Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:30 AM ET, 12/ 5/2010

Sunday Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

Now that Republicans have successfully filibustered Obama's plan to continue tax cuts for everyone but the wealthiest Americans, it looks like a temporary extension of all the cuts is all but certain. So the only way Dems can walk out of the lame duck session with a genuine victory is to repeal don't Ask Don't Tell.

It's good to see that White House officials are still privately signaling that they want a vote. But it's anything but assured, obviously.

Getting Republicans to agree to a vote on New START, while hugely important, wouldn't count as winning something. It has been endorsed by a whole range of GOP foreign policy experts and former officials. It should be a no-brainer. Repealing DADT is the only remaining way this year for Dems to remind their supporters that they are still capable of winning, that there's a reason to elect Democrats, and that Dems aren't pathologically predisposed to getting rolled in the name of "compromise."

Just do it. No nonsense about the calendar. No excuses about GOP obstructionism. Make it happen.

UPDATE, 10:54 a.m.: To "make it happen," Dems need to hold a cloture vote and agree to allot the time required for open debate and amendments. If they do that, it's looking more and more like the 60 votes are there for repeal. They just need to hold the vote and debate. If they don't do that it will be squandering the major opportunity that was created by the game-changing Pentagon report and Robert Gates testimony.

By Greg Sargent  | December 5, 2010; 9:30 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, gay rights, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

The Republicans haven't successfully filibustered. No one (read Democrats) is making them actually filibuster anything. Bring out the cots and diapers, dammit!

Posted by: sellio4291 | December 5, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Frank Rich diagnoses Obama with Stockholm Syndrome, the adaptation to terror, a traumatic stress disorder we discussed here last week. I knew he read the Plumb Line comments to steal our ideas, but it is getting a little obvious now.

Everything in the column is rehashed and he misses the point, no one is holding the President hostage. Above, Brigade says he is doing this "Blazing Saddles" style, pointing the gun to his own head to avoid getting blamed for the economy not being fixed when he runs for re-election. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks Brigade.

This isn't Stockholm Syndrome, it is the President running for reelection on tax cuts for the rich...even though he knows they are ineffective. But he knows America thinks they are, he is just that cynical.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 5, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Repeal of DADT is a purely liberal, agenda item. Greater America is not behind it at all.

A few, well crafted, liberal polls say everybody wants to homosexualize America's armed forces. That is the propaganda phase of the big push to force this issue on an unwilling America.

The only poll that counts is the one called the mid-term elections.

America sent the Obamacrats a resounding NO! NO on everything that Obama and his 'crats stand for.

And Obama made it clear that he stood for the homosexual agenda including repeal of DADT.

Listen to the people.

They are yelling STOP.

Repeal of DADT is not good for America. It is a "feel good" for liberals only.

A parting shot at the America that just rejected them and all they stand for.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 5, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Nate Silver has a very good post in today's Times in which he looks at the Democrats' and Obama's options on the tax cuts. But it's not for anyone who likes context or the bigger picture on issues that it's easy to have knee jerk anger about, so be forewarned.

Posted by: AllButCertain | December 5, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

"But he knows America thinks they are"

Your evidence for this assertion is what, Shrink? Subsidiary question - do you see some manifestations of something like Stockholm Syndrome elsewhere, if so where, and if so, how evolved?

Posted by: bernielatham | December 5, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Seriously good piece by Kaplan in the WP today...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303448.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

smooch to ABC

Posted by: bernielatham | December 5, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I seem to have left out the negative I meant to include in my comment on the Nate Silver piece.. It should read, It's not for anyone who doesn't like context . . . Sorry.

Posted by: AllButCertain | December 5, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Here's what Douglas Schoen says about repeal of DADT:

"That's why Obama is unlikely to abandon this fight going forward, even though there is little evidence that he will win. He needs this fight to maintain his bona fides with the LEFT".

That guy knows what he is talking about. Repeal of DADT is a bone being thrown to the left-wing wackos, ONLY. The Democrat, left-wingnuts are the ones that sunk Obama in the mid-terms. Why on Earth would B.O. listen to them at all?? It's amazing.

Hey Barack! It's time to throw those leftists under the bus now. Otherwise YOU are going to be roadkill in 2012.


Welcome to "Carterville", Mr Obama. It's a quiet, little place. A nice rest home for failed presidents.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 5, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

@ABC - you're right. The Silver piece is careful and thorough. I see Nate and battleground51 as the same sort of thinkers.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 5, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

If Obama has any syndrome at all it is the:


"CARTER SYNDROME"


FOX NEWS has an excellent piece on how similar the Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter administrations are. They say the similarities are so close it's "spooky".

I'm scared!

Posted by: battleground51 | December 5, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

And, Bernie, the Kaplan piece you linked to is another argument for gaming out the unintended consequences of one-note responses.

Posted by: AllButCertain | December 5, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

To have Stockholm Syndrome, you have to be terrified and debased. Last night, for example, someone at dinner was talking about the Elizabeth Smart case, about which she knew more than most, having known the family growing up. No, I don't see any evidence of Stockholm syndrome around American politics today, the downwardly mobile people voting for Republicans may be terrified, but they are the base and it is the left that scares them into voting against their interests (viz. Battleground).

Posted by: shrink2 | December 5, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

I think the only deal worth making on the tax cuts is to extend the debt ceiling now. Unemployment benefits, DADT, and START are together not nearly enough in exchange for giving up $700 billion in lost revenue.

If the Democrats don't deal now with the debt ceiling, the carnage in April, 2011 will be quite devastating.

Posted by: JimHannan | December 5, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"But he knows America thinks they are"

No actually both he and the American people responding to poll questions know tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate the economy and they don't trickle down, they don't create jobs and so on. But come election time, with the economy still in the tank, Brigade correctly points out the Republicans will pin "he raised taxes during a recession" on him. Based on what just happened in November, Obama now has so little respect for Americans seeing their way through the Republican lies that he is going to trade in them himself, he will point to having not raised taxes during a recession. He won't cede that meme to the Republicans in other words. So in this way (in effect, sticking up his own administration), he shows he too can play the voters for the fools they are,

Posted by: shrink2 | December 5, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Let all the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

They did not stimulate the economy, or add jobs. They did the exact opposite. They forced the US to borrow more money, and we ended up with an economic melt down.

The tax cuts are still in effect now, and they have not restored jobs, or the economy in general.

The Republicans are like those who once applied leeches to people, in order to make them stronger. When the leeches made the patients weaker, by sucking the life blood out of them, those treating them, and the modern day Republican Party, each claimed that the solution was to continue treating the weak patients with more leeches.

