Five years ago, this plan would have been excoriated by everyone here as a Republican wet dream.

[woo me with science]

What do you think Democrats across the country would have said if Obama had stood up during the 2008 campaign and announced, "Under my Presidency, we will herald a new age of austerity. We will slash over a TRILLION dollars from the budget, while simultaneously keeping in place massive tax breaks for the filthy rich"?

The Super Committee was a scam to begin with. They used Social Security and Medicare as hostages to pull off a Republican-style theft that no Democrat would have voted for in a million years. And now they reap praise for it.

These cuts are an outrage and go against all economic sense. This President was warned by hundreds of economists not to slash the budget during the worst economy since the Great Depression. Doing so will not only hurt millions of individuals in cruel, unnecessary ways, but it will starve the economy during a time when the economy desperately needs stimulus. Do we even remember what we stand for?

Talk about brilliant politics. Five years ago, the very plan that is now being cheered as a victory would have been excoriated by everyone here as a Republican wet dream.

No, vowing to uphold the cuts is not a "win" for Democrats. This whole thing is an outrage and should be left behind entirely.

[msongs]

1. run as a democrat, govern as a republican. nothing new about that nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. Nothing new about that. For decades.

[defendandprotect]

153. Exactly --- and when are we going to push for a new candidate -- ???

[Beavker]

168. Money has a way of doing that....

I'm still waiting for my chance to be ruined by massive wealth! ;)

[blindpig]

2. Perhaps the illusion will now be dispelled. n/t

[sabrina 1]

21. It has been. That is why the people are on the streets.

[enough]

30. Yes. (nt)

[Enthusiast]

113. That illusion has not been dispelled

for enough of us. Or not nearly enough to suit me.

We need numbers in the street to be in the tens of thousands.

OWS was shouted down by Obama supporters. This was not good. Millions of us feel that Obama is not listening to us. Shouting us down was the worst possible response. OWS should have had their say.

[MedicalAdmin]

151. I agree.

When the president, congress, governors, and banksters, CEOs etc. Can't leave their offices or homes because they fear the people then that meme is over. Until then it is just on a temporary vacation.

I for one will not rest until Horatio Alger is 6 feet under the sod.

[bigtree]

3. the tax breaks for the rich automatically expire in 2012

I don't believe you can actually detail the 'cuts' you're raging about. They don't really amount to the outrage you're trying to stir up here.

[robinlynne]

7. they automatically expired in 2010.

[CrispyQ]

38. +1

:thumbsup:

[Enthusiast]

116. +2

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[dpbrown]

169. +3

We had a chance to end the madness.

[Lasher]

174. +4

What a colossal sellout.

[Tatiana]

179. +5 Someone caved to the hostage takers. n/t

[Skittles]

124. bigtree doesn't quite get that part

:rofl:

[Dutchmaster]

140. when you can only remember today, and not yesterday as well, thats what happens

[Skittles]

180. there are several DUers that seem to be reading from the same script

they are either one DUer or they're getting their direction from someone

[sofa king]

137. And now the Republicans shall expire with them in 2012.

You don't like the tax cuts, and neither do I. Neither do seven out of ten Americans. That applies across all states, to all candidates.

That means that every Republican is on the wrong side of the most important issue in the next campaign.

Seventy percent of the electoral college would be 108 more votes than are needed to win.

Seventy percent support makes stealing an election by shifting votes within the margin of error impossible.

Seventy percent gives corporate donors pause, because if they're caught backing the wrong side of that issue, consumers will punish them for it.

Seventy percent is an invitation for a Democratic candidate to run and to have a chance to win in every single Congressional district in the country, which will cost Republicans millions of dollars at the exact same time that they have alienated their financial support base.

Seventy percent practically guarantees the reelection of every Democratic Senator running in the next election, and threatens at least half of the ten Senate seats the Republicans will be defending.

That is what extending the cuts by two years bought President Obama and the Democrats. It bought them the most overwhelming, unstoppable electoral shift in seventy years.

So, you know, we got that goin' for us.

[Dutchmaster]

141. And in your scenario this is different from 2008 how?

[sofa king]

145. Not too different.

In 2008, President Obama stayed outside of the margin of error in most states, making election theft difficult or impossible there, and he won quite handily despite powerful media opposition.

In 2008, Democrats in the House picked up 21 seats.

In 2008, Democrats in the Senate picked up 8 seats.

What has changed is this: every Republican is now discredited and vulnerable, and their situation is only going to get progressively worse over the next year. All Republican incumbents are now tagged with a voting record that includes voting against womens' rights, voting against health care, voting against the middle class, suggesting that poor and middle class voters take the hit for keeping rich people rich, wrecking the nation's credit rating and therefore damaging millions of retirement accounts, damaging our national security, threatening the jobs of defense contractors, defying the lobbyists who pay into their campaigns, and holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage.

Two years of Republicans with a sliver of power in Congress has been a total disaster for the vast majority of American voters. Republicans haven't been able to come up with a counter-budget proposal that contains actual numbers, couldn't deal seriously in the budget supercommittee, cannot stem the bleeding of the economy they wrecked, broke every promise they made in 2010, and haven't created a new job in ten years.

Now this President is a walk-in for reelection, and gets to devote the entirety of the next campaign season to supporting Democratic Congressional candidates. He's going to stroll into every state in play, blast the Republican Senators from those states, lend support to dozens of suddenly viable Democratic candidates for House seats that shouldn't have been in play, and completely ignore his clownish opponent, whomever it may be.

The best part of it is that the Republicans have already been defeated through planning. Knowing that they're dishonest, criminally-minded, myopic and greedy, the President lured Republicans into a series of unchangeable agreements that will prevent them from shutting down the government again, and prevents them from extending the tax cuts again. They're now upside down on every issue voters care about, and Democrats in Congress sure as hell aren't going to let that change between now and the election.

Even worse for them, Republicans are going to have to fellate this President repeatedly to gain back the funding they've lost for the Department of Defense, which means that they're going to have to learn how to compromise, which makes their own idiot voting base angry at them and since they suck at negotiating, will likely lead to even more inexorable agreements designed to hurt them.

So the major difference between now and 2008 will be: more electoral votes for the President; more seats flipped in the House; fewer pickups in the Senate, but only because there are only ten Republicans left to run for reelection in this cycle. It's also a transitional election designed to build a launchpad for total Democratic control of Congress in 2015, which in turn will lead to the hasty departure of the bought Republicans on the Supreme Court. It's a total-victory plan, and it cannot be stopped except with... extra-legal means, let us just say.

I've been calling this next election in the bag since December of last year, and so far I'm proud to say I've been correct on nearly every major detail (and, heh heh, incorrect on nearly all of the minor ones).

This is how you deal with criminals, by treating them as criminals and by pivoting every issue on their greed.

[dotymed]

161. Most Americans KNOW that BOTH parties are corporate owned.

Yet you have this great "plan" that people will vote for Democrