Last night at midnight I had a "jumping off the Obama bandwagon" post all prepared. I'm glad I decided to wait til I could gather my thoughts and think somewhat clearer before I clicked that publish button. My bloggy friends here are as divided on this tax cut legislation as the democratic party is. So whatever I say here will be hated by some and agreed upon by others. I have decided I will stand with President Obama.
That doesn't mean I agree 100% with this bill, I think what Bernie Sanders said in the filibustering speech could help fix some of the things progressives have a problem with, like the estate tax, tax cuts for the rich, So
ABOVE..That was yesterdays work on this 4th draft, and above that was 2 days ago...I can't think straight this week for some reason. All kinds of talk being thrown around, different opinions being tossed around, Obama, Clinton, Sanders...I'm jealous of those who have made up their minds and stand by their convictions. I'm floundering and wobbling....
This morning I'm back to my original opinion on Obama and the legislation. I think the rethuglicans have taken him to the woodshed on this proposed bill that he calls a framework. I believe it is another massive stimulus that will only empower the thugs next year. They have it all planned out, they will take their case to the Americans on this bloated deficit problem, which they have contributed to BTW, and they will start with entitlements, mainly Social Security. They are on the path to wipe out SS and Obama seems oblivious to this. Bringing in Bill Clinton yesterday to give credibility to the presidents proposals was to me a sign of desperation. The public is not happy with the way Obama crafted this bill on the laps of the rethuglicans, so he presumes Bill Clinton can calm the fears and convince the people this legislation is the best he can do at this moment. So by giving the GOP their demands the democrats are adding their demands to the point this bill is exploding the deficit at a time we are trying to get it under control.
The only person I see with any common sense and clear thinking is Bernie Sanders.....during his 8 hour speech he faulted the payroll tax holiday calling it a dangerous step that could hurt Social Security and also spoke on the "overly generous proposal" on the estate tax which would be reinstated at a rate of 35% on everything above the first 5 million of an individuals estate and everything above the first 10 million of a couples estate, He said "this is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich"
He has it right when he screams CHINA, CHINA, CHINA!!!
Will I be back here in a few days with a different slant? Maybe...
I was Googling 'why isn't the tea party enraged over this huge spending bill', and stumbled upon this,
I like what she says here...
"See, politicians are, to borrow the now politically correct Jerry
Brown word, whores. They can be bought. And the Republicans, in
particular, are cheap whores at that.
There will be something for everyone in this bill–this is the
Stimulus that Obama should have put forth to begin with but instead paid
off the states and parasitic unions and states instead. This stimulus
might actually jolt the economy while spending the next generation into
abject oblivion.
It had to be done NOW, though, because the party is over for the
Republicans and Democrats. Come January, the American people will be
angered if they see Republicans spend like this.
This bill will get a bunch of them primaried again. They. Don’t. Care.
Just like the Democrats didn’t care about Obamacare. The Republicans
are hoping you don’t notice what they’re doing here. And they’ll try and
blame the Democrats.
They can say the bill passed in the lame duck Congress if the economy
still stays bad. If the economy turns around, well, they can say they
forced the Democrats to pass the bill. They also hand Obama the
Presidency, but hey, this is all about Right Now.
Expedient and indulgent, our elected officials are a disgusting group.
Yes, yes. I know, this is politics. But I’m sorry, it makes me want
to throw up when I hear Republicans talking about cutting spending and
then okay a florid spending bill because they know their little treats
would cause howling rage if they owned the House and put forth such a
stinker a couple weeks from now.
My solution? Scuttle the whole thing.
.in fact I like every word of what she says.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
I thought I was the only one who was feeling like this..I have been away from the computer for a couple of days, but now I see there are a lot more of us (heads are spinning)then there are of them. (I keep thinking that if the Teabaggers would drop their racism, we would see we agree on a lot more things. I know, I know, just call me Polly....Pollyanna)
I woke up to the thought of OMG..Jim DeMint has won. He was just a little early...here is Obama's Waterloo, then the next thought is to rally around Obama. Then I remember what Bernie Sanders was saying and I want Dem's to fight....ARG! HEADACHE!
You can only play chicken with people who are willing to flinch...the Republicans are willing to crash this country head on...they have done it before!
My solution? Scuttle the whole thing.
And all the people who would lose their unemployment-benefits extension are just to be thrown into poverty to make a point?
we'll keep each other company Mary. Every time I think I have my mind made up on this issue I read someones elses opinion and mine changes again! So I guess it means I think there are good parts to this bill and bad parts. But I also think those rethuglicans have a much sinister plan ahead, I don't trust them.
