You are currently browsing the daily archive for December 10, 2010.
I found this graph on DU in this thread
The blue circles are the proposals by each party. The black – it’s the postpartisan wonder worked by Obama. He managed to secure $36,000 more tax cuts to the wealthy than the R even wanted!.
The graph comes from here (somehow Ezra Klein uses it to prove that the deal is worthwhile). His comment on this
All groups are getting more under this framework, but on an individual level, the wealthy are getting much, much more. The question, at the end of the day, is whether stopping them from getting it is worth cutting benefits for the unemployed, and tax cuts for middle-income Americans, and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Of course, for us this is deja vu. I remember Stupak and friends being similarly surprised
“It’s more than what we thought we would get.”
As someone tweeted recently:
If I am ever in a hostage situation, please, don’t let Obama negotiate my release
Now back to Bernie Sanders fillibuster.
It seems the more one looks at this disaster, the more instances of “more than we hoped for” are revealed. Check this headline
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has introduced legislation implementing the tax-cut deal that President Obama struck with Congressional Republicans. As expected the legislation restores the estate tax for two years with an exemption of $5 million and a 35 percent tax rates for estates over that amount, but the bill also contains several unexpected provisions that would make it easier for the well-off to transfer their wealth tax-free
A truth that shall become obvious to many
Good bye, Social Security. You did a great job for 75 years. Apparently, the President is ready to pull the plug on you, if not on Grandma herself.
Someone even offers a summary
1. In the new Obama/Republican Tax Cut Compromise, a 2-year payroll tax holiday (which funds Social Security) is included which would decrease FICA contributions by on the employee side.
2. 60 members of the Senate are UNWILLING to raise taxes. Considering the recent elections, a majority of the House will not want to raise taxes either. It is also likely we will have a Republican president in 2 years, or Obama will continue to cave to Republican demands, so, same thing.
3. The Payroll tax Holiday will then likely become permanent because pols are unwilling to “increase taxes” (like the Bush Tax Cuts) which will double the Social Security shortfall.
4. We end up with a “starve the beast” scenario. This funding shortfall will cause a crisis in Social Security which will eventually lead to cuts across the board (severe means testing where only the really indigent will receive SS) therefore obliterating widespread support. Permalink
while the loyalists don’t believe it
16. Unrec for unsubstantiated rumors.
More hair on fire rhetoric from FDL. Permalink
and this was a clever sneaky one
Obama is not serious about deficit reduction because he just added one trillion to the deficit by renewing the bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
As dissapointed as I am, I am more pissed at the Democrats in Congress.
Of course – anyone but the one.
One still thinks R have nothing on Obama
11. But they suck at 11-D chess
The chess master will beat them in the end. He has a secret recipe for winning: Preemptive surrender at every step. Permalink
and then sees the sequel
9. Coming soon: “Obama: We must cut Social Security to reduce the deficit”
“and I invite my Republican superiors to join me in this effort” Permalink
The usual propaganda follows and ends with
GO AHEAD PRESIDENT OBAMA, I got your back!Permalink
6. that was sheer unadulterated awesomeness … although..
…. I wouldn’t call it “the left.” The puritanical, 99% is simply not good enough for me lot aren’t the whole left. There a tiny but loud few. Permalink
Others felt different
1. SEEMED—SEEMED ??? HE WAS POSITIVELY INSOLENT Permalink
Some enjoyed it
60. The bashing of the purists was a thing of beauty. Permalink
Someone wants to change the title
I think the missing word in your post was “again”.
He is really impressed with himself and very frustrated in people who don’t see just how brilliant he is. Permalink
And some made me sad – much as I shouldn’t feel sorry for them
7. That’s cuz we’re f#cking retarded. Remember.
I’m being sarcastic, I’m actually heartbroken. I have a sterling silver Obama logo necklace that I wore proudly until a few months ago. I’m so sad about how I feel. Permalink
some good (if too late)observations
14. In my eyes, the president has two tones: condescending and angry.
Rarely have I seen any alternative attitudes come through, except maybe timid. So his condescension today was no surprise. He is as snide as it gets. Permalink
pounding has little effect anymore!