If Obama wants to enact austerity measures, that will reduce the deficits by four trillion dollars, over the next ten years, he will never find an easier way to do it, than to just let the worthless Bush tax cuts expire, and to have Harry Reid not bring any tax bill up for a vote, that Republicans will start calling for in 2011.

Just say no to the Republican practitioners of Vodoo Leech Medicine.

President Obama. cut to the chase. If you want to reduce deficits; just let all the Bush Tax Cuts expire, instead of wasting time, in a futile effort to try and please Allen Simpson. You will never get Social Security cuts, or age extensions passed. You will never get Pentagon cuts passed.

The only way to reduce deficit spending by four trillion dollars, over the next ten years, is to let the failed Bush Tax cuts expire. You can do that President Obama, without having to get any legislation passed.

KISS. They were supposed to create jobs, but instead we lost millions of jobs, and ballooned the annual deficits; so it is time to stop pretending that The Republican Leech treatment of the patient, has been efficacious. The truth is self evident. The economy collapsed, and the borrowing soared, once the Bush Leeches were applied to the patient.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 5, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

If Obama caves on the Bush tax cuts for the rich, it will be tantamount to George Bush's "Read My Lips" pledge to not succumb to a tax hike. And, like Bush No. 1, Obama will be a one term President, just like Mitch McConnell wants.

Posted by: dozas | December 5, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

@b51: A few, well crafted, liberal polls say everybody wants to homosexualize America's armed forces.

Homosexualize? REALLY? IS that a word? It just shows your blatant bigotry on this issue. Where are the polls saying that dadt is not supported by a majority? Are there any polling orgs you trust on this issue? If they existed surely you would provide links and quotes. Claims like this supporting a false narrative without credible sources are pretty much dishonest and meaningless.

factually incorrect. DADT is supported by over 60% of americans, far higher than supported integrating the armed forces in the 50s. Same arguments against that move, (unit cohesion, showering, eating, and sleeping with "them" but the US went forward and the armed forces is the most integrated institution in the US (not including prisons).

America sent the Obamacrats a resounding NO! NO on everything that Obama and his 'crats stand for.

False again. When Clinton and the dems pretty much swept the 1966 elections, no repubs were screaming about obeying the will of the people and not going through with impeachment. When Reagan had massive losses 2 years in, no repubs were saying that Reagan wasn't listening to the will of the voters.

Basically, this was one of the last "GET OFF MY LAWN" elections where the "keep your govt hands off my medicare" crowd outnumbered the under 30 crowd. Savor your victories as they will get more and more scarce as these folks go toward the light.

Your bigoted views are waning in popularity... as it should be

Obama's big problem is that he inherited the worst economy in 60 years, 2 unfunded poorly conceived and executed invasions (one completely unjustified based on a fair reading of available information) and the aftermath of 10 years of unpaid for tax cuts. its going to take a bit longer to try and undo all of the sh*t that bush did.

Its amazing tha anyone would say that keeping the tax cuts that bankrupted the nation in place is a good economic policy. After 8 years of the crappy tax cuts, no net job growth, no gains in income for the 90% of not wealthy people, more uninsured, higher poverty, etc. beyond making blackwater, KBR (halliburton), and a few inside traders multiple billions of dollars and gutting the constitution through the roberts court, what did we get out of the bush years?

Posted by: srw3 | December 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

"it is the left that scares them into voting against their interests..."

Another liberal...sorry, leftist...mind reader. Perhaps their interests are not quite as narrow as you think they are.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I realize this is the continuing saga of the Dead Agenda Society.


What about unemployment benefits ??? I don't hear the democrats screaming about that???


For some reason, the social issues on the Dead Agenda have become much more imporatnt to the democrats than the economic issues

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

srw3:

"Obama's big problem is that he inherited..."

Obama didn't "inherit" anything. He was well aware of the economic problems of the nation and he ran anyway, campaigning as the solution to those problems. He chose his job, it was not thrust upon him.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent: Other than completely ignoring that START is being held hostage for tax cuts, that DADT’s passage is hinged on Scott Brown’s need to look independent for the 2012 election, and that the Republicans have filibustered every major vote of the current session, your analysis makes perfect sense.

I mean, seriously. Just clap your hands and Tinkerbell is sure to stay alive.

Posted by: jiji1 | December 5, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

@sc3: actually a majority support letting the additional tax cuts that the >250K crowd gets expire is supported by a majority of people in poll after poll. Its only the repubs, funded by the 400o or so uber rich that are in favor of extra tax cuts for millionaires.

"Oh but they are the job creators!!!"--quoting any number of farrightwingnutistan residents.

Right, that's why there were no net job gains during the bush years when the tax rates were in place...

Posted by: srw3 | December 5, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Today is the Annivesary of the repeal of prohibition.

It is a significant day in our history.

Those were still the days when Whiskey was the drink for Americans. For much of the 1800s, and beyond, Whiskey was what everyone drank.


It was not until refrigeration and advances in transportation that beer became popular and lead Whiskey as the drink of choice. For some reason, in that year 1933, they allowed beer to be sold in the summer before the Constitutional Amendment was passed.


The big deal was still Whiskey - and for that everyone had to wait unde the Constitutional Amendment was passed. That happened on December 5 - a little after 4 pm on the East Coast - a time which was much anticipated.

Well

For the people then, that moment was the most anticipated in history.


Are you asking which State was the one to put them over the three quarters needed for ratification? Ironically you might be surprised to find out it was Utah.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I think I know why the left scares right wing voters.

You want the sky to be the limit on how rich rich people can get, no matter whether they worked for it, or earned it in any way other than being born: if they have it, they deserve it. I think you people think that top out of sight class of people, the dream that one day you too could be a member is the prime mover in the American Ur-myth. Without it, America would just be another affluent, well run country and that is really bad idea, am I right?

Posted by: shrink2 | December 5, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

@sc3: Obama didn't "inherit" anything. He was well aware of the economic problems of the nation and he ran anyway, campaigning as the solution to those problems. He chose his job, it was not thrust upon him.


He inherited the problems, whether he was aware of them or not (and I think he was). He certainly didn't create them.

Obama came in facing the worst economy in 50 years and a financial meltdown.

For the record, the financial crisis was discovered by the MSM after he decided to run for president.

Just because he accepted the daunting challenge of pulling the country out of the worst economic crisis in th last 50 years, doesn't mean that he should be able to fix 8 years of complete fiscal, economic, military and social dysfunction in 2 years.

