Not continue to deny that there is any difference, and not to continue to assert you are right (when you are obviously wrong).

It would be great if you could list a reputable progressive economists that agrees with your basically hawkish economic understanding (huge deficits are bad in a liquidity trap, we are about to lose our status as a reserve currency, we are printing too much money, etc). But you can't. Your views are much closer to the hard money folks in Europe, like Axel Weber/Jean-Claude Trichet, as well as the hard money folks here (who are mostly though not universally Republicans). Perhaps you should ask why this is the case, rather than continuing to articulate their worldview over and over. Your posts continue to show that you understand the basics of say econ 101, but not econ 102 or beyond (which flips econ 101 on its head in a liquidity trap). Much of what you were saying WOULD be true out of a liquidity trap, but is false in a liquidity trap (where the optimal but unfortunately impossible interest rate would be around -6%).

Take the money out of the "excess" stimulus funds -- they said that over and over again.

But those stimulus funds weren't "excess" and they aren't even enough. We needed a greater, not a lesser stimulus bill -- and we got one when Obama signed the compromise legislation.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!:rofl:

Yeah, I heard that one before, last month. It was laughable then, it's laughable now, in fact it is so laughable that even the administration dropped it out of embarrassment. Perhaps you should as well.

Republican in the next election (by not voting for Obama). If there was no public option, if he didn't end the war, if he signed the tax deal, etc etc etc.

So it is kind of silly to make another threat, since making another threat already signals that you backed down from your previous threat. Because after all, if someone already not voting for Obama makes another threat not to vote for Obama, their threat isn't going to be taken too seriously.

All so Obama can have another faceplant victory cave.

When is it ever going to be enough for you? When will the outrages of this administrations, and Dems in general, finally reach the point that you finally say enough? When will you have eaten enough shit that you finally realize it's not ice cream? Tell me, cause I'm truly astounded at your capacity, your appetite.

It obviously isn't watching our country go deeper in debt. It isn't the disappearance of your civil liberties. It isn't the enabling of the insurance industry to bend you over at will. It isn't watching our soldiers' lives, our treasure, our country go down the drain, spent on meaningless wars.

So tell me, when will enough be enough for you? Will you still be singing the praises of Obama when your parents are kicked to the curb, when you're kicked to the curb?

voucherize Medicare (despite whatever false statement you make to the contrary about my views).

Or weren't you paying attention last month?

Obama made the best decision he could on tax cuts. Nothing you can do or can ever do would have changed that. Sure, you might have allowed a President Palin to make all the tax cuts permanent (along with turning unemployment benefits into a loan), but nothing you would have done would have moved policy to the left of what Obama signed.

You bring her up so much even I'm starting to think that you're in love with her. After all, it seems as though she's your favorite boogey man, so to speak.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Boehner had already said last summer that if push came to shove, he wasn't going to let the US public think the 'Pugs had denied them their middle class tax cuts. And the 'Pug leadership had shown time and again that they don't want to be thought of as cold hearted by cutting UI extensions.

Tell you what, next time you come to Missouri, let's sit down to some poker. Apparently you don't know how to deal with bluffing, and being unemployed, I could use the money.

In fact you keep talking about her so much, well, hate to tell you this, but people are starting to wonder.

Similarly, if someone talks about launching 500 nukes, they are talking about the end of our civilization (whether or not they mention the words "end of our civilization").

You're the one who is saying that any criticism is enabling Palin. I'm not mentioning a thing about Palin. It is an endless loop tape of yours, one that you try to use to keep people in line. It is an old, stale, tired tactic, one that people see through easily.

That (applied to Democrats) is enabling the Republican.

Holding our leaders responsible and answerable for their actions! *Swoon* *THUMP*

The horror of primaries:eyes:

But if we stand and fight, he has much better chance of winning my vote. But given his lack of spine so far, no.

But then again, he is like any other politician, he has to earn my vote.

;)

But apparently you read for the quick snark, not comprehension.

my question. If there is, why didn't you just answer or link to it?

Are you merely making ominous noises, for the thousandth time, about withholding your vote and letting the Rethug win?

But apparently that is beyond your capability. Sad, but not surprising.

Good night.

post nothing but negative posts, not only about "the outrages of this adminstration," but of "Dems in general"?

And questioning everyone and anyone who dares to criticize Obama? Really now, the fact of the matter is that the man has let a lot of people down, and a lot of people are pissed. If you can't handle that, then you'd better just cover your ears and eyes, because if he caves on SS, well, he's in for a world of political hurt, and it's going to be ugly.

Despite the apologists' best efforts to pretend otherwise, this is a simple rule. People learn it in grade school. If you back down from confrontation, or quit during a fight, it becomes your nature. I say this as a person who boxed in over 300 bouts, and trained and managed many, many amateur and pro fighters.

He gave back some to get what he wanted. I'm freakin sick of the bullshit about caving. The people who were losing unemployment extensions didn't have weeks or months to wait for the pubs to come around, they live paycheck to paycheck. For once, think about who it helped instead of only looking at the 2 years more of tax cuts.

As for the rest of the statement, grow up.

President Obama's explanation about hostage-takers.

And I sure didn't miss 13 months extensions. Those who think they can rule the roost with the keyboard are not for prime time.

I guess you just ignore the part that doesn't fit with your view.

We went over all this last month, you know, the whole bit about paying for UI extension out of stimulus money and all that. What, you weren't paying attention? Not surprising, those rose colored O's are blinding you.

Now it's just more bitter because the new rumors are out and being taken as gospel by those who thrive on believing anything the pubs have to say.

Gee, I guess Maddow, Olberman and numerous others were wrong as well.

But hey, let me guess, you'll profit handily from those tax cuts. How much now?

Interesting. What else do you think you know?

Olbermann made an ass of himself, surely you don't want to do that.

At least until he says something you like again eh? Consistency is certainly not your forte is it.

What are you talking about? Olbermann can take care of himself. He was an ass about the bill.

hit the nail on the head, I can't keep track of "who" is on or under the bus seems to be more like a revolving door.

edited for missing word

pay for the unemployment benefits from stimulus funds that are already too small.

It's pretty clear whose side you're on.

It is self defeating behavior all around.

Nice to see that a lot of people around here get it:toast:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What a wonderful personality trait that is.

another country. It will do no good to keep up the heat on leaders when you have the American public listening and following suit to talking points. And you have those with loot who cannot feel the pain of limited income because theirs is not. So they will side with the talking points.

"Every time you give in, it becomes all that easier to give in the next time" and, of course, the OP. That very first line pertains to all things, everything, and the TSA gropings came first to mind.

we have already paid a very high price for crumbs.