Reminding how Clinton handled identical situation ( as I hear “Obama is as bad as Clinton”)
This is exactly what happened when Gingrich and company tried to blackmail Clinton into all sorts of crazy shit, saying they’d shut down government if he didn’t give in. Clinton knew most Americans agreed with him, and he strode onto the TV and said “Those fuckers are trying to force me to do stuff that most Americans don’t want, and so they’re shutting down the government. I don’t want to shut down the government, but I’m not going to put up with blackmail.”
The Republicans were in flames in days, and Gingrich eventually got the boot. From Wikipedia:The Republicans blamed Clinton for the shutdown, and Clinton blamed the Republicans. Public opinion favored the president; Clinton’s approval rating rose to the highest it had been since his election. The Republicans’ support was further diminished two days later when Gingrich made a widely-reported complaint about being snubbed by Clinton; Tom DeLay called it “the mistake of his life”.
DeLay writes in his book No Retreat, No Surrender:
“He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One… Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child. The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same.”
Gingrich’s complaint resulted in the perception that he was acting in a petty, egotistical manner, and Clinton defended the seating arrangement as a courtesy to Gingrich, the back of the plane being closer to his pickup car.<1> Later, the polls suggested that the event badly damaged Gingrich politically.
The shutdown also influenced the 1996 presidential election. Bob Dole, the Senate Majority Leader, was running for president in 1996. Because of his need to campaign, Dole wanted to solve the budget crisis in January 1996 despite the willingness of other Republicans to continue the shutdown unless their demands were met. It also has been cited as a role in Clinton’s successful re-election in 1996.
and some helpful advice
and someone notices the change in the place
or rather the fact that O’s are now officially marginalized – which is kinda late
…well according to our President (for now), we should just shut up and take it. Because we progressives and liberals with our high-minded ideals are just too stupid to understand Obama’s “long game” strategy, we just need to trust our leader. We just need to fall into lockstep with the Democratic caucus. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
I’m a member of this group because I choose NOT to fall into lockstep.
I’m a member of the underground because I choose to fight for my ideals and common sense.
I will not apologize to this President, who has betrayed his party. I will not be anyone’s lap dog.
But it calls into discussion what they’ve done
1. The “U” in “DU” had been forgotten for a couple years..
now, with so many blinders being ripped off in all directions, all at once, it seems that “second letter” is reasserting itself… Permalink
and a funny comment
75. Oh please!
Obama couldn’t find The Left with a compass and G.P.S.! Permalink
More sophistry from the authoritarian loyalists
when they disagree with him – and chafe at being told that they should be keep their criticisms to themselves – are now absolutely FURIOUS that the President had the temerity to criticize THEM.
Sorry, but we can’t have it both ways.
Took a while – they were high-fiving each other for the perfect argument, but finally someone nailed it
54. Who works for whom, here? It’s not the electorate’s job to please the President. Permalink
Turning on their pundits
with clever arguments like these (and this is a DUdie candidate)
12. So Obama as President can overrule what Congress and Senate do? Permalink
which mercifully get responded
44. Yeah, it’s called a veto. Permalink
and the rude awakening keeps on going
and abused and there is nothing left.
One after the other, they wake up
2. I’m just mad at myself for not seeing this coming.
I was 100% snowed. 2 years ago, I never thought we’d be here. Never. 6 months ago I woke the fuck up and stopped making excuses and rationalizations. It’s gone downhill from there.
But at least my eyes are wide open now. Some are still in dreamland. It’s a blue pill red pill situation Permalink
I am mad at you too for not seeing this coming. And for attacking me and the rest who told you it was coming.