Posted by: srw3 | December 5, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I think the argument in this piece is purely about the WH making sure they are able to at least show they can govern. Whether those who think the American people somehow were voting against repeal of DADT (even though polling on this shows a majority of Americans approve of repeal) there is plenty enough bipartisan support to pass it. Not passing something on his agenda that clearly has enough votes would be seen as a betrayal by the left and a sign of utter incompetence by almost everyone.

Posted by: riano | December 5, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

@rainin...aka sock puppet central:

What about unemployment benefits ??? I don't hear the democrats screaming about that???

Actually they have held multiple votes on this in the house and it is simply the hypocrites from rightwingnutistan that are holding it up in the senate. After 8 years of spending on the govt credit card for the uber rich, now that a dem is president, austerity is now the word of the day. Funny how there were no calls for austerity while bush doubled the national debt, adding more than all previous presidents combined or funding 2 wars and medicare D without paying for them. There is a big memory hole in rightwingnutistan.

If you can't hear the screaming, then you are not listening. why don't you go to an unemployment office and have a listen.

Posted by: srw3 | December 5, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

srw:

“actually a majority support letting the additional tax cuts that the >250K crowd gets expire is supported by a majority of people in poll after poll.”

I’m not sure why you addressed this to me. My policy preferences have never been determined by a majority vote.

“Right, that's why there were no net job gains during the bush years when the tax rates were in place...”

It is just plain economic illiteracy for anyone (on either side) to pretend that the tax rate is the sole determining factor on job creation/economic health.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still and shrink2, even assuming that Obama and the Dems let the Bush tax cuts expire, the Republican House will take over on January 5, 2011. When Obama vetoes a retroactive tax cut, and the economy gets worse, it will indeed be "he raised taxes during a recession." Good luck with that.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 5, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Shrink:

“am I right?”

No, neither in your premises, nor in your conclusions.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

srw:

“He inherited the problems.”

No, he didn’t. This is a semantic deceit.

“He certainly didn't create them.”

Agreed, although he was certainly a part of congress which helped to create some of them.

“Just because he accepted the daunting challenge of pulling the country out of the worst economic crisis in th last 50 years, doesn't mean that he should be able to fix 8 years of complete fiscal, economic, military and social dysfunction in 2 years.”

Putting your questionable premises aside, no president can “fix” the economy. There is no magical “fix economy” button in the Oval Office. What he (and other presidents) can do is advocate for policies that tend to be amenable to growth in economic activity, or he can advocate for policies that tend to be amenable to the restriction of economic activity. They are not, however, the sole determining factor.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

srw3 at 11:44 AM


As you are probably aware, I am an extreme fiscal Conservative - I want to slash everything.

I have never taken a dollar from the government in any program - and hopefully I will never have to.


However, I understand what has happened with the economy, and I understand that the jobs are simply not there. 5% of the jobs in this country disappeared, and many of them are not coming back with any kind of new recovery.

So that is my reasoning.


That is why I am in favor of extenting the unemployment benefits - and perhaps they should be extended until the unemployment rate gets down to some level.


Maybe we should ask those people to go down to townhall and do some kind of work for the community for 10-20 hours a week. It would not hurt anyone and may actually be productive for all.


Anyway - that is about the limit of my fiscal Conservatism - everything else should be slashed - we are wasting so much money in these budgets.


I don't think the liberals have ever looked at a budget - or even some of these union contracts - which they profess so much undying support for expending ALL that money.


I honestly believe that 20-30% of All the budgets could be slashed - without anyone feeling any impact at all.


Anyway - this is an Economic Crisis - and Im on that.


See - on things like this one has to EXPECT the democrats to represent these people - and when the democrats are too busy representing their special interests - and they don't represent the people they are suppose to represnt - that is not good government at all.


That is the same concept why I see Clinton as such a disaster - he stopped representing the traditional democratic interests - went with the special interests - AND that is why/how we ended up with the derivatives being de-regulated and the Free Trade Deals.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Liam,

Long time...good to see your tag again.

Bears bangin' up the NoDiv!

Posted by: tao9 | December 5, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Tao

I think the Packers are going to win the Division

The thing this year: the NFC South has a relatively easy schedule - so they might take both wildcards. Tampa Bay has a good record.


So, when the dust settles, the NFC North and the NFC East might not have any wildcards - So, these Division wins are really important because of the schedule - someone is going miss the playoffs


It is entirely possible to see a Division tied - and decided on tiebreakers - and then that team not even getting into the playoffs.


Keep an eye on Tampa Bay - they could sneak in with New Orleans and be the two wildcards - then the other two Divisions are stuck.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Shrink wrote: "You want the sky to be the limit on how rich rich people can get, no matter whether they worked for it, or earned it in any way other than being born: if they have it, they deserve it. I think you people think that top out of sight class of people, the dream that one day you too could be a member is the prime mover in the American Ur-myth. "

Is this a serious attempt, by a psychiatrist, to understand the motivations of people who are idealogically different?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 5, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Long time, no see, Liam. Welcome back. We thought perhaps the election results had traumatized you.

I wouldn't get my hopes up about DADT repeal during this congress. It does look like unemployment benefits will be extended as part of a deal on extending the tax cuts.

Posted by: Brigade | December 5, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I keep reminding myself How much better things are with President Obama with his marshmallows for vertebrae than if we had Mr. McCain and Mz. P***n with her relentless freedom of screech. Then there wouldn't even be a question about limiting the tax bonuses for the ultra-rich. (Out here in the real world, it takes many very hard-working people 10 YEARS to make $250,000. 40 YEARS to make a million dollars.) Fox NotNews would bury us all if McCain/P***n had prevailed.

Posted by: wendyf | December 5, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone watch McConnell and Kerry on Meet the Press?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 5, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Let the tax cuts expire. If repubs say he raised taxes, he can say he cut the deficit more than repubs wanted (let's face it: the repubs arent serious). Dems have to stop being afraid of being called names. Taking a stand will get you more respect than not taking a stand. Don't believe me? See last two years and election. Caving gets dems nothing and their base walks out on them.

Posted by: Alex3 | December 5, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

A few, well crafted, liberal polls say everybody wants to homosexualize America's armed forces. That is the propaganda phase of the big push to force this issue on an unwilling America.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 5, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse


---

Truly a stupid comment. Gays have been serving in the military before the siege of Troy. Perhaps BG should have listened to some of the testimony this week (still available on C-SPAN).

How about this. A two year extension of all tax cuts, subject to an open debate on DADT (amendments allowed) with a commitment to a vote on both DADT and START. Wasn't in the Republicans whining about up and down votes not so long ago?

