Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Who says Republicans won't meet Obama half way? Mitch McConnell's office tells Sam Stein that Republicans are open to a compromise that would keep the Bush tax cuts in place for two years, as long the tax cuts are subsequently kept in place forever.

* In his GOP-hammering speech in Cleveland, Obama draws a line in the sand on the tax cuts, bashing Republicans for wanting to "give a permanent tax cut to the wealthiest two percent of Americans."

Added Obama: "They would have us borrow $700 billion over the next 10 years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 each to folks who are already millionaires."

* But MSNBC's First Read gang thinks Obama ultimately may reluctantly accept a deal keeping the tax cuts for the rich in place for a year, if the middle class cuts are kept permanent.

* Jake Tapper says Obama fired up some of the old populist rhetoric that carried him to victory in 2008.

* Jonathan Cohn says Obama has finally given up on bipartisanship, and while people say this every time Obama attacks Republicans, Cohn is right that today's attack was the starkest yet.

* Ben Smith notes Obama slipped in a swipe at Glenn Beck by telling him what we really need to do to "restore America."

* ICYMI: Here's the full transcript of Obama's speech.

* John Cole says all the talk about a Peter Orszag/White House rift is overblown, and that Orszag only wants to keep the tax cuts for the rich for two years because it's the only politically feasible way to get a deal.

* Of course, that's not stopping John Boehner from citing Orszag as a defender of the Republican cause of "freezing of all tax rates," even though Orszag wants all the Bush tax cuts to expire in two years.

* A new Rasmussen poll says Rand Paul is running away with it, beating Jack Conway 54-39.

* And yet, a new CNN poll shows the Kentucky Senate race all tied up, 46-46. Go figure!

* And: CNN also finds that Marco Rubio has edged into the slimmest of leads, thanks partly to a divided Dem vote.

* Markos says Obama won't replace Rahm with a Republican, and that any suggestions otherwise are "mindless Beltway chatter." To be clear, I was just using that to make a broader point about the coming debate among Dems.

* Sharron Angle's clarification of her First Commandment claims seems only to have further clarified her flirtation with theocracy.

* And: Angle also clarified that she hopes people don't resort to "Second Amendment remedies," but added: "Well of course anything is possible I suppose."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  September 8, 2010; 5:55 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Happy Hour Roundup , House GOPers , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Reid campaign: Angle is crazy and a liar
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

I heard Sean Hannity fighting with loony supporters of the Koran burning and they are calling Sean Hannity out for giving in to the extremists.

The right has unleashed a monster. They are undoing any sort of work Dubya worked hard on for years to ensure American's didn't turn on the Muslim faith and now it might not be reversible in the near future.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 8, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Inquiring minds want to know how Obtuse Angle feels about the 17th Amendment.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 8, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Only in today's America can conservatives defend the burning of a religious text, and then turn around and call DEMOCRATS fascists.

America is beyond screwed up, thanks entirely to the conservative (neoconfederate) ideology.

The more of these Republicans we can beat in November, the better. "Moderates," "Extremists," it doesn't matter, they are one and the same, part of the same right wing cancer of ignorance and bigotry that is devouring the USA.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Greg, please don't cover the Orszag thing anymore unless you also give some details on the substance of what we're talking about here. What's at stake? How much money?

No more horse races unless they are actual horse races.

This is also CRUCIAL in covering some of the other subjects today: Obama hits back hard with specifics on economic/budget numbers and the Dems begin to wither in the face of a tough election. What specifics are these dems offering? What sorts of budget numbers do they muster?

This stuff is more important than what they say in the hotel room on Top Chef.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 8, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

As I said here a few weeks ago, it's time for Obama to step up and stop being the conciliator, and start kicking some GOP tail. He started to do this in Milwaukee on Labor Day and today in Cleveland. Being against extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% is a political winner. It should give some of those nervous Dem members of Congress a chance to grow a set of gonads and come out and say that they are against tax breaks for the wealthy parasites.
It's not that the Dems have been too liberal, but that they haven't been liberal enough. A Populist message can span the Left/Right divide.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 8, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"ultimately may reluctantly"... I had to contort myself while reading that.

Posted by: kabby | September 8, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"Go Figure!" It's the difference between a RV sample and a LV sample. Not hard to figure.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | September 8, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have been kicking at Obama for a long while. It's nice to see him finally kick them back. I hope he keeps it up.

It's past time for Americans to hear some truths, instead of the Koch Corporation's self-serving propaganda.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 8, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

There is the true Obama: the naked, ugly, divisive lies of a demogogue. Notice the distracting and scapegoating aspect. When your policies are killing the economy, villainize someone. Demonize the "rich." The old class warfare religion. Divide and incite class resentment.

It truly disgusts me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 8, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

""Go Figure!" It's the difference between a RV sample and a LV sample. Not hard to figure."

Thanks TT12, I did not catch that. What's the value of an RV sample this close to an election?

And after a day like today, it needs to be said:

FREE BILGEY!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 8, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Only in today's America can conservatives defend the burning of a religious text, and then turn around and call DEMOCRATS fascists.

America is beyond screwed up, thanks entirely to the conservative (neoconfederate) ideology.

____________________________

Do you support flag burning?

Posted by: Bailers | September 8, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

What else?

Glad you asked, Greg. Here is the quintessential problem with the Democrats today. As a policy question it is beyond doubt that legalizing marijuana is the correct course: it is the rational, evidence-based policy. And politically there is much to gain and little to lose by endorsing marijuana legalization. Yet the Establishment Democrats are adamantly opposed to it.

Eric Sterling: No on 19 Co-Chair Lee Baca “Intoxicated by the Money and Hysteria Against Marijuana”

Can anyone explain the Establishment Democrats' seemingly strange behavior?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 8, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Oops. Forgot the link to Jane Hamsher's piece.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 8, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Yea those CNN polls are junk. Ad at least five points in the GOP favor for all of them to get an accurate picture.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | September 8, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Again.

http://firedoglake.com/

Posted by: wbgonne | September 8, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"The old class warfare religion. Divide and incite class resentment."

Utter drivel. You have the whole concept of class warfare half-assed backwards. Have you even been living in this country for the last 30 years? Get your head out of the sand.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 8, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I saw this in this morning's Morning Plum, but didn't have time to comment on it. I think it is worth noting here.

Bernie linked to an article on NRO about the planned Koran burning and characterized it as NRO's "stand" on the issue in order to then trash NRO as "corrupt-of-mind". Said Bernie:

"The NRO takes a stand on the Koran-burning pastor..."