No Infidel, a much simpler bill with unemployment benefits extended and the tax cuts expiring, that's my simple version of this massive spending bill. I sound like a teabagger! Like I told Mary, I think this massive spending will backfire on the dems in the next 2 years and the GOP has a plan for that.
I don't wish to make anyone's head explode. I'd ask that we read the two view points on this messy legislation and understand that the reality is somewhere in the middle.
From a conservative
From a liberal
The argument against this bill seems to be more about things it contains for the rich than things it does not contain for the poor and average Americans. We can't have it all our own way.
What price do you (not you personally, Sue) put on a 50% increase in taxes for the bottom tax payers? At what level do they deserve a 50% tax increase so that the rich don't get something?
That's part of the trade off.
let me first correct my last comment. its a tax cuts bill more than a spending bill. And I meant the tax cuts to the rich expiring not the middleclass.
I fully understand where Obama and the experts stand on the benefits of this bill. My fear is in the next 2 years and beyond with the republicans cries about the deficit and where they will demand the budget cuts come from. This is where they will say Social Security. Can we trust Obama not to cave to them when they are demanding that?
Other than that fear of mine I'm not concerning myself with the backs and forth of the tax cuts to the rich, I'm over that. According to the breakdown the tax cuts for the next 2 years to the high wage earners is not alot of money compared to the other tax cuts the dems are getting.
Without making a concession to the Republicans -- namely, allowing the tax cuts for the wealthy to continue -- the Democrats could not have gotten the unemployment-benefits extension. That was the reality of the situation. It was probably the best deal that was realistically possible.
Sue, you're not alone.
This week was a tough one to be a Dem.....maybe even tougher this week than on election night last month.
BTW....President Obama, just why did those Dems go down to defeat upholding Democratic principles only to have you shift gears into survival mode and co-operating with guys who's main purpose in life is to see you become a one term president?
The bottomline is "this week" didn't have to happen. The President and the Dems held the muscle and the hammer and didn't get the bill they wanted though while they had the chance. And I don't know if it's bad leadership or a general lack of spine.
And so the Dems will have to suck it up, and pass the bill as is...the Republicans, with their arrogance and hypocrisy, have taken the debate away and are holding US hostage, with nothing getting done.....and in January, it will only be worse.
I spent most of last week blogging about people who were dead or dying. It's more pleasant to talk about the demise of individuals than the ultimate and scary fate of an entire nation.
I think I'll move to Vermont...a lot of smart people up there.
we'll never know will we Infidel because Obama was too quick to compromise. I'm not questioning the presidents wisdom, I believe he is highly intelligent and really believes he did the right thing. It's a waiting game just like all the games played in Washington. Will it all come together in the end, or will the little people get screwed once again...
Robert Reich says this...I agree with him
"The real problem is that the $900 billion tab for this deal gives Republicans a bigger rationale for cutting domestic discretionary (non-defense) even more, and for gutting Social Security. They'll be giving vast rewards to their wealthy constituents through the tax cuts for the rich, which they have every intention of continuing beyond 2012, while being able to satisfy the Tea Baggers and deficit hawks who demand cuts in spending. It's a double-win for Republicans and a strategic trap for Democrats - as well as for the American middle and working class."
this has been a sucky week Hugh and I haven't been blog reading and commenting like I should, sorry!
There's "vote-buying" on both sides, Sue. Cantwell, Boxer, and Harkin are all being offered some sweeteners in exchange for their votes (the Harkin deal being especially noxious in that it involves ethanol subsidies). In my opinion, they should just have an up and down vote on this turkey and let the American public decide who the boot-lickers are.
Sue knows that Frodo has nothing but admiration and respect for this Jersey Girl. She is a true warrior in the Fellowship.
However, Frodo wants to kick your butt. Infidel has made the point, and you dance around it. President Obama is a Democrat, and he is going to choose the course that offers a helping hand to those who need it most. Damn it, he also knows that it's almost Christmas, and people have been wondering how much to spend, if any? They have been worried about their kids not able to find substantial work while laden with tens of thousands in student loans. They aren't sure how they'll ever be able to retire with a house (maybe in New Jersey) that is worth half of what it was when George W. Moron was President.
Sue, anxiety and stress, are killers. People die because of them. If you were President (and Frodo would vote for you), wouldn't you want to help make the world just a little less stressful? One way that Obama could do that would be to make a decision, any decision, and not drag it on, even if only for a week.
Frodo apologizes for the lecture, but tonight, he understands what Will Rogers really meant.
cut me some slack Frodo, I told you I was confused and I mean BIGTIME! LOL! OK, let me try to be more clear. I believe Obama has good intentions, there are good things in this bill, I have stated(I think). But what I'm concerned about is the next 2 years and the rethuglicans holding this trillion dollar bill over Obamas head while they go after their budget cuts, mainly Social Security. They will use the deficit problem as an excuse to slash every single entitlement and every good thing Obama has done. So, does he have a plan? Will he fight them to the finish? This is what liberals have a problem with, we fear he won't fight those slugs.
NOW, I have not jumped off the Obama bandwagon, I'm just afraid for him and our country. Do I make sense or am I talking in circles? I like the bill, I'm afraid of the trillion dollar cost. Am I a teabagger? YIKES, I've lost my way...
you can tell by this post and by my comments I have reservations. I see both sides of the argument and take bits and pieces from both sides, which doesn't help me a bit. I'm a democrat, always will be, and I support the president. I don't like criticizing him I just want him to make the best decisions for the country and fight for those decisions. I despise the republicans and don't trust them. I don't want to see Obama taken for a fool, but we have to remember he is no dummy, so this move he made was a good one...right?? :-)
OK, let's see. Total cost so far is about $900 billion dollars. Cost of the tax cuts for the rich is about $100 billion per year. Remove that tax cut and the bill drops to $800 billion. Apply the $100 billion saved by not letting the top 2% get their cut, and you pay for the remaining tax cuts and economic stimulus in 8 years. So much for blowing a hole in the deficit. Whose fault is the hole? Republicans because they are willing to hold 98% of the American people hostage, like terrorists do, for the benefit of 2% of the American people.
Rolling back the bush tax cuts should have been at the top of Obama's agenda from day one. It could have been our side's "repeal and replace".
Sue, I also agree with what Robert Reich says. This is an attempt by Republicans to sabotage social security. This deal sucks.
But the problem with jumping off the Obama band wagon is... then what? Vote for a third party candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning? Support a primary challenger who'll only weaken Obama? Both result in a Republican winning the presidency in 2012.
Would McCain have been better than Obama? Will Palin be better than Obama... as disappointed as I am with the current president, I still believe he's better than the alternative.
Come January the deficit will be ALL Obamas fault and the thugs will start chipping away at everything the dems have done good for the country. They have it all planned out like the good little soldiers they are.
I like what the Green Party has to say but I know this country is not ready for a third party president. I'll be voting democrat til I die. I don't know one democrat who would say they would rather have McCain or god-forbid Palin. We may say things about our democrats, even harsh criticisms, but we are loyal.
So Sue, in a race between Palin, Sanders (say he switches from independent, challenges Obama and springs the upset) and a viable Bloomberg, you'd be voting for Sanders? REALLY?
we'll never know will we Infidel
We do know. Without the compromise Obama made, the Republicans would have filibustered everything. There would have been no tax-cut deal. no extendion of unemployment benefits, and none of the other positives Obama won. In all honesty there is not a scintilla of doubt about it. We do know, absolutely, that this is what would have happened without the compromise.
It's the Republicans who are the side willing to stonewall and allow a train wreck in order to make a political point. Obama showed himself the better man by being willing to compromise to save millions from impoverishment and the economy from further massive job losses, even at the cost of backing down on a campaign promise and letting himself become the target of ill-informed attacks by idealists who don't understand how politics works.
As for the Republicans creating a pretext to cut Social Security, I would love to see them try it. The elderly are the most consistently high-turnout voting demographic there is. Social Security isn't called the "third rail" of politics for nothing. Older voters skew more Republican than the general public amd are a constituency the Republicans can't afford to lose. If they want to alienate them in the worst way possible, fine by me.
Some liberals seem to have developed a habit of imagining the worst possible future they can, convincing themselves that that scenario is inevitable, and them blaming Obama or the Democrats in general for bringing it about. Who gains from this? We've already seen, this year, who gains from it -- too many disgruntled liberal voters stayed home and the Republicans won the House. If we want to see a Republican President in 2012, all we need to do is keep fighting internally and talking third parties and blaming Obama for nightmares that haven't even happened and probably won't.
Will, where did I say I would vote for Sanders? I like what he stands for but NO, I would not vote for him should he challenge Obama.
If you believe politicians then Elijah Cummings said on State of the Union the GOP love this bill and were surprised at all Obama gave their side. So I still have some doubt about the outcome if Obama had held out.
I'm having a difficult time typing, the words are not coming out right. Elijah Cummings said... in private some GOP members are saying to him they are surprised what this bill holds for the Republicans, they are happy what Obama has done for their party, for instance the estate tax.
Sue said... Will, where did I say I would vote for Sanders? ... I would not vote for him should he challenged Obama.
Will's ridiculous scenario (one that has absolutely ZERO chance of occurring) was WHAT IF Sanders "springs the upset", meaning what if Sanders won the Democratic primary. He thinks you should vote for Bloomberg in the general. No way I could do that. If Sanders won the primary (in which I'd vote for Obama), I'd vote for him (Sanders) in the general. But Sanders isn't running –- I've heard him say so, and it wasn't a false denial like Hillary's (prior to her announcement).
Infidel753 said... As for the Republicans creating a pretext to cut Social Security, I would love to see them try it.
The Republicans, when discussing cutting social security, ALWAYS stress that the cuts won't apply to anyone CURRENTLY receiving benefits. OF COURSE Republicans realize that older Americans are a constituency they can't afford to lose. It IS their goal, however, to raise the retirement age and cut benefits. It was a recommendation of the so-called bipartisan deficit commission. These are facts, not products of my Liberal imagination.
Destroying social security is a key component of their plan to dismantle the middle class (follow the link to read my post on the subject).
Yeah, that was my question, Sue (admittedly a hypothetical one). If, in a general election, your only options were Sanders, Palin, and Bloomberg, would you vote for Mr. Sanders (not just an alleged socialist, but an avowed one) over Mr. Bloomberg? I'm curious because, in my mind, sometimes the "party" can ask too much.
The Republicans, when discussing cutting social security, ALWAYS stress that the cuts won't apply to anyone CURRENTLY receiving benefits.
And I can tell you right now that that won't work for them. Fortunately, elderly people as a group are a lot less flamingly stupid than liberals as a group.
Will I don't have a problem with socialists. If my only choice was Palin or Sanders, of course it would be Sanders. Palin wants to singlehandedly bring on the apocalypse, I can't have that happening, I have a granddaughter and I want to see her grow up! :-)
damn Infidel, you're mad at the flamingly stupid liberals! LOL
But, Sue, what if Bloomberg was a viable third option (polling in at over 40%)? You'd still be going with Mr. Sanders in that event?.....I am really trying to pin you down here. Can you tell? LOL
I've tried to look at it from every angle I can think of, and it still winds up as a capitulation.
Even worse, the President just gave the Rushpubliscums a permanent hostage class that they can use to further gut Social Security in a couple of years.
This would be par for the course, as the cat-food commission wishes, and the President seems unwilling to actually try a little "no" on the Rushpubliscums. I say that the bully will have to be confronted, so why not do it NOW, and get it the hell over with? Every day the rich get those huge handbacks is another day clloser to our total collapse. The handbacks to the rich are the principal reason we've cratered, and any deal that preserves them is a bad deal. Period.
If, in a general election, your only options were Sanders, Palin, and Bloomberg, would you vote for Mr. Sanders (not just an alleged socialist, but an avowed one) over Mr. Bloomberg?
More right wing talking-points bullshit. The word "socialism" isn't automatically a bad and evil thing, probably far much less so than the word "Republican."
The military, police, fire departments, highways.... all "socialist" institutions. It may pain people like Will to admit it, but it is a flat-out fact that there are some things that are not going to work best as for-profit enterprises.
Sue said, "I like what the Green Party has to say but I know this country is not ready for a third party president. I'll be voting democrat til I die. I don't know one democrat who would say they would rather have McCain or god-forbid Palin. We may say things about our democrats, even harsh criticisms, but we are loyal."
And the Democrats will keep moving further to the right because they know that's true.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0&feature=player_embedded
Socialism is a discredited construct. The hard-core versions of it were jettisoned 20 years ago and even the milder forms of it are being seriously debated in Europe now. OBVIOUSLY the government needs to do certain things (though, really, how many corrupt cops, incompetent teachers, long waits at DMV, and crappily plowed roads do you need to realize that the government's performance is lacking at times). That isn't the point. The point is that Bernie Sanders is so far and away outside the mainstream that the fellow couldn't get elected dog-catcher outside the state of Vermont. The dude SAYS that he's a socialist (this, as opposed to the right falsely accusing Obama of being one).
Vermont is a part of the United States Will. I think that they voted to send Mr. Sanders first to the House and then the Senate proves that he is NOT "so far outside the mainstream". Thom Hartmann (on who's radio program Bernie Sanders is a weekly guest) calls him "America's Senator", because he fights for all Americans.
Socialism has NOT been "discredited". That, as I pointed out to you on your blog, is a Republican myth. It works quite well in Europe. Your claim that "even the milder forms of it are being seriously debated in Europe now" is flat out false.
What the last 40 years have proven is that Reaganomic AKA Supply side economics doesn't work. We should abandon this failed construct immediately.
The recent elections in France and England, the fiscal insanity in Ireland, Spain, and Greece - these things hardly point to a ringing endorsement of central planning. The world rejected collectivism 20 years ago. Are you simply too young to remember that?
Conservatives loved the Irish economic policy...until it collapsed.
Post a Comment