Oh, and let Tom Coburn author the bill on offsetting expenditure cuts to extend unemployment insurance.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 5, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Obama didn't "inherit" anything. He was well aware of the economic problems of the nation and he ran anyway, campaigning as the solution to those problems. He chose his job, it was not thrust upon him. "

Like, you know when Lehman went under, right? Kind of right before the election. You knew that and just forgot because you wouldn't be intentionally misleading, right?

Also, that doesn't change the fact that Obama inherited the problem. Whether he knew about it or not doesn't change the fact that he didn't create the jobs crash.

But you knew that and just forgot, I assume. Other than enderaing yourself to your Conservative Club members, what would be the purpose of lying, right? None, right?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 5, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

ddawd:

"Whether he knew about it or not doesn't change the fact that he didn't create the jobs crash."

I didn't say he "created" any of particular problem.

The constant narrative of the left, including from Obama himself, that judgment of his handling of problems ought to be tempered by the fact that he "inherited" them, is absurd. He sought the job along with all of the responsibilities that it entails. If he didn't think he could manage the problems of the nation (known and unknown), then he shouldn't have asked for the job. If he thinks he can manage them, then he should stop whining about the fact that he "inherited" them. Bush "inherited" an Islamic terrorism problem. That doesn't, and shouldn't, distract from his management of the problem.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

There is, of course, another side; taken for the most part by soldiers who have experienced actual combat.

A sample (which BTW cuts down one of the assertions @ swr3's 12/5/10 11:11 AM):

"The “functional imperative,” i.e. the purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to fight and win the nation’s wars. Success in combat requires trust and personal/unit bonding. But as a number of commentators have noted, the report does not identify a single benefit of repealing the ban when it comes to recruiting, retention, unit effectiveness, and readiness of the force.

"Instead, the report seems to be predicated on the idea that the integration of open homosexuals into the military is merely the most recent manifestation of the quest for civil rights that began with African Americans after World War II. According to this view, lifting the ban against military service by open homosexuals is analogous to President Truman’s executive order racially integrating the military services.

"But Truman’s order was motivated by concerns about military effectiveness, not civil rights. For a variety of reasons, segregated African-American units generally did not perform well on the battlefields of World War II. Truman’s actions were in response to military-manpower experts who believed that integration would improve the military effectiveness of black soldiers."

The author is Mac Owens, decorated Vietnam combat vet, USMarine Colonel (Ret), and a Dean at the Naval War College in Newport.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/repealing-dont-ask-will-weaken-us-military_520652.html

Posted by: tao9 | December 5, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

It is profoundly sad to see our best, perhaps last, chance to modernize the government so soundly defeated by a political wing of our country that is so proudly ignorant of facts. At times I'd swear that republicans were all Chinese agents since they are handing the future leadership of the world over to them on a daily basis. Although even China isn't so anti-Obama that Jiabo would say outright that its #1 policy is to make a failure out of the President of the United States. Only Mitch "The Human Turtle" and Ahmadinejad are so dedicated to destroying America's Commander in Chief.
I have a quick question to the conservative trolls who lurk on this blog: when the tax breaks that were in the stimulus run out will you fight for their extension too?

Posted by: eadsiv | December 5, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

There really is no reason why Obama shouldn't resign.

The blacks are behind him, but that really is a racist thing, and nothing else.


Obama has accomplished nothing he said he was going to do. Bipartisanship. Nothing. Transparency, no birth certificate and he refuses to open the file in Hawaii. Compromise. Obama obstructs all negotiations with show votes designed to embarrass the other side. Obama is nothing more than a proven joke.


It is shameful.

The Obama people push the lies and deceptions like drug dealers. Obama should resign and just spare the nation the next two years. The country is in an Economic Crisis and the only responsible thing to do for Obama to do is resign. Otherwise, Obama is just standing in the way of Economic Recovery for his own personal arrogant reasons, and that is not the time for this.


One man's ego should stand aside for the good of the nation.


If the liberals can not see that, they are even more pathetic than most people think.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd

You continue your ignorant and blantantly racist comments on this blog.


Everyone knows the current economic crisis began in 2006. If Obama wasn't ready to deal with the economy, then Obama should not have run in 2008.


You keep on tinging your comments with racism. Everyone is sick of it by now.
We get it. We get that you love Obama. However at some point, the good of the nation has to come before the color of one's skin.


How much of a moron can you be???

Seriously, everyone has attempted to engage you properly and politely. However, you never seem to accept that good will and respond with honest assessments of Obama. Instead, it is always the same old racism from you. It is 2010 man - time to stop being racist and put the color of your skin aside.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

tao:

Interesting link. Unfortunately, it will be immediately dismissed by certain quarters here for the simple reason that the link begins with www.weeklystandard.com.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

eadsiv:

"I have a quick question to the conservative trolls who lurk on this blog"

Is the qualifier "troll" meaningful here, or is it simply a gratuitous insult to any conservative that dares to post here?

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

If you are a real American, you want Obama out of office as fast as possible.


If you are unAmerican, and you value things which are unAmerican, then you want Obama to screw up America as much as possible.


Pretty simple.


Case closed.


That is all true.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I am SpartaTrollCus.

Posted by: tao9 | December 5, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't say he "created" any of particular problem."

Um, either he inherited it or it happened on his watch. To say that Obama knew about the problem before he became President is as germane as saying that Abraham Lincoln's face is on the penny. Yeah, it's true, but it's got nothing to do with anything.

But yeah, I get it. You're a Conservative and you have to say Conservative Things. I guess that means tossing a red herring or two out there.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 5, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

eadsiv:

Clearly the liberals on this blog are equally trolls - they use the term to attempt to smear the other side, but all they end up doing is discredit themselves.


Sort of like everything Obama has done in office - the more "unprecedented" he tries to be, the more trite his idiocy is.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd

It is time you start looking at yourself.

Your every opinion is tinged with the color of your skin.


It is about time you start to think outside the color of your skin.


Seriously man.


You can do so much better. No one cares anymore. You have to step out of your hate.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Whether he knew about it or not doesn't change the fact that he didn't create the jobs crash."


-----------------


It doesn't matter. When you run for President, you agree to take on whatever conditions there are at the moment.

Those conditions are yours, for good or worse.


You accept the responsibility when you file the papers to run - for good or worse. You agree to run the economy. You agree to run the military. NO - you are ASKING to run the economy. You are ASKING to run the military.


You are ASKING for the job.


Blame - that has no place. Blame does not enter into anything. Complaining, saying the conditions are bad - none of that means anything. Because you have the power, you have it all. IF YOU CAN NOT HANDLE IT, GET OUT, AND GET OUT NOW.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The comment at 6:08 is right on the mark


At this point, the liberals are acting like children. Not like they haven't been acting like children for the past two year, it's just worse since the election.


At this point, the most important thing is running the nation properly. Running the Economy, Running the military and Running the Foreign Policy. Obama is NOT up to the job.

The most patriotic thing a liberal can do right now is call for Obama to resign.


The most important thing right is for the liberals to call for Obama to get out of office. We can NOT waste the next two years. We have to worry about the Economy. We have to worry about Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Tajikistan. Obama is not up to the task.


Seriously folks.


The country should not have to wait until 2013 to get rid of Obama. We have already wasted the last two yeard. The country has been governed poorly, and things will not get better with gridlock. Obama has to go.


Obama has to go as soon as possible.


There is no reason why the business of the nation should be put on hold while one person's ego plays itself out.


It is time for the liberals to grow up and be responsible.


There is no other way out of where we are now, except to drag the nation and the economy down further than it is now. The shameful behavior has to stop.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

At this point the liberals and their Dead Agenda Society doing nothing but drag the Economy and the nation down.


It is that simple.


Case closed. The country has to get rid of Obama as soon as possible to get the Economy moving again. Perhaps Obama knows this and will resign in between his meds - who knows what will happen to this nation if we can not get rid of Obama.


The nation needs a fresh start.


The nation needs a clean break with Obama and the liberals.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"For the record, the financial crisis was discovered by the MSM after he decided to run for president."

Hilariously pathetic. Poor Barry. Tricked by history into running! Couldn't turn back. His wax wings melted by the sun. Striding heriocally onto the world stage only to be bitten in the rear by cursed capitalist failure . . . oh wait.

I have some questions for the liberal trolls on this blog. Do you ever grow weary of class warfare 24/7? With your obsession with punishing "the wealthiest Americans"? With the bitterness and bile in your souls? Do you really think anyone believes your obsession is at all relevant to solving our economic problems?

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 5, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Government action during the financial crisis averted total meltdown:

Documents from the Federal Reserve indicate that Goldman Sachs (GS) (despite claims from CEO Lloyd Blankfein that they were doing “God’s work” and that the firm could have survived without help from the Fed) tapped the Fed’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) 84 times and Morgan Stanley (MS) 212 times between March 2008 and March 2009. Citigroup (C) used the facility almost daily, tapering off in April 2009. Bank of America (BAC), between September 18, 2008 and May 12, 2009 used the facility more than 1000 times. Other lending facilities made available include the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF); Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) – used by industrial companies in need of over-night financing, with GE borrowing $15 billion a dozen times; Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) – providing loans up to 28 days, and the Term Auction Facility (TAF) which allowed banks to bid for loans without the stigma associated with the Fed’s discount window.

SOURCE: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20101201a.htm

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 5, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Once again to the conservative trolls (I stand by the term; I mean why else are you posting conservative claptrap in a liberal forum?)
WILL YOU FIGHT FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE TAX CUTS THAT WERE IN THE OBAMA/DEM STIMULUS?
I apologize for the caps, I don't mean to resort to palin twitter tactics but apparently no troll read the actual substance of my post so I'll just resort to the intellectual level of [insert least favorite politician's name here].

Posted by: eadsiv | December 5, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

No one cares about your stupid question, and your post had no substance. You are a troll yourself. And now I'll ignore your "claptrap."

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 5, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Why do I suddenly feel like I'm in my grade school playground? I suppose the only decent response to qb1 is, "I know you are but what am I?"

Posted by: eadsiv | December 5, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

eadsiv,

YES, I AM FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE TAX CUTS THAT WERE IN BARRY'S PORKULUS BILL. I'LL TOSS IN A COMPLETE REPEAL OF CAPITAL GAINS TAXES AS WELL.

I hope this helps.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 5, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

ddawd:

"But yeah, I get it."

Clearly, you don't.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Typical liberal clown -- drops in with a vacuous taunt, calling people trolls, and then complains about playground rhetoric.

Zero credibility after three posts. But I'm pretty sure it is rukidding with a new name. Same schtick.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 5, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

@eadsiv,

The nature of the blog at present is extremely depressing. Each "side" accuses the other of being unbearably stupid and beneath contempt. Many of the posts insult others and vow that others are completely dishonest and worthless.

When people do engage, it tends to be semantic, arguments about what words mean rather than about actual problems.

Perhaps you should feel fortunate that no one will engage with you.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 5, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell trolls,
It trolls for thee.

Posted by: tao9 | December 5, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

12bar:

"When people do engage, it tends to be semantic, arguments about what words mean..."

The meaning of words is very important to substantive discussions. It is hard to discuss solutions to problems when we don't even agree on how to describe or characterize those problems. This is particularly true when the language used is packed with loaded, unexamined, and highly questionable assumptions.

For example, when someone posits a problem like the "looting of the American economy", it's rather necessary to understand exactly what this is supposed to be referring to before the discussion can go anywhere.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

"Do you ever grow weary of class warfare 24/7? With your obsession with punishing "the wealthiest Americans"? "

It's not about punishing wealthy Americans. It's about having a grasp of arithmetic.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 5, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Thank you for giving so much credit to Bush and his economic programs


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

Example for today: "inherit".

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 5, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"Clearly, you don't.

December 5"

What am I getting wrong? That you don't actually believe your lies?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 5, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

OK (& hi 12Bar...hope you had a good T/giving)!

If the current House leadership were to propose legislation to extend the StimRebates I would stand shoulder to bald spot with Hoyer/Pelosi et.al..

The knock on the $400-$800 payroll giveback was exactly that it was a one-time rebate, not a rate cut. Dems critized W's iteration for exactly that reason.

The rebates were not the focus of fiscally based objection to the Stimulus. The main abominations were for the pay-offs to the public unions, and all the idle shovels.

Happy now?

Troll in haste,
Gaffe at leisure.
(Wm. Tao Congreve, 1693)

Posted by: tao9 | December 5, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Politico right now is running an article on the "doctor fix" - and how it is a part of Obama's health care plan.

Logically, you can not cover so many more people - and pretend NOT to pay the doctors' bills by keeping them off-budget. Well, that is what Obama is doing.


Obama and Pelosi put a $225 Billion "doctor fix" off the health care budget last year, Plus the $500 Billion which is taken from Medicare, Plus the seven years of benefits against the 10 years of taxes.


Those are just a few of the accounting tricks that Obama used to pretend the plan was "paid for."


The truth is Obama's health care plan has a Massive Deficit to begin with - usually programs like this get worse over time, as everyone learns to game the system.


Well.


The "Doctor Fix" is going to be on the table come January - and if Obama is going to keep to his pledge that his health care plan is "paid for," Obama is going to have to find a way to pay the doctors' bills.


Pretty simple.


Obama. You want a health care plan? Pay the doctors. Simple. You said you had them paid when you went before Congress. Pay them. Say how you are going to pay the doctors.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote: "It's not about punishing wealthy Americans. It's about having a grasp of arithmetic."

What arithmetic is not being grasped?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 5, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"What arithmetic is not being grasped?"

This whole idea that somehow the deficit will be reduced without cutting spending and by cutting taxes.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 5, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

The liberals just do not understand how much money they are spending.

They never look at the real numbers - they never see how badly they have destroyed the budget


And look at the blue States - massive deficits as well - States on the verge of breaking - Illinois, New York California - local budgets and school boards.


All crammed with expensive union contracts. You just don't get it. Look at the costs of some of these contracts

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Example for today: "inherit"."

Fair enough. Why do you suppose Obama and his supporters, 2 years into his term in office, continue to refer to the problems that he is ostensibly trying to "fix" as "inherited problems"? Why aren't they simply "the nation's problems"? If this is little more than a matter of insignificant semantics, why is this formulation continually being pushed?

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,
I agree, there is a lot of talk on this blog about deficits and taxes and very little discussion of reducing spending. I'll start. I propose the elimination of the Department of Ejamacashun.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 5, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

This is where Liberal Insanity takes you: Julian Assange

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has circulated across the internet an encrypted “poison pill” cache of uncensored documents suspected to include files on BP and Guantanamo Bay.

___________________---


Assange, a liberal, is taking his black-mail and terrorism to a new height.


He must be completely insane - does he really believe the world will be a better place when he is done with these antics?


I say throw him in Gitmo - give him a military trial - and shot him - rather quickly.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Uh oh, this will make lefties of the world weep.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5igLhpFXyv-VRG5thAgiJk0OORBNw?docId=CNG.7936abe2aac85ef50ca11a2d6b6c031b.dc1

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 5, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

You know what I find so ironical? Obviously the tax cuts will all be extended for presumably at least 2 years even though the majority of Americans polled think only the middle class cuts should be extended and we're now just hoping and praying the Republicans will see their way clear to extend unemployment benefits. No matter that it shouldn't even be a bargaining chip considering that in the last 40 years they've always been extended during times of high unemployment.

Let's see, what else? A freeze on federal workers pay, 14-15 Senate Dem signatories to a letter recommending numerous of the deficit commission's recommendations, a stunning KORUS FTA that obliterates Obama's campaign promises re trade, an increase in the unemployment rate but Obama's still the enemy of conservatives and libs have bile in their souls.

Oh and Scott, we all agree on the definition of looting, we just disagree whether the financial industry did it or not.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 5, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

As I have said before, I avoid semantics arguments. Since the meaning of the word "inherit" is fairly obvious, what does it add to the discussion to debate it? Maybe some people enjoy that. It just makes me groan.

I'm the wrong person to ask why others want to go deep into Webster's. It seems like such a waste of the brain God gave us.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 5, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

@tao,

Thanks for the hello. Hello to you too. I've been lurking the last month, but the heart has gone out of me temporarily since my dog died. I'm coping ok, though, and hope to get another in a few months. My dog was such a great companion, and I miss him.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 5, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Cipherin' my Jethro Bodine gozintas...

2010 deficit $1.6T = $1,600B
$1,600B X 10yrs = $16,000B

Tax Extension $200K/$250K adds $700B to deficit over 10yrs or $70B per year...

...$70B AKA approx. 5% of the (very likely lowball) 10yr deficit projection.

As I posted here before G went WaPO, the Feds could confiscate 100% of the income of the highest earners and it would slightly dent the deficit, and wouldn't even ding the total Public Debt.

So yeah, it is class warfare, and, I hate to say it, a little garden-variety unlovely human envy. (Which is a 7Deadly. Doh!).

BTW: How come no one kicks when, say, Jeter makes $40M @ the last 3 years of Yankeehood?

Posted by: tao9 | December 5, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

"Fair enough. Why do you suppose Obama and his supporters, 2 years into his term in office, continue to refer to the problems that he is ostensibly trying to "fix" as "inherited problems"? Why aren't they simply "the nation's problems"? If this is little more than a matter of insignificant semantics, why is this formulation continually being pushed?"

Better question, why are his detractors refer to the economic problems as a result of Obama's tenure?

To call the nation's problems inherited is semantics. To call these problems a result of Obama is bald-faced lying.

Maybe people who refer to the problems as inherited aren't using the words you would like them to use, but they are being honest.

Not you. You and those who blame Obama for the job market are bald-faced liars.

So stop your whining.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 5, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

The Conservatives finally have something they can agree with Assange on:

MADRID — President Barack Obama should resign if it can be shown that he approved spying by US diplomatic figures on UN officials, the founder of WikiLeaks said in an interview published Sunday.

"The whole chain of command who was aware of this order, and approved it, must resign if the US is to be seen to be a credible nation that obeys the rule of law. The order is so serious it may well have been put to the president for approval," Julian Assange told Spanish daily El Pais.

"Obama must answer what he knew about this illegal order and when. If he refuses to answer or there is evidence he approved of these actions, he must resign," he added during an Internet chat interview published online.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"Obviously the tax cuts will all be extended for presumably at least 2 years even though the majority of Americans polled think only the middle class cuts should be extended..."

From a policy point of view (as opposed to a political point of view) should it matter what a majority of polled Americans say? That is, would you suddenly support the extension of all the tax cuts if a majority of Americans polled thought they should be?

"Oh and Scott, we all agree on the definition of looting, we just disagree whether the financial industry did it or not."

If you think an abstract concept such as an "industry" can engage in literal "looting" suggests to me that we do not agree at all on what the term means.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD,
I agree, there is a lot of talk on this blog about deficits and taxes and very little discussion of reducing spending. I'll start. I propose the elimination of the Department of Ejamacashun."

Fair enough. What would this save?

Also, do thoughts on passing massive tax cuts before these spending cuts are made?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 5, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Julian Assange presents the liberals with an interesting dilemma:


Had the release of these papers been with Bush in office, the liberals would have given full support to Assange - screaming from the rafters how important openness was - no matter what the costs to US policy around the world.


HOWEVER, today we find their precious Obama in charge of foreign policy - and Assange threatening any accomplishments that Obama may hope to make.

Assange is doing his best to make Obama and Hillary look bad --

Bush actually comes off looking pretty good in wikileaks - no major scandals, not major misconduct - nothing of anything to write home about in terms of slamming Bush as the liberals would have hoped.