This is absolutely false. The linked article was written by Nina Shea and Paul Marshall, neither of whom even appear on NRO's list of staff writers, much less speak on behalf of NRO's editorial board. As far as I am aware, NR's editorial board has not written anything about the Koran burning at all.

However, one board member, and one of the most publicly visible members of NRO, Jonah Goldberg, has written about it, so let's compare Godlberg's thoughts against Bernie's checklist of all those things NRO's position "is not".

Bernie: "It is not an indictment of this fellow for being a hate-filled religious bigot."

Well, actually, Goldberg did indeed specifically call it "an ugly, bigoted temper tantrum".

Bernie: "It is not that it will increase the ammunition for radicals who will use it to further encourage hatred towards the US and the West."

Well, actually, Goldberg said that "the fact that this will incite violence is significant in and of itself. But that doesn’t mean Islam is homogeneous. The worry is that stupid, ugly, stunts like this will make Islam more homogeneously violent. In other words, it will make it easier for the extremists to convert the non-extremists."

Bernie: "It is not that it will put US forces in more danger than is already the case."

Well, actually, Goldberg said "The fact that David Petraeus has to intervene would be simply embarrassing, if there weren’t lives on the line — American lives (and the lives of moderate Muslims who’ve bravely aligned themselves with us)."

Some of Goldberg's other characterizations of the proposed burning include "a repugnant and stupid idea", "offensive no matter what the book", and "idiotic on every level, even for people who think Islam is to blame for terrorism."

So it turns out that Goldberg, the founding editor of NRO and one of the most visible faces of the National Review brand, actually has objected to the Koran burning on nearly every count of Bernie's list of apparently mandatory reasons to condemn it. (Or, at least mandatory in order to avoid being labelled "corrupt-of-mind").

(cont'd)

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 8, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

(cont'd from above)

Now why do you suppose Bernie didn't bring Goldberg's words to your attention as "NRO's stand" on the Koran burning, choosing instead to present the article of two non-NRO authors as "NRO's stand"? Is it because HE is corrupt of mind? We could, if we were like Bernie himself, weave a conspiratorial fantasy about this lying, amoral propagandist attempting to make people "stupider". Or, we could be a bit more generous and assume that he never saw what Godlberg wrote, and was simply trying to jam what he did read into his paranoid, prejudiced, blinkered and closed-minded notions about what NR is and must be. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the latter.

But this actually highlights the problem with Bernie's incessant "propaganda" meme, particularly as it relates to National Review. As I have pointed out in the past, NR, and particuarly NRO, routinely publishes pieces by a whole slew of different authors, each with varying degrees of commitment to classic "conservatism", who often times clash over ideas and even occasionally find themselves arguing exact opposites sides of a given issue. To characterize it as a propaganda "functionary" (which Bernie has done) of some unnamed and mysterious right-wing cabal deliberately engaged in an effort to misinform and shape public opinion towards nefarious ends is laughably absurd, and could only come from someone who is himself impervious to evidence. Or who has his own unstated agenda he is pushing.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 8, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Markos says Obama won't replace Rahm with a Republican, and that any suggestions otherwise are "mindless Beltway chatter." To be clear, I was just using that to make a broader point about the coming debate among Dems.
----------------------------------------------

Mmm-hmmm. And it's a point you couldn't have made without mindless Beltway chatter? Anyway I thought it was kind of a forgone conclusion that Valerie Jarrett would be taking over as Chief of Staff when Emanuel bugs out. Where did that Republican stuff even come from?

Posted by: CalD | September 8, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Links to Goldberg's posts on the issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/245750/not-my-name-jonah-goldberg

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/245762/re-not-my-name-jonah-goldberg

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 8, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Glad to see the GOP commenters so upset with the President's speech today in my hometown. He's obviously hit a nerve and they are obviously (and rightly) worried. The gloves are finally off and the campaign is now on.

I'll take the President against Boehner all day long.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 8, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Scott...caught your response on last night's thread and I concede dude.

You said.."I argue from principles and logic, not emotion."

EXACTLY!!! Kindness, caring for your fellow Americans and all those nasty emotions do get in the way. Certainly if you believe in caveat emptor and survival of the fittest your points are well taken. If you care about suffering...OMG emotions!!! Then your arguments are absurd, naive, and disingenuous at best.

Certainly if Dick Cheney and Rummy are smart enough to be in the cabal that planned the most tragic and unnecessary war in our history and able to each profit in the hundreds of millions...then kudos to them for being smart enough to pull it off. Hooray for all the profiteers in the MIC...these are some smart dudes..the kind of folks you admire Scott.

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

Yes Scott I concede...your "rational" "unemotional" arguments are impossible to refute. I thought however you might like to see the world as it would be if Scott C were making the decisions. You know the good ole days before that socialist FDR and the Dems screwed things up for all your smart deserving people.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=pictures+of+depression+era+suffering&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=1CKITKmVE4ue8AT2nLngDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQsAQwAA&biw=1152&bih=677

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"Obama draws a line in the sand on the tax cuts, bashing Republicans for wanting to "give a permanent tax cut to the wealthiest two percent of Americans.""

Pure bigotry and class prejudice. It's a disgusting thing when that the President of the US deliberately attempts to whip up hate and resentment against a small minority, demanding that they be treated differently under the law than the rest of their fellow citizens.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 8, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"Certainly if Dick Cheney and Rummy are smart enough to be in the cabal that planned the most tragic and unnecessary war in our history and able to each profit in the hundreds of millions...then kudos to them for being smart enough to pull it off. Hooray for all the profiteers in the MIC...these are some smart dudes..the kind of folks you admire Scott."

Wow, did they plan 9/11 too, or just the Iraq war?  Or would it have mattered and the war was inevitable? Does Barry believe this, and if so, why hasn't he pulled all troops out and exposed the conspiracy?

ScottC3, ya know, I believe this opinion is sincerely held. Again, wow.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 8, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

At the same time we are asking Afghanistans to trust us, we have people in this country waging a religious war against Islam by burning the Koran and maligning Mohammad and Islam as evil pedophiles. That should work well for us in gaining confidance against Al Qaeda. Let's just wage a religious war against the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.

The day you see a Democrat do something that dangerous for our soldiers, then I will believe there is parallel stupidity in both parties. Palin started this anti-Muslim lynching, and you don't see her speaking out against these actions now. So much for the safety of our troops.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 8, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

You really are incapable of making a coherent, rational argument, aren't you? You meander all over the place, introducing red herrings, making unsupported (and unsupportable) accusations, and drawing conclusions that have no reasonable connection to anything you've said previously. It is truly bizarre.

