Hmm...

Post #368,168 by Another Scott 12/19/12 10:49:39 AM Reply	Hmm... How do you propose to get anything through the House without getting a few Republicans on board? Funding bills must originate in the House. Recognizing the reality that the House is a player in the process whether we like it or not is not being a Fascist-enabler. You keep offering heart-felt criticism, but I don't see you offering any alternative for getting what you (and probably I) want. How is "Bully Pulpit!!!!1" or "Don't Compromise!!!111" going to get 26 Republican votes (and the permission of Boehner) before January 4, or 17 Republican votes when the 113th Congress is in session? Give me a plausible path for achieving what you want. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #368,186 by mmoffitt 12/19/12 12:52:21 PM Reply	You AREN'T going to get Boehner's vote. You stick to your principles (here I'm just playing along that Obama has genuine progressive principles) and you let things go to hell while using your much touted communicative abilities to make clear where the responsibilities lay. Reasoning with the likes of Boehner, Ryan, McConnell and that idiot from Virginia whose name eludes me at the moment is like reasoning with members of the Third Reich. GODWIN. (Beat ya) :0)
Post #368,187 by boxley 12/19/12 12:57:00 PM Reply	if if you push the school shootings to get a tax increase? nice http://www.thegatewa...-tax-hikes-video/ After what weÂve gone through over the past several months, a devastating hurricane and now one of the worse tragedies in our memory, the country deserves the folks to be willing to compromise for the greater good.Â Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #368,210 by Another Scott 12/19/12 8:40:47 PM Reply	And then what? Did you read Krugman's column? http://krugman.blogs...the-deal-dilemma/ First of all, the comparison has to be with what we think Obama can get if he goes over the cliff; if that happens, all the Bush tax cuts expire, and he can propose and probably get accepted a new round of middle-class cuts Â but nothing else: no extension of unemployment benefits (another cruel, stupid action), no infrastructure spending to boost the economy. The choices aren't simple. He later writes, and I agree: http://krugman.blogs...old-sick-feeling/ ObamaÂs fiscal deal offer was already distressing Â cuts to Social Security, and a big concession, it turns out, on taxation of dividends, retaining most of the Bush cut (with the benefits flowing overwhelmingly to the top 1 percent). It wasnÂt clear that the deal would have gotten nearly enough in return. But sure enough, it looks as if Republicans have taken the offer as a sign of weakness, as a starting point from which they can bargain Obama down. Oh, and theyÂre not giving up at all on the idea of using the debt ceiling for further blackmail. In other words, all of a sudden itÂs feeling a lot like 2011 again, with the president negotiating with himself while the other side enjoys the process. So Obama needs to draw a line right now: no further concessions. None. HeÂs already given too much. I agree. Obama made a reasonable offer. Bohener's "Plan B" is a stunt. It won't pass the Senate so it's not up to Obama to compromise more. He's already threatened to veto it. I've expected for weeks that we were going over the "cliff". But what comes after isn't going to be wine and roses. Money will increasingly get sucked out of the economy (spending cuts, ending of extended unemployment insurance, tax increases) at a time when it still needs more stimulus. It won't happen instantly (there is no "cliff"), but it will happen over time. And then, in the spring, there will be a battle over the debt ceiling unless there is a deal soon. And it's clear that there will not be a deal on the debt ceiling unless there's a deal on the Sequester issues. Obama isn't going to unilaterally declare that the debt ceiling is null-and-void, or do the $1T platinum coin, or whatever. He respects the Congressional responsibilities and traditions too much. He won't make it easy on the Republicans by taking that responsibility on his own. A deal of some sort is going to be reached. If it takes longer than ~ mid-January, it will get more and more dangerous and more and more expensive. The problem with buying into the "they're all crazy" meme (which I admit is very appealing at the moment) is that it's a variation of "it became necessary to destroy the town to save it" meme. If you refuse to accept the necessity of including the House, then you're refusing to accept our form of government. Destroying the place of the House in the process in order to make things "progressive" destroys the legitimacy of the government. I don't like the fact that Obama has had to compromise on so many things over the last 4 years. And likely for at least the next 2 years. But that's the way it goes sometimes. None of the compromises that have been made are necessarily permanent. Yes, the lives of millions in the US have been made harder than they should have been due to bad policies (and policies that were less-good than they should have been). It's a tragedy, among many that the world has endured since W and the Republican majority in the House took office. So, again, help me out. Paint a picture of what will happen over the next 6 weeks that will get the progressive alternative enacted. Too many people don't have the years that it would take for the Glorious People's Revolution™ - they want a solution now. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #368,213 by boxley 12/19/12 9:05:14 PM Reply	dont forget the dems had their turn in there and the people got tired of being told to get to the back of the bus and read the bill after you pass it nonsense. The group in there now is because of what your crew did when you abused it. Unless you have forgotten already a lady called Pelosi was speaker of the house during that time period. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #368,214 by Another Scott 12/19/12 9:27:06 PM Reply	IWT Circular Diversion #1345. #1 - wrong. [] #2 - wrong. [] #3 - wrong. I well remember when Nancy was Speaker. Apparently you're having trouble. [*] E.g. - http://www.washingto...20-2004Nov26.html Current [November, 2004] rules require that bills be available to be read for at least three days before coming to a vote. Unfortunately, those rules are routinely overridden by the Republican majority, leaving only a few hours to read bills that are thousands of pages in length and spend hundreds of billions of the people's dollars. Cheers, Scott.
Post #368,215 by boxley 12/19/12 9:49:50 PM Reply	the old otherguydiddit defense, false equivelence Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #368,216 by drook 12/19/12 9:56:55 PM Reply	Did YOU just accuse HIM of using the OGDI defense? After your last subject line? -- Drew
Post #368,217 by boxley 12/19/12 10:30:37 PM Reply	false equivelence :-) naw, just nother going W, straight to repo congress while trying to slide past the donkey in the congress Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #368,222 by crazy 12/20/12 5:03:46 AM Reply	BS Reactionary equivalence. False is comparing apples and oranges (or bananas). This is 2 parties doing basically the same thing, but the Republican religious based obstructionist scorched earth policy started with Contract on America, and the Democrat version has been barely holding the line for the most part. So you can stop whining about Pelosi.
Post #368,224 by Another Scott 12/20/12 7:18:59 AM Reply	She's a wimmin, so she's always fair game. Amirite? :-p
Post #368,230 by boxley 12/20/12 9:02:41 AM Reply	BS 50 years ago the democrats were assigning seats in the back of the bus based on color Once they were back in charge it was right back to telling people of color to get to the back of the bus again. Didn't start with contract with America it started with John Tower. You dont get to set the tone then bitch about it being set. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #368,226 by mmoffitt 12/20/12 8:42:34 AM Reply	A part of that is completely backwards. If you refuse to accept the necessity of including the House, then you're refusing to accept our form of government. No. It is because I accept our form of government and understand how it is supposed to work that I do not accept what is being done. Saying that rejecting what Republicans have done at least since the 1980's is equivalent to failing to accept our form of government misses the mark so completely that it is almost laughable. The Soviet Constitution was superior to ours in many respects. Applying the same reasoning as that in the above quote would lead you to conclude that the Soviet government was superior to ours. It is precisely because I do believe in our form of government that I reject the legitimacy of the Republican Party and their politics. And their politics, I am sorry to say, are almost indistinguishable from modern Democratic Party politics. When the players are not following the rules, you don't need a new set of rules. You don't change the way you play because your opponents aren't playing by the rules. Not if you want to remain legitimate. What you need is new players. But if all players become the same, what's the use? Ted Kennedy once said, "You never defeat an adversary by becoming just like him." Those are words our President should take very much to heart.
Post #368,228 by Another Scott 12/20/12 8:58:45 AM Reply	But . what . would . you . do . specifically. :-)
Post #368,231 by mmoffitt 12/20/12 9:38:48 AM Reply	I.would.not.compromise. Sure, the country'd go to hell for maybe a decade or so, but we're heading there anyway. The first thing I'd do is say to the teeming masses, "Social Security has FSCK ALL to do with the deficit. You know what caused the national debt? The Republican Party. Before their hero Reagan, we were the world's leading creditor nation. In four years Republican policies turned the world's leading creditor nation into a debtor nation for the first time since 1914. The way they did it was by turning the tax code literally on its head for the richest Americans. Before they got their way with the tax code, those folks were paying a tax rate of 72% on their income over 360,000 and keeping 28%. With Republican policies they changed that and they began paying 28% on the money above 360,000 and keeping 72%. What did they do with all that money? They took it out of our country and hid it in things like Cayman Island bank accounts where they vacation. Before Reagan left office the US was the world's leading debtor nation. Republicans call that economic success. I don't. Now these same idiots want you to believe that I don't care about you trying to make a living for your family of four on 55,000. They don't even know anyone who makes less than several million and that is exactly who they represent. ..." You make that case to the American people. If the right wingers don't back down or get thrown out of office, then you tell the American people, "Look. These guys are as corrupt as it gets and things are going to get very hard in the coming years. I tried to get them to see that billionaires have been coddled for the past 30 years at the expense of everybody else. I don't have much I can do by myself, but there is one thing I can do. We are going to print money 24/7 until our entire National debt is paid off. That will cause the dollar to collapse and things will get hard. But they will get better eventually. But I warn you, if you keep sending idiots to Washington like Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, Cantor and the rest, they'll screw everything up again for the benefit of their pals on Wall Street." In short, monetizing the fricking debt would be a good start. Without a national debt, the fricking Republican Nazis won't have that in their quiver to continue to screw the working class with. In shorter still, I'd make changes you can believe in.
Post #368,232 by drook 12/20/12 9:45:00 AM Reply	Does the president have the authority to do that? Can he print money without approval from congress? And how does "would.not.compromise." not fit your definition of "becoming just like him"? -- Drew
Post #368,233 by mmoffitt 12/20/12 9:47:58 AM Reply	I have principles. They don't. Are you saying that we became "just like Hitler" when we fought against the Nazis? . . . . . . I know. Godwin again. But I believe in "calling a spade a spade" as my dad used to say.
Post #368,237 by boxley 12/20/12 10:06:59 AM Reply	tying german soldiers on tanks with barbwire? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #368,236 by boxley 12/20/12 10:06:14 AM Reply	congress doesnt print money, the fed does Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #368,239 by Another Scott 12/20/12 11:37:54 AM Reply	Um, Article I - Section 8 - Enumerated Powers http://en.wikipedia....Enumerated_powers The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; [...] The House has to be involved in setting the budget of the United States. If the House refuses to pass a bill, the President can't do anything about it but cajole. Compromises are always necessary. Always. Cheers, Scott.
Post #368,244 by crazy 12/20/12 1:37:58 PM Reply	He'd have his enemies executed
Post #368,246 by mmoffitt 12/20/12 2:29:59 PM Reply	Well, yes. That's what I said. :p
Post #368,247 by crazy 12/20/12 2:38:14 PM Reply	Which most of us will end up sooner or later
Post #368,278 by hnick 12/21/12 9:52:15 AM Reply	Getting stuff done... I was thinking that he could twist some arms in his own party along the lines that if his people didn't get their head together and their ass behind the program, he will do his best to destroy their political future. He could be rude and use the television to explain to the people how the Republicans are deliberately trying to devastate the middle class and that Social Security has sweet fanny adams to do with the deficit. All this has been said before, but of course, it would require a modicum of leadership ability and at least a vestigial spine. None of this gets done because the poor guy is useless as a margarine dildo. You phrase in more nicely, but it works out the same. I do regret the acrimonious arguments before the election; turns out it really doesn't matter. Sorry about that.
Post #368,286 by Another Scott 12/21/12 1:09:27 PM Reply	The Democratic Party can't impose discipline like that. In the olden days, the Democratic Party Machine was the major source of funding and was able to impose party discipline. Those days are long gone. Unless Citizens United is scaled back, it'll get worse. Who needs a party if you have your own billions or your own billionaire to spend $100M to get elected? What can Obama threaten them with? He's not an LBJ with secret millions to pass around from the White House. He's not going to get Joe Manchin to suddenly be a progressive no matter how many speeches he gives. And it's not working out all that great for the Republicans these days, either. They have the iron discipline, but their Purity campaign is destroying their ability to become more popular and have more votes in the future. Imagine a Democratic Party with iron discipline that was headed by Joe Lieberman... :-( It's going to continue to be a rough slog until the Republicans are crushed and no longer hold leadership. Obama can't do that on his own.... Sorry if I seem preachy on this stuff. I appreciate the arguments. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #368,294 by hnick 12/21/12 2:24:27 PM Reply	That may be so... However if he never even tries, it certainly won't happen. It appears that he figures there is no point wasting time standing up for anything at all so he may as well go straight to conciliation. And he doesn't need congressional help to get on the idiot box. But the only times he gets on is to say "We arrived at a BIPARTISAN!!!!! resolution! I gave away the farm... So... to a liberal, what good is this timorous, powerless president?
Post #368,297 by Another Scott 12/21/12 2:53:34 PM Reply	Patience, grasshopper. The powerless one is Boehner. http://www.nytimes.c...cal-solution.html WASHINGTON Â House Speaker John A. Boehner, in the wake of the embarrassing defeat of his backup plan to avert a fiscal crisis in two short weeks, on Friday called on the Senate and President Obama to find a way out, but added that ÂGod only knowsÂ how Washington is going to get control of its finances. With the House headed home for the holidays and the Senate soon to depart, Mr. Boehner gave no hints of a path to avoid the so-called Âfiscal cliff,Â when more than a half trillion dollars in automatic spending cuts and tax increases kick in beginning next month. He said that on Monday, he had delivered his demands to the president for a broad deficit-reduction deal to avoid the crisis. The president delivered his Âbottom linesÂ and told him Âhe couldnÂt go any further.Â [...] The ball is in the Republicans' court, still. While the headline in a subsequent NY Times story says it's up to Obama now, it's clear from the text that it's not - http://www.nytimes.c...n-fails.html?_r=0 I don't expect anything to happen until they return after Christmas. At that point, I still expect us to go over the "cliff", but they may surprise me. Cheers, Scott.
Post #368,313 by boxley 12/21/12 8:02:37 PM Reply	I dont think that cliff is going to be that bad. The markets should pickup because they know that the tax structure at that level was workable for a long time. Defense stocks will be down but I imagine not for long as a bunch of scared politicians of all stripes will take their butts to washington to sort out the war machine. After that it is muddle on as usual Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!