IN FACT, all the rhetoric of the past 10 years in which the democrats sought to make Bush the bad guy, and criticize Bush's foreign policy - all that has pretty much been PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE BY WIKILEAKS.


So, the liberals have been really caught by Assange - the liberals have been forced to mute their instincts to support such an exposure of government secrets, Obama comes off badly - AND Bush is vindicated.

It is a triple slam to the liberals in the United States -

Of course, with the liberals so concerned with their Liberal Agenda in the lame duck session, more accurately called the Dead Agenda Society, the liberals have been relatively silent.


Overall, Assange has leveled the liberals - they have little to say. And the liberals are wondering if Obama is going to come out of this without much damage.


Obama's foreign policy has been exposed as weak and directionless. What little foreign policy Obama has, has been shown to be hopelessly unrealistic -

And other parts of Obama's foreign policy have embarrassed Obama in that if Obama has to bribe foreign countries to go along with his liberal notions, such as sending Gitmo detainees to live around the world, then there is clearly something wrong with Obama's policies.


Beyond that, it is shocking how little of Obama's policies have actually been implemented or are working. It is almost as if Obama is not a world leader at all - instead of being the leader of a Superpower


It is shocking how little impact Obama has had in the world, beyond giving the terrorists in Afghanistan a pull-out date, there is nothing except the extenstion of Reagan's arms treaty.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"As I have said before, I avoid semantics arguments."

Actually, what I have noticed is that you you use this as an excuse to avoid challenges to your thinking. For example, if you said "That is a circle" and I said "No, it's very clearly a square", you might reply "I am not interested in semantic arguments". This has happened more than once with you.

"Since the meaning of the word "inherit" is fairly obvious, what does it add to the discussion to debate it?"

We weren't debating the meaning of the word.

"I'm the wrong person to ask why others want to go deep into Webster's."

I didn't ask you that. I asked you why people continue to use a specific formulation if, as you are implying, the words in that formulation are insignificant.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

12Bar,

Really sorry about your dog.

NewPuppy = Plenary Indulgence; 4400 days of Luv&Kibble ;>)

4 your heart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRobryliBLQ

Posted by: tao9 | December 5, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

Please ignore me. We'll both appreciate it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 5, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

@tao,

That is a wonderful hymn, one that I've never heard before. Thank you for sending me that.

Everyone, follow the link for a wonderful boys' choir hymn in Gloucester.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 5, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

ddawd:

"You and those who blame Obama for the job market are bald-faced liars."

Please cite the post in which I blamed Obama for anything, much less the "job market". If you can't (as I know you can't), then what is it exactly you think I have lied about?

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

"That is, would you suddenly support the extension of all the tax cuts if a majority of Americans polled thought they should be?"

Maybe, I find myself on the same side as a lot of polling. Afghanistan isn't polling well, the public option polled very well, repealing DADT polls well also. It'll be interesting to see how KORUS fares in public polling, I'll bet not that great, although I hear the Chamber loves, loves, loves it.

And you're right, I shouldn't blanket the entire financial industry in the looting, but I wouldn't mind seeing a few prosecutions come out of the entire housing bubble decimation of American's livelihood.

tao, I don't know about envy, but it's generally the furthest thing from my mind. And I thought everything was on the table, even eliminating some tax cuts. A few billion here a few billion there and suddenly we're talking more than chump change. So far most of the people with incomes in the top 2% seem to be faring pretty well compared to the other 98%. Just a thought. Personally, I'd just as soon see them all expire.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 5, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Scott

I've blamed Clinton and his policies for the derivatives markets and the sub-prime mortgage disaster.

And that is correct

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome 12Bar. Love that video, the carol is one my college did every year at Candlelight services.

The dadgum Anglicans & Lutherans always have the best tune-age!

asta, all

Posted by: tao9 | December 5, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Please ignore me. We'll both appreciate it."

Posting on an open comments board is probably not a great idea if one wishes not to be read. I'd recommend a private chat room if you wish to have only a self-selected audience.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

"That is, would you suddenly support the extension of all the tax cuts if a majority of Americans polled thought they should be?"


---------------


Clearly, the liberals who are attempting to make the argument that the tax cuts are not fully supported by the American People.


Those are the same people who did not care about what the American People thought about Obama's health care plan.

Pelosi said we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it - in those situations, why poll at all? The public does NOT only not know what is good for them, the public doesn't even know what is in the bill.


Simply amazing to see the liberals - after two years of "Bait and Switch" government, are now trying to rely on the polling for what is correct.


AND, on top of that, the polling hardly says what the liberals say.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

@tao,

The Catholics still lag behind when it comes to music, imo.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 5, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh give me a bleepin' break. Think people.

More than 15 million Americans are out of work and need unemployment benefits continued. If all the Bush tax cuts are extended for a couple years -- even for the wealthy -- the middle class and lower class still keep the same tax rate too. The $250K or $1 million plans each are a subset of the entire Bushwhacked tax package.

The Senate vote failed 53 yea - 36 nay - 11 not voting. Five Democrats -- which still would not have put the Dems over the top -- voted no on the tax cuts offered by the Dems: Manchin, Webb, Feingold (!), Lieberman and Ben Nelson (Nebraska).

Everyone keeps claiming this is an Obama problem. The no-voters came from a raving progressive (Feingold, a true lame duck, no less) and a range of moderate to conservatives. Okay... now what?

Since you people know so much, how do you woo a Feingold and a Manchin? and where do you get the other two votes? Voinovich of Ohio? Kay Bailey Hutchinson, susan Collins, Olympia Snowe (alas, she voted no).

So, Obama snatching some tiny sliver of victory from the jaws of certain, continued and embarrassing progressive defeat, chose to look out for the 15 million who need money now, take one for the gang that can't shoot straight and move on to get New Start, DADT and more.

Come January, when the Democrats' numbers dwindle down to endangered species levels, having President Obama willing to do what it takes to make some progress on the Democratic agenda.

To those who want to make threats... you'll never vote for Obama again... you're going to support a more progressive candidate... you're going to start a third party...

"To the left, to the left... your stuff in a box to the left." Please do not let the doorknob hit you. We'll be mighty fine without you. You...irreplaceable? Keep kidding yourselves.

Posted by: jade_7243 | December 5, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Baltimore really looks good tonight - it could be them and the Jets for the AFC title this year.

I know this year, we have almost every week, everyone is saying this team is good, and the next week it's a different team, but Baltimore is strong

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 5, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"Maybe, I find myself on the same side as a lot of polling."