BTW, it is a strange thing indeed to find find someone who considers the rejection of reason and logic a virtue. There really is no accounting for the liberal mind sometimes.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 8, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

McWing:

"ScottC3, ya know, I believe this opinion is sincerely held. Again, wow."

No doubt it is sincerely held. It boggles the mind, sometimes.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 8, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't reconciliation used to implement these tax cuts? Are you telling me Obama can't muster a simple majority in the Senate for extending all the tax cuts for those making 250,000 and under annually?

Looks like he should save the class warfare rhetoric and use it on some of his own Senators. If he leaves it alone, and they give him an extension on ALL the tax cuts, it's going to be awfully hard for him to veto it.

If the argument is that small business is sitting on its hands because of uncertainity about the tax code, I fail to see how kicking the can down the road a year or two is going to stimulate the economy. It's doubtful that the part of the upper 2% who are business owners are going to go on a hiring binge because you extend their current tax rate another year or two. Labor is an expense; you hire people when you expect business to pick up, not as a way to dispose of some of your net income. And why should you damage your business by laying off people because tax on your net income is going up 3%?

Mind you, I'm not endorsing tax increases, but Obama has the best hand here if he can whip his troops in line. It's not going to help the Republicans to kill an extension of tax cuts for the middle class unless they---gasp!---pick off enough Democrats for cover.

Posted by: Brigade | September 8, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

"Wasn't reconciliation used to implement these tax cuts? Are you telling me Obama can't muster a simple majority in the Senate for extending all the tax cuts for those making 250,000 and under annually?"

My understanding is that you can only use reconciliation once per budget, so Obamacare used it up on the last budget and Congress just deemed a Continuing Resoltion passed and did not pass a budget, therefore no reconciliation.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 8, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

A stuctural question:

Is there a target date for a vote on the tax extension?

Posted by: tao9 | September 8, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

We could easily eliminate class warfare AND take a huge chunk out of the national debt. We should use a flat income tax for all, BUT we tax ALL your income, ANY penny you take in (including investments), no loop holes period!

We add to that taxing corporations for ALL their income. No more setting up tax shelters abroad.

Now, since my suggestion would never get by the Republicans the President is absolutely right that it is ridiculous to extend tax cuts to the top 2% income earners.

Posted by: Andy94 | September 8, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

The pathetic thing is the Republicans plan to use the middle class tax cuts as leverage for keeping the (unpaid) tax cuts for the wealthy.

Republicans hate the middle class workers and would slit their throats if it gives the millionaires a few dollars more.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 8, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

The target date should be right after the Senate gives an up or down vote to all of the President's appointees including judges.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 8, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Lions and tigers and "millionaires and billionaires" and bears! Oh my!

PL math quiz kidz!!!:

1,000,000 - 800,000 = ?

Extra credit due to more zeros&integers :(

1,000,000,000 - 999,750,000 = ?

Posted by: tao9 | September 8, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Scott...I thought you weren't going to get emotional...."Pure bigotry and class prejudice. It's a disgusting thing when that the President of the US deliberately attempts to whip up hate and resentment against a small minority, demanding that they be treated differently under the law than the rest of their fellow citizens."

Waaaa Waaaa. LMAO. Treated differently under the law than their fellow citizens. That's a hoot. Citizens ALREADY are treated differently under the law if you are saying different tax brackets constitute different treatment.

OMG and Q.B. is disgusted. Obama must have hit one out of the park today in Cleveland. :-)

What are these poor rich people going to do in the face of such discrimination.

Scott and Q.B. Here is the problem with you guys and the party you support. You come to this blog with nothing constructive...EVER...you try your best to cheap shot folks here who have ideas when you two have yet to offer ONE CONSTRUCTIVE idea. Unless you call whining about the possibility that millionaires may have to pay a whopping 3% more in taxes...ohhh the humanity...3%...ohhh the awful suffering in the land...3%...Q.B. is digusted...Scott C is disgusted...that whopping 3% represents "Pure bigotry and class prejudice." 3% more in taxes..a return to the rates under the Clinton administration...you may remember that group..the last time an American Administration produced jobs....3%...Yes 3%..it's disgusting...it's bigotry..it's class prejudice...And this is Scott C who ALWAYS argues without emotion. OMG can you imagine what Scott would have done if he permitted his emotions to enter that post. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Troll..."Wow, did they plan 9/11 too, or just the Iraq war?" The inference from what otherwise would be a meaningless remark is that somehow the Iraq war and 9/11 are connected. THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9/11. If you believe otherwise you're hopeless because your not just drinking the Bush/Cheney/Rummy kool aid..you're drowning in it!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

tao...hard to come up with your calculation...you didn't tell us how many exemptions and write offs we get to use. :-)

Of course I suggested to Q.B. earlier he should incorporate. I happen to be a small business owner and apparently I'm a very rare animal because the Joe" the Plumber" ignorance about what corps..small businesses or otherwise pay in taxes is stunning. Our business uses writeoffs etc. and we rarely pay "corporate taxes" only the personal income tax on cash we take out. And of course the opportunity to travel to cool places like Aspen to ski..ohhh and take C.E. of course so it's writeoff rather than pay out of our income which is taxed. In other words that trip is a writeoff...the Corp gets to expense it...we don't have to pay income tax on the value because it is not income to us..it is a "business" trip for continuing education. That's how Doctors, Lawyers and other professionals work it.

But here is a reality that most Americans don't even know about...

Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/study-tallies-corporations-not-paying-income-tax/

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I was seriously on a break from plumline and politics until I saw this from SP's facebook.

"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero."

Kudos SP for condemning the Koran book burning, unfortunately you equated it with building "not a mosque, not at ground zero". Un-freaking-believable.

ruk, carry on. I think the conservative/libertarians here have forgotten the appeal of our populist President when he's on a quest. I believe they may be slightly worried. Suddenly they're crying foul and asking for protection for the "minority". Funny.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 8, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

@beeliever: "Republicans hate the middle class workers and would slit their throats if it gives the millionaires a few dollars more."

Dude. I've been middle-class all my life, and a registered Republican for 19 years. It just ain't true, and makes no sense.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 8, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca...glad to have you back even if for a brief post...."Suddenly they're crying foul and asking for protection for the "minority". Funny."

Yes it's hilarious considering the "minority" they're protecting. Actually even typing it makes me laugh out loud.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"Certainly if Dick Cheney and Rummy are smart enough to be in the cabal that planned the most tragic and unnecessary war in our history and able to each profit in the hundreds of millions...then"

It's almost impossible to libel public figures like Cheney and Rummy, but you might just have pulled it off here. I actually disproved this absurd claim for you a long time ago. You've actually inflated it to truly preposterous proportions.