3. He’s not stupid – rather he is complicit. nt Permalink
and then there’s Solomon
8. i think that you can argue both sides…that he’s being taken advantage of, and that he’s
the one taking advantage…and neither reflect nicely b/c in the first case he’s a not-so swift pol. in the second case, he’s not on our side and therefore less than trustworthy. neither of these scenarios are flattering. Permalink
and some put disappointment in verse
When we elected Obama, we thought
We elected a Thurgood Marshall,
a lion of the law,
one of the great legal minds.
We thought we elected a Martin Luther King
a guardian of rights
a courageous, peaceful warrior.
What we got was a Clarence Thomas,
Parroting the RIGHT opinions,
Deferential to conservative bluster.
So we now find ourselves ill served
Hoping that his promise of change
Means that he will change his ways.
And the DUdie
goes to another clueless effort to distract
This concludes today’s edition. See you on Tuesday!
The House rebellion – however short lived it may end up being got headlines
Charles & Camilla meeting with the unwashed masses yielded such a good photo op, it was on many page ones Read the rest of this entry »
In an excellent analysis of the disastrous effects of Obama’s latest betrayal, Krugman startled me twice.
The first strange note is
I’ve spent the past couple of days trying to make my peace with the Obama-McConnell tax-cut deal. President Obama did, after all, extract more concessions than most of us expected.
Maybe it is an rhetorical device (such as “Brutus is an honorable man”) - but I found myself wondering: Is it Krugman’s job to try to make peace with whatever Obama does? Should he even write that? Well, apparently so.
To be sure, he doesn’t make the peace and goes on to correctly explain why the “hostage release” Obama negotiated secures the captors with new hostages – including the risks to Social Security and Medicare .
But before daring to speak up, he becomes defensive by stating
Yet I remain deeply uneasy — not because I’m one of those “purists” Mr. Obama denounced on Tuesday but because this isn’t the end of the story.
And do prove it, he spends a great deal of his column analyzing the bad political effects of the deal. Mostly on Obama (economy will worsen right before the next election).
Maybe the argument needed to be made (not only you damned millions to poverty but you harmed yourself), but not from a defensive position.
By doing so, Krugman appears to be telling Obama: please, don’t insult me, I am looking out for your best interest here”
So, when he correctly concludes that
The point is that by seeming angrier at worried supporters than he is at the hostage-takers, Mr. Obama is already signaling weakness, giving Republicans every reason to believe that they can extract another ransom.
Krugman can apply this argument to himself too: by appearing more concerned with the adverse impact of the deal on Obama than on the people, Krugman is undermining his credibility. Or, signaling weakness.
Because by declaring that he is not a purist, Krugman begs the question: who are the purists and when can we round them up?
Because by exempting himself from Obama’s attack, Krugman also legitimizes it – and that’s the last thing we need from him.
I discovered this website
and on it this letter
A Call for Active Support of Protest from Michael Moore, Norman Solomon, Katrina van den Heuvel, Michael Eric Dyson, Barbara Ehrenreich, Thomas Frank, Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher Jr., Jesse Jackson Jr., and other high profile progressive supporters of the Obama electoral campaign.
It contains a good list of Obama’s RW actions and more interestingly
The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the contrary, it has depressed and undermined them, with the White House playing an active role in the discouragement and suppression of dissent – with disastrous consequences. The almost complete absence of protest from the left has emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on an ever more extreme agenda.
Duh, it’s why they picked a pretend D in the first place, you idiots! And you assisted them willingly, accusing the doubters of racism!
So now they hope to “reignite” what they killed
We are writing to you because you are well-known writers, bloggers and filmmakers with access to a range of old and new media, and you have in your power the capacity to help reignite the movement which brought millions onto the streets in February of 2003 but which has withered ever since. There are many thousands of progressives who follow your work closely and are waiting for a cue from you and others to act.
Much as I agree with the reasons and the need to respond, part of me can’t forget what everyone on that list did and said in 2008 when we were warning about all this.
I was in those crowds in February 2003. Now – I’ll have to think it over before I join these people in anything.