But there is a lot of polling, I presume, in which you find yourself on the opposite side. In other words, I assume that you do not look to polls to determine what your policy preferences should be. You establish your own opinion without looking to see what a majority of others think. Am I wrong?

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 5, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Scott

You might be shocked to discover if I find myself to be an outlier on something that is polling well with the majority of Americans, I probably would at least question the wisdom of my commitment. You're right though, I don't rely on polling to form a policy opinion. I know where you're going, it's pretty obvious, I only like the polls that agree with me right? If you'll remember the polling on the HCR bill without the public option, I should have stuck to my policy guns, I knew the bill didn't go far enough but for selfish reasons supported it anyway. Funny now that the polling from Indies and Dems says the bill didn't go far enough, which I knew at the time. Who know if or when it will ever be revisited in a proper manner?

Democrats would do better, Obama included, if they actually paid a little more attention to polling. The majority of Americans didn't like Citizens United either, and whether their legal arguments were correct or not, their instincts re corporate money in politics was right on.

I'm tire and rambling, sorry, we had a busy weekend and I'm beat.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 5, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

RainForestRising, I think that Assange is a high-tech terrorist. He's done enormous damage to our country and our relationship with our allies. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and if that's a problem under current law, we need to change the laws.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 5, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Umm, Larry, you might notice that Assange isn't resident in the US. Any changes we could possibly make to our laws would make no difference.\\BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 5, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

There are actually some prohibitions against doing what it takes to stop him even in a foreign country. For instance, 18 U.S.C. 1512 may need to be changed (murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant).

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 6, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Even Sen. Kerry (D-MA) agreed that "there is real damage" and said today that Assange should be arrested. "I was very much involved back in the days when the Pentagon Papers came out. This has no relationship to something like that. This is voyeurism. This is sort of anarcal . . ."

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 6, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama - in a move unprecedented - is starting his own branch of mathematics - this is all designed to create the impression that Obama is unprecedented - obviously Obama sometimes needs his own math to do that


From today's Post

"But in reaching 392,862 deportations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year, according to agency statistics. ICE also ran a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer than ever before, allowing the agency to count at least 6,500 exits that, without the program, would normally have been tallied by the U.S. Border Patrol. "

_____________________________

Funny how the unemployment numbers appeared to "unexpectedly" stay steady through the election, and then jumped up "unexpectedly" after the election


Or were the numbers just being held back, and now we see what the unemployment has been all along?

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 6, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12 and Fairlington


What Assange has done is straight espionage - it makes no difference where it took place, in which country, in the US or outside the US.


He is not a citizen of the US, so what he has done is not treason. To the extend that the country in which he is a citizen - Australia or Sweden - has been betrayed that is for them to decide.


Manning - the guy who gave him the information - he is guilty of Treason - they should shot him.


Spies should be shot as well. There is a law against taking our nation's classified materials and giving it to foreign governments - it matters little if the materials are on the internet for everyone else to read besides the foreign spy agencies.


It is silly to say this guy has not broken a law - that is just the liberal Obama and his kooky guys at the Justice Dept, somehow thinking that in their liberal dreams all this exposure is somehow good for the nation.

That just goes to show you how damaging extreme liberalism is.


In any event, Obama is directly at fault for not moving against Assange earlier - and effectively. Everyone knew six months ago that this situation would develop into a major incident. Assange should have been in custody a long time ago.


It is simply - our country is at war - and the release of these papers aids our enemies - it is a simple case of falling under the War Powers Resolution Against Terrorism.

It's Obama's fault. Obama not only looks ineffective in the papers - he has been completely ineffective in stopping the release of the papers - or mitigating their effects.


The liberals wanted this guy Obama in there - and they have him - complete incompetence - and a complete inability to know what is important.

Obama is a disaster. What else is going to happen?

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 6, 2010 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Greg

You thought it was a good idea to hold a vote on the tax cuts when everyone told you that it was going no-where

Now you want to hold debate on Dont Ask when everyone is telling you it is going no-where


You keep on pretending two things do not exist - last month's elections in which the American People clearly said they do NOT want the liberal agenda. You are pretending the election never happened.


You are also talking like there will not be another election in two years, in which 14 democratic Senators are vulnerable.

You may not be thinking about their re-election efforts, and you might be thinking it is a good idea for them to cast wreckless votes - but THEY are thinking about how they are going to get re-elected. Casting votes AGAINST the sentiment of the nation in a lame duck session is the kind of thing that people don't forget, even if the election is two years away.


You just are not thinking.


You are pretending that elections don't happen - and these guys have to get re-elected. Go ahead, write some more crap about the DEAD AGENDA - what are you going do come January ?

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 6, 2010 1:28 AM | Report abuse

"The majority of Americans didn't like Citizens United either, and whether their legal arguments were correct or not, their instincts re corporate money in politics was right on"

The majority of Americans have no idea what CU held or why. One might be tempted to draw a connection between that confusion and the fact that Obama and his party flagrantly lied about the decision. But now we know again that Democrats believe in politically overriding constitutional rights they don't like.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 6, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse

""It's not about punishing wealthy Americans. It's about having a grasp of arithmetic."

"What arithmetic is not being grasped?"

"This whole idea that somehow the deficit will be reduced without cutting spending and by cutting taxes."

First, economics and deficits aren't a matter of simple arithmetic. You're going to at least need some algebra to understand it.

Second, the deficit obviously can be "reduced" without either, but I'm not aware of anyone on the right who doesn't think spending must be cut.

Third, as tao yet again showed above, soaking "the wealthiest Americans" will never make much of a dent in the deficit. Everyone knows that if they know a little "arithmetic." And that is based on static analysis that doesn't even take into account the thoroughly proven impact of taxes on economic activity, growth, income, and tax revenue.

So the left's perennial "soak the rich" mania has nothing to do with economic sense. It is movivated by envy, bitterness, and a desire to punish and expropriate "the rich." Just as I said.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 6, 2010 6:59 AM | Report abuse

This is not as much a lame-duck session as it is a dead-duck session. It's roasted duck for Christmas, this year.

Nobody but a few leftover Obamacrats wants to pursue this raft of dead-end bones being thrown to the Democrat, liberal fringe.

Let's just forget this stale "chicken crap" and move on to some fresh business.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 6, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

What this lame-duck session is is a giant exercise in arrogance by the Dems.

The electorate just shouted a giant "NO, STOP!" at them, and they respond with frantic efforts to jam through more of their leftist agenda and scream about GOP "obstruction."

What an incredible performance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 6, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/the_morning_plum_144.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 6, 2010 8:38 AM | 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