You're a bit unglued, my friend. This is why some of us find it hard to take much you say seriously, and scoff when you take exception to much more sane criticsims of Obama. You would be even more beside yourself if anyone suggested anything similar about a Democrat. You would find it self-evidently calumnious.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 8, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

You've boasted several times now about how you avoid paying corporate taxes using devices like writing off posh cme trips. Nothing unusual there.

What I can't figure out is why you are not guilty of hypocrisy. Care to comment?

Also care to comment on my questions from this morning, whether you believe with Robert Gibbs that families making 250k are not affected by the bad economy and aren't restraining their spending, and how this can be reconciled with Michelle Obama's complaints during the campaign about her and Barack's struggles to make ends meet on a few hundred thousand?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 8, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Sybil:

"I'd rather get the conservative viewpoint from people with intellects..again like you and Scott...Thanks for you input..if Greg ever gets the techies to place names at the head of posts you can rest assured Q.B. that I won't scroll past you or Scott. " - ruk at 9:28 this morning

"Scott and Q.B. Here is the problem with you guys and the party you support. You come to this blog with nothing constructive...EVER...you try your best to cheap shot folks here who have ideas when you two have yet to offer ONE CONSTRUCTIVE idea." - ruk, shortly less than 12 hours later

You crack me up, ruk.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 8, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca,

What is inconsistent about objecting to the mosque and to burning Korans? (Flippant answers aren't useful.)

As for Obama the Scourge of the Wealthy, am I worried politically? Not really. But I am always concerned about the power of a vicious demogogue like Obama, and he danger someone like him represents in inciting anger and hatred and division. That's what he is all about, and the disguise is now fully off.

Btw, I would be interested in whether you could cite any examples of George Bush as President lashing out at his critics as Obama has repeatedly done, namely in accusing them of bad faith. acting only for political advantage, and lying.

Can you give any examples from Bush comparable to Obama's knowingly misrepresenting a Supreme Court decision and lashing out at the Court with justices siting right in front of him during the SOTU address.

Obama is one vicious and destructive pol. That's what we are now going to see in its full glory, and it's sad that you folks celebrate something so malign.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 8, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

qb, first question, not to me I know, but I believe you asked it of everyone earlier today or yesterday, not following that close, sorry.

"whether you believe with Robert Gibbs that families making 250k are not affected by the bad economy and aren't restraining their spending"

This may surprise you but I don't actually know anyone, personally, who is making that much money, kudos to them if they are. Most of our friends and family with and without degrees, business owners, teachers and firefighters are about $100-$150k below that level.

Consequently, can't answer your ? re the $250k and above cutting back. I do KNOW that the under $100K crowd is definitely cutting back though.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 8, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

I think President Obama knows he's lost the indies. He desperately needs to get out the base (on 2008 levels...which IMHO is not remotely possible).

"Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires. Cut regulations for special interests. Cut trade deals even if they didn't benefit our workers. Cut back on investments in our people and our future - in education and clean energy; in research and technology. The idea was that if we had blind faith in the market; if we let corporations play by their own rules; if we left everyone else to fend for themselves, America would grow and prosper."

The above para is risible in it's rhetorical baloney, only true believers will buy this in toto.

"Folks were forced to put more debt on their credit cards and borrow against homes that many couldn't afford in the first place."

Downright stupid..."forced"? Good grief!

Going after Boehner (Non-politicaljunkie America says in chorus, "Who's Boehner?") is actually kind of funny...pathetic not haha. (It is, however, textbook Alinsky #11: "freeze/personalize/polarize." His roots are showing.)

That said, it was a typical Obama speech: emotional, well-rendered, energetic, magnetic. The problem is we've seen what seems like hundreds of them, and then... at least as per the economy and fed fisc, nothing happens.

Except 9plus% UE, and $3B in deficits in the time it takes to run a drag race.

He also seemed angry, tossed alot of blame, & not much "feel your pain."

Posted by: tao9 | September 8, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

angry?

You mean between the jokes he was cracking on Republican hypocrisy?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 8, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

"And there are roughly three million Americans who are working today because of the economic plan we put in place."

Yep. That's a real knee-slapper.

Roughly.

Posted by: tao9 | September 8, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

RUK, your post at 9:08pm is one of my favorite posts of yours yet! Hilarious. You totally nailed those fools. Ohh nooezz, billionaires have to pay 3% more in taxes ohhhh noooeeezzzZz!!!!11!11!!!!1ONE!11

Republicans are the worst scum on the planet.

Their projection is so rich with irony that it would be hilarious if it wasn't so destructive to the country you and I love.

But shoot, I totally appreciate the moment you gave us to laugh in their sorry faces. Thanks for that. Awesome.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

RUK, your post at 9:08pm is one of my favorite posts of yours yet! Hilarious. You totally nailed those fools. Ohh nooezz, billionaires have to pay 3% more in taxes ohhhh noooeeezzzZz!!!!11!11!!!!1ONE!11

Republicans are the worst scum on the planet.

Their projection is so rich with irony that it would be hilarious if it wasn't so destructive to the country you and I love.

But shoot, I totally appreciate the moment you gave us to laugh in their sorry faces. Thanks for that. Awesome.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

"As for Obama the Scourge of the Wealthy"

qb, is it just me or is that a teeny bit flippant.

As far as SP goes, if you think her opinions on anything are remotely coherent, we will definitely have to part ways.

It's a tough sell IMO to disparage a community center several blocks from ground zero because it's somehow insensitive all of sudden, then condemn burning the Koran while at the same time charging $225 per person to hear SP and GB yak it up. Hey, more power to them, but forgive me for finding a little hypocrisy there.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 8, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

Hit the SUBMIT button once. Thnx, man! ;>)

Best Regards,

Tao (Indie, NY; Semi-WorstScumOfEarth)

Posted by: tao9 | September 8, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

rukidding: "Certainly if Dick Cheney and Rummy are smart enough to be in the cabal that planned the most tragic and unnecessary war in our history and able to each profit in the hundreds of millions...then kudos to them for being smart enough to pull it off. Hooray for all the profiteers in the MIC...these are some smart dudes..the kind of folks you admire Scott."

My curiosity is if you think that Cheney and Rumsfeld created 9/11 and then conflated that with Iraq as a pretext for invading Iraq. Or, did they take advantage of 9/11, meaning they were not responsible for it, as a pretext to conflate 9/11 and Iraq and invade. Or, were they just sitting around one day,b.s.ing and said "hey, you know how we can make some more money? Let's invade Irag!"? I'm just trying to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. If I unjustly accused you of trutherism, I apologize.

Was it all spelled out for us by PNAC in the late '90s?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 8, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I'm out until next week for sure now. Heading to NM to help my sister winterize and hopefully settle her case against one of the "free market" insurance companies. Talk at y'all next week. Peace out.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 8, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans are the worst scum on the planet."

HERE SIR!!!

Find me a baby, I wanna steel their candy!!!!!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 8, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Safe trip & go gettem'.

Posted by: tao9 | September 8, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3, tao9, quarterback1, truthteller12, skipsailing and anyothers:

Do not forget our meeting tomorrow with Master's Cheney and Rove.

I also have your rightwing cabal checks.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 8, 2010 11:26 PM | Report abuse

TMcW,

Can't go, gotta babysit the grandaughter after work.

Do a brotherbrownshirt a solid & pik-up my check, man.

Asta,

Tao (Indie, NY; Semi-WorstScumOfEarth)


Posted by: tao9 | September 8, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

tao, numero quatro if you get there.

http://ccore.mines.edu/CoRE_Home_Page.html

Posted by: lmsinca | September 8, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

lms, safe travels. Hope it all works out.

And tao, did you see my post about the Felice Brothers?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 9, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

BG, thanks, see post above to tao. My sis deserves a break and we opted out of the class action as my niece's case was the worst of the group. We're looking at a decent settlement for her and my nephew. As my sister is disabled it would really help with the expenses. We'll see, never count the stupid chickens before they hatch and all that.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 9, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse

lms, take some good reading with you. We'll be thinking of you and wishing you the best.

You need to get a Chicago vacation in for the fall. Lovely over here this time of year.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 9, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

tao and BG, people/current, got it?

Anyway, see y'all next week, and yeah I'm looking forward to reading, as there's no internet at my sister's house, she's way out of range and has no idea how to use or interest in computers. Maybe I'll hit Starbucks at some point. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | September 9, 2010 12:53 AM | Report abuse

CalD -- First Read and several other neutral-type pundits floated GOP names as psosible Rahm replacements.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 9, 2010 6:27 AM | Report abuse

@Troll,

No I am not a truther. I'm accusing Bush/Cheney/Rummy of nothing. I'm saying they are opportunists who took advantage of one of our nation's worst crisis.

Try a little nuance here not Troll...if you are capable.

When people responsible for a war also profit from in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars then that is the definition of "conflict of interest". When those same people try to tag responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq...intelligence is revealed that they are wrong...move to the next excuse...Iraq had WMD...invade WITHOUT any REAL proof and plenty of intel that said Saddam did not have WMD..and then when he didn't have WMD change the mission to spreading democracy in the Middle East...and this from a President who in debates during the campaign repeatedly said he was NOT FOR NATION BUILDING..which would have been the true conservative position....

And so am I saying Cheney and Rummy sat down and hatched a plot specifically to get rich...not exactly...Cheney does have a reputation as a complete coward...five deferments..and all the reports of how he cowered in the basement on 9/11...how SHAKEN he was...there is no simple motivation. What I am saying is that people who are making decisions to send our young men to their deaths...and bleed our country of a trillion dollars are obscene to the max if all the while behind the scenes they are paving the way for THEIR OWN INCREASED WEALTH!!!

Too much for you to handle Troll. I realize it doesn't fit into your SIMPLISTIC world view...or your RIDICULOUS views of what represents our security!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Q.B....Hypocrisy? For taking advantage of the same tax code the wealthy use? Are you crazy? As for the Rummy/Cheney war profiteering you can read the previous response to Troll.

@Scott..."You crack me up, ruk." Glad to at least be able to entertain you my heartless unemotional friend. :-)

As for Sybil...that's OK...a clever name indeed...but when you post INCREDIBLY EMOTIONAL LUDICROUS STUFF LIKE...

."Pure bigotry and class prejudice. It's a disgusting thing when that the President of the US deliberately attempts to whip up hate and resentment against a small minority, demanding that they be treated differently under the law than the rest of their fellow citizens."

bigotry, class prejudice,hate, and resentment..against a small minority (LMAO) that's just the proverbial hanging curveball Scott...of course I'm going to slam that out of the park.

It's funny that neither you nor Q.B. can realize your projection. The WealthY have made out BIG TIME in the past 15 years with their wealth increasing at a pace the far outstrips the middle class. They buy and pay Republican (yes some Dems too) politicians to create policies...subsidies...deregulation..and YES TAX CODE that completely favors them...but somehow that is not class warfare. Then a Dem President steps forward and DARES TO stand up for the middle class and you guys go all wobbly...AGAIN SCOTT YOU SAID THIS LOAD OVER A 3% INCREASE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY BENEFITED. And no America is not a meritocracy...the Koch brothers didn't earn their money they inherited it...NOBODY in this country could earn the first freaking penny without the middle class and even the poor Mexicans who pick the vegetable at disgusting wages living in squalid conditions so those wealthy people can EARN a living off of their labor. Yes they are smarter than the poor and middle class...so being clever means they should be rewarded FAR FAR in excess of the people who actually DO THE WORK!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 6:44 AM | Report abuse

McWing:

"Do not forget our meeting tomorrow with Master's Cheney and Rove."

Looking forward to it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

@SCottC3: "McWing: 'Do not forget our meeting tomorrow with Master's Cheney and Rove.' -- Looking forward to it."

Is this one of those meetings where you light cigars with hundred dollar bills, chortle malevolently (as those 100 dollar bills were stolen from the poor), and then drink chilled orphan tears?

How come I never get invited? ;)

Checks? You get paid? Dang. No one's ever asked me into the right wing cabal.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

@Troll: "'Republicans are the worst scum on the planet.' --HERE SIR!!! Find me a baby, I wanna steel their candy!!!!!"

I recently removed a tag from a pillow, although it clearly said not to. And I once accidentally put a glass container in the plastic bin, and rather that dig through it all to correct my mistake, I quickly tip-toed away while chortling softly.

I am a bad person.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

"of course I'm going to slam that out of the park."

When?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

@tao9: "'Folks were forced to put more debt on their credit cards and borrow against homes that many couldn't afford in the first place.' -- Downright stupid...'forced'? Good grief!"

Stupid like a fox! People love to be told that the natural consequences of their reckless behaviors are entirely the fault of someone else. You were forced to get fat by the fast food companies! You were forced to spend $40,000 on Webkins and online video "companionship" by the credit card companies! You were forced to get a 2nd mortgage to pay for that hot tub and gazebo! Or that cruise, that you were forced to take by those heartless cruise ship companies.

That position is a natural vote-winner.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"How come I never get invited?"

And risk exposing your undercover role as a reasonable and moral conservative?

re: pay

Surely the satisfaction of knowing that you are helping to make poor people poorer and rich people richer is reward enough, no?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "As far as SP goes, if you think her opinions on anything are remotely coherent, we will definitely have to part ways."

I think they're coherent, just sometimes unfortunately modulated. I don't think the community center near ground zero needed to be conflated with burning korans in any way, shape, or form. That doesn't mean it's inconsistent to argue that you have the right in this country to do both things (as you do), but perhaps comparing it to burning bibles or something would have been more apropos.

But it's certainly consistent if you believe, as Sarah and her supporter genuinely seem to, that the effort to build a Muslim community center two blocks from ground zero is an intentional slap-in-the-face/victory-dance by some moderate muslim poseurs. Accurate, probably not, but coherent: yes.

Personally, for context, I would have quoted the whole thing:

"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

"I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

"Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don’t need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn’t that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?"

Sounds to me like she's trying to make the case to her loyal followers that they shouldn't be jumping on the Burn the Koran bandwagon--"Because, see, you don't like the Ground Zero Mosque, do you?" more than she's trying to conflate the two to win the Not Ground Zero Not a Mosque argument.

Of course, I don't think she has the number of the beast emblazoned upon her scalp, either.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

@tao: quote Obama: "Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires"

This is something of a misnomer. 250k does not a billionaire make. Indeed, if this were about the taxes billionaires pay, why aren't they talking about preserving the tax cuts for folks who make under $1 million? Then, tax those folks an extra 3%. Someone pulling in a million a year can afford that extra 3% more than someone making $250k.

Certainly, a compromise that kept tax cuts for the rich folks making 250k but not the even richer folks making 1 million+ per year would be even harder for Republicans to attack.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Troll,

A couple of items to add to the meeting agenda:


-- Newly identified overseas/combat-related profiteering opportunities

-- Psy-Ops Division progress report on Project Marley and Me (tactical exploitation of "First Dog" Bo)

-- Review of Weather Division quarterly and annual performance

-- Continued decline in destructive hurricane production

-- AGW Program target reassessments

-- Continued viability of Ethan as covert asset in view of conspicuous credibility loss, manic behavior, and possible mental breakdown

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Have a nice trip, Imsinca. Enjoy your time away.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 9, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "Surely the satisfaction of knowing that you are helping to make poor people poorer and rich people richer is reward enough, no?"

You know, you're right, Scott. It really is. :)

And I've got other stuff to do. I need to working on growing my mustache longer, so I can twirl it more effectively while contemplating dastardly plots.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

The Glorious Christian Koran Burning is the most recent manifestation of the nativist and anti-intellectual rot in the Know-Nothing Conservative movement. A natural culmination of the Bush Dark Age, book burning, just like in the Middle Ages. Perhaps another Enlightenment is around the corner but meanwhile you better learn to duck.

"Everybody's so wrong that I know it's gonna work out right."

Gram Parsons.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 9, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca...

I second wbgonne's post. Have a TERRIFIC trip. If there is no internet take advantage...don't watch cable T.V....get some well deserved rest before you return for that final six weeks of campaigning for your guy.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Caveat Emptor:

"KY-Sen: Rand Paul staffer caught posing as progressive at Daily Kos"

http://www.dailykos.com/main/3

Posted by: wbgonne | September 9, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin, Scott, Q.B. & Troll

Hey guys maybe we can get together and save some bucks. Perhaps we go together we can find a meeting place with two rooms at a discount.

You guys can have your right wing cabal meeting and we can have our commie, pinko, socialist, tree hugging, bed wetting, bigotry, and class prejudice meeting. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "The Glorious Christian Koran Burning is the most recent manifestation of the nativist and anti-intellectual rot in the Know-Nothing Conservative movement."

Indeed. I've got my Koran (actually a copy of Twilight: Eclipse, but I wrote "Goddless Heethen Ko-ran" on the front of it), Sarah Palin™ Brand Lighter Fluid, and, of course, my Glen Beck matches.

Scott, Troll, Tao: what say we all light up in tandem, then return to our respective yachts, where we'll set fire to money stolen from poor people, and drown some baby kittens to unwind?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

"Everybody's so wrong that I know it's gonna work out right."

Gram Parsons.

Great quote wbgonne. Parsons is a great songwriter! Born just a hour east of where I live..alas he died far too young like so many other musicians.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "You guys can have your right wing cabal meeting and we can have our commie, pinko, socialist, tree hugging, bed wetting, bigotry, and class prejudice meeting."

No chilled orphan tears? Our meeting sounds like more fun.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_86.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 9, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

@kevin...yeah but we don't even have to get out of bed to take a leak. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Ruk:

True dat re: Parsons. He could really put words and music together.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 9, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, you can mock the poor and mock people's problems if you want. But nothing exposes your values more than your vote for a George W. Bush RUBBER STAMP extremist neoconfederate like Marsha Blackburn. Mock on. Your vote says it all.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 9, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, you can mock the poor and mock people's problems if you want. But nothing exposes your values more than your vote for a George W. Bush RUBBER STAMP extremist neoconfederate like Marsha Blackburn. Mock on. Your vote says it all.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 9, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"what say we all light up in tandem, then return to our respective yachts, where we'll set fire to money stolen from poor people, and drown some baby kittens to unwind?"

My yacht's in drydock at the moment...putting in a helipad on the top.

BTW..isn't it amazing how much money you can steal from poor people? I used to think that poor people were, like, actually poor. Who'd have thunk that they'd have enough to make billionaires (or at least two-hundred-and-fifty-thousandaires) out of us?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

"Hypocrisy? For taking advantage of the same tax code the wealthy use? Are you crazy?."

Of course. You boast about how your corporation doesn't appear to make any money, and thus you avoid (double) corporate taxes, in the very same posts in which you rail against corporations' not paying taxes and "the wealthy" keeping too much of their own money. New flash: You are "wealthy" compared to most people. And you are guilty of what you criticize others for doing. Your taxes need to be be raised, and your corporate loopholes closed.

"It's funny that neither you nor Q.B. can realize your projection."

I suppose, though, if you were the one projecting, it would look that way to you -- whatever it is you are talking about. Only one side here is advocating adverse actions to be taken against other people, and only one side is screaming. That is you in both cases.

"and YES TAX CODE that completely favors them...but somehow that is not class warfare."

I guess you consider it favorable treatment to be required to pay virtually all the taxes rather than literally all the taxes. And this is what passes for rational thought and argument in your world.

"Then a Dem President steps forward and DARES TO stand up for the middle class and you guys go all wobbly..."

Why is it impossible for you to think straight? No one is objecting to extending tax cuts for "the middle class."

"And no America is not a meritocracy...the Koch brothers didn't earn their money they inherited it..."

So you are a true socialist after all? Do you believe no one earns his money, or is it just the wicked (ie, conservative) Koch brothers who didn't?

Can you see how devoid of logic your "argument" is? And how partisan?

Btw, I gather from your incessant comments about the Koch family that you actually are quite unfamiliar with the history of the company and the two brothers' role in it. You aren't demonstrating anything but ignorance and partisan bias. When you start condemning Soros and the host of other left-wing sugar daddies and manipulators, perhaps I'll take your argument more seriously. But probably not.

"Yes they are smarter than the poor and middle class...so being clever means they should be rewarded FAR FAR in excess of the people who actually DO THE WORK!"

See, you are in fact a socialist after all. You often rave about people using the term without knowing what it means, but it remains the case that you are the one who doesn't.

Btw, do you make money off of your employees?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I don't have a yacht.

Just a 70-foot sailboat that I keep docked at a tax-efficient locale in another state.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

Also, your "answer" regarding your claim that Cheney and Rumsfeld concocted the Iraq war as a way to each make "hundreds of millions" of dollars is no answer at all.

This is perhaps the biggest whopper you've ever told. You can make whatever evidence-free, crazed arguments you want about whether "they lied" about the need to invade Iraq, but your claim that they made money -- let alone hundreds of millions -- is simply an absurd lie. I proved it once before, but you just keep repeating it.

Shame on you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Q.B. Let me help with your education which is obviously lacking.

Socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Hyperbole: extravagant exaggeration

You are so mind numblingly hyperbolic Q.B. it's hard to know where to begin.

Please point out where in a debate over raising the wealthiest 2% of our populations taxes 3% I ever mentioned..

"advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

or..that I advocated
a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.

It's not hypocritical to advocate tax reform while utilizing the system the wealthy have created. And yes Q.B. I am blessed...in the top 10% for sure...but unlike you I do not earn $250,000 + However I love my country and while I'd gripe about wasting over a trillion and counting...and I'm not happy about all the borrowing from China...if my Government decides to close loopholes I'd certainly abide by the new laws without complaint.
BTW in the past ten years my wife and I have taken one CE junket. My brother in law the Cardiologist..get's to teach on his junkets..paid for by Big Pharma. None of our employees have those kind of "tax free" opportunities!

Your cheap, anti-intellectual use of the word socialism simply debases the debate and reveals your own lack of substance.

For example...if I advocated "socialized" medicine(which I don't..I'm for single payer)..but was for free enterprise in the rest of the economy..am I a capitalist? A socialist? Or somebody who believes in a blend of the two?

And remember Q.B. this debate was about the top 2% handling a WHOPPING 3% increase which would still leave their rate at LESS THAN HALF of our historic levels.

Does that mean Eisenhower was a "socialist"

Seriously Q.B. I do wish to be civil...but if you're going to cheapen any debate by simply tossing out the word Socialist you reveal you lack of intellect and even a basic understanding of what Socialist means.

I'd expect that of STRF or Kaddaffi..JakeD and some other anti-intellectuals...but YOU Q.B. can do better!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

"I proved it once before, but you just keep repeating it."

You have yet to prove it!!! I can match you link for link on that one..and so perhaps we should simply agree to disagree.

Do you deny that Halliburton..the company whose former CEO "just happened" to be Dick 5 deferment Cheney received more than a billion dollars in additional business...much of it on NO BID contracts as a result of the war?

Or is it your position that Cheney was totally divested of any financial interest in Halliburton and helping his former company is not one of the most egregious examples of what is referred to as "crony capitalism"?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

Ignoring your return to insults, you have above again condemned the fact that business owners are allowed to keep more money than "the people who actually do the work."

If you had ever actually studied socialist thought rather than again relying on simplified dictionary definitions, you would know that you are espousing a core principle of much socialist and specificallly Marxist thought. Sorry to break that to you. I confess I used the term slightly tongue in cheek to tweak you, but on the other hand quite seriously and with sound reason.

I would suggest you go study the labor theory of value underlying Marx's theories. Now, he developed a rather bynzantine teleological theory of history and society from this premise, but you are for all intents and purposes arguing from the same premise. The only practical difference is that he theorized that this conflict between the proletariat and bourgoisee, arising from the "contradiction" between private capital wealth and "socialized" production, would lead to revolution and abolition of private property, while you adopt the more "moderate" view that the proletariat class ("the people who actually do the work") should simply equalize things by voting to take money from the capitalists are are exploiting them by stealing the "surplus value" their labor creates.

None of this is anything new. It's the difference between 20th century welfare-state "social democracy" socialism and more doctrinaire Marxism. They are both variants of socialism. Proponents of docrinaire Marxism would of course denounce your approach as incomplete and fraudulent "state capitalism" or the like, but the core beliefs about capital, exploitation, etc., are pretty much the same.

So, I would suggest that you go educate yourself for real about the history of ideas and stop denouncing those of us who use terms like this after at least having done some measure of that already. There is nothing unique about the fact that arguments you make as a contemporary "progressive" have roots in and are for all intents and purposes variants of socialism and even Marxism. It doesn't "cheapen" debate to use the right terms and identify ideological roots. It cheapens debate to deny the reality of them.

As for hyperbole, I would again refer you to your own comments above to evaluate who is using it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

"You have yet to prove it!!! I can match you link for link on that one..and so perhaps we should simply agree to disagree."

Yes, I did. No you can't.

"Do you deny that Halliburton..the company whose former CEO "just happened" to be Dick 5 deferment Cheney received more than a billion dollars in additional business...much of it on NO BID contracts as a result of the war?"

Dick Cheney is not Halliburton.

Btw, why don't you refer to Joe Biden as Five Deferment Biden?

"Or is it your position that Cheney was totally divested of any financial interest in Halliburton and helping his former company is not one of the most egregious examples of what is referred to as "crony capitalism"?"

It isn't my position. It is established beyond dispute that he divested any ongoing financial interest in Halliburton and wasn't enriched by a penny.

If what you claim were true, it would have been the news story of the decade, and he would have been impeached in 2006. It is utterly preposterous, and you have no credibility whatsoever.

As I said, shame on you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Btw, you also forgot about Rumsfeld.

You claimed he also made hundreds of millions in the Iraq War.

How ludicrous. Like I said, it is almost impossible legally to libel such public figures, but you probably have achieved it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Q.B. You never answered my two questions.

If I was for socialized medicine, and Social Security, but for free enterprise in the rest of our economy would that make me...
a.) a socialist
b.) a capitalist
c.) somebody who believes in a blend of the two
d.) all of the above :-)

Since Eisenhower supported Social Security and he governed during a time with a 90% marginal rate does that make him a socialist...being aware btw that the John Birchers indeed did refer to him as a communist?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

BTW Q.B that was a truly lame response on "socialism". You NEVER once pointed out where I advocated socialism...instead going off on some mumbo jumbo about socialist and marxist theory.

Asking for a fairer tax code is such a huge leap to socialism as to be ludicrous. Talking about fairer wages is also a giant leap to advocating wage price controls ala that famous R Dick Nixon...I don't agree with wage price controls from the Gov't but I'd hardly call Nixon a socialist...again that would by hyperbolic as are many of your posts..and certainly your use so freely and INCORRECTLY of socialist. It's especially offputting when you are hurling it at someone who has REPEATEDLY told you they are not for socialism.

It's really one of the cheapest and oldest tricks in the book...people who are losing a debate resort to it frequently...take an extreme position and try to conflate with what your opponent has ACTUALLY said!

BTW you came real close to to telling the truth and then blew it with all that absurd theoretical BS. You said.."I confess I used the term slightly tongue in cheek to tweak you,"

Bravo...the truth will set you free Q.B. Again I've admitted several times on this blog when I was either mistaken or guilty of using hyperbole.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"You NEVER once pointed out where I advocated socialism...instead going off on some mumbo jumbo about socialist and marxist theory."

On the contrary, I pointed precisely to it, and it's a point you habitually assert.

It is enlightening to see that, when confronted with a clear explanation of how your own argument proceeds from premises shared with Marx's critique of capitalism, and advocates redistribution of what he called "surplus value" from capitalist to worker, you dismiss the uncomfortable truth as "mumbo jumbo."

Just to be clear, then, you dismiss arguments based on detailed and informed understandings of these theories in favor of dictionary definitions. And then you denounce those who've actually studied socialist and Marxist thought as uneducated and anti-intellectual.

Now we see exactly where you stand.

Your question is hypothetical and beside the point. It is evident that you do not actually believe in free enterprise but for Social Security and health care. You claim that you do. But in fact you will not tolerate free enterprise and its results, and you demand that the expoitative capitalists be taxed to repay their workers for what is taken from them -- again, Marx's surplus value.

The only reason you do not acknowledge the full implications are that you are somewhat unprincipled and apparently haven't ever thought it through. You make arguments that imply absolute principles, without realizing it or being clear in your own mind about them, and then you arbitrarily reverse course when you approach the full implications.

You don't seem to understand the reasoning of your own arguments. You claim you support free enterprise and don't want to expropriate the wealthy capitalists, but you just somehow know because you know that the rich are allowed to keep too much money.

You can't ever say what it is just for them to keep. You just know in your gut somehow that it is unjust as things stand. They should always pay more (and you less, even though you are also an exploitative capitalist yourself!). Thus, you reject socialism; you just insist on a "fairer" tax system that takes "more" from the capitalist class. More, because they are exploiting the workers.

Sorry, ruk. Your belief system is very much that of socialism and Marx. If it makes you feel better, the labor theory of value and exploitation wasn't fully original and unique to him. But it is a socialist's view of the world.

I never had a conversation with Eisenhower, so I don't know what he thought about Marx's labor theory of value. And, of course, what the John Birch Society said about him is not relevant to this issue, is it? As Scott has said, you do seem to have trouble with logic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Q.B. That's it my friend...you have jumped the shark...I say I BELIEVE IN A BLEND...SOCIALISM FOR THE SAFETY NET PROGRAMS...FREE ENTERPRISE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE....YOU SAY..."It is evident that you do not actually believe in free enterprise"

You are a sad pathetic joke Q.B. No name calling just IMHO. Of course you have zero humility and you present all of your OPINIONS as fact...including the ability to DIVINE what other people are thinking...so you wouldn't understand that.

Do you not recognize the sheer ignorance of a "debate" between two people when one of them says something...and the other simply IGNORES IT and says they said or believe something entirely different.

I'm done...debating you is futile because you simply retort with opinions...I DO NOT HOLD..AND HAVE EXPLICITLY TOLD YOU I DO NOT HOLD...if communicating directly with someone..again very SPECIFICALLY, EXPLICITLY does not work because that person is too freaking arrogant to listen...or is so arrogant they think they are able to DICTATE what the other person thinks...then you obviously are a waste of time!!! Good luck with your God complex arrogant loser!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Well I guess we are back to the old ruk. Sorry you feel that a discussion of the nature and pedigree of ideas is arrogant and offensive.

I just gave you a detailed explanation from political and economic theory of how the specific argument t you made fits the term I used, after you again said I am uneducated and cited a dictionary definition. You apparently could not deal with that "mumbo jumbo" and so attacked me once again.

It's too bad you don't feel you can debate ideas without melting down. I think calling things their right names and understanding the origins and nature and implications of ideas is important and have no problem defending mine. But first you started slurring me above as an anti-intellectual for having the audacity to be disgusted with Obama. And you end with classic yelling and name calling.

Quite a performance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR:
Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq & Afghanistan, Flood Insurance Reauthorization , Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Debt Limit Increase, Fiscal 2005 Omnibus Appropriations, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN “Reforms.” Patriot Act Reauthorization, CAFTA, Katrina Hurricane-relief Appropriations, Head Start Funding, Line-item Rescission, Oman Trade Agreement, Military Tribunals, Electronic Surveillance, Head Start Funding, COPS Funding, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Peru Free Trade Agreement, Economic Stimulus, Farm Bill (Veto Override), Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extention.

Marsha Blackburn Voted AGAINST:
Ban on UN Contributions, eliminate Millennium Challenge Account, WTO Withdrawal, UN Dues Decrease, Defunding the NAIS, Iran Military Operations defunding Iraq Troop Withdrawal, congress authorization of Iran Military Operations, Withdrawing U.S. Soldiers from Afghanistan.

Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
Mickey

Posted by: mickey1956 | September 9, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Kevin, you can mock the poor and mock people's problems"

Well, now that you've granted my to permission to mock unreservedly, I'll do it right away!

Thank you for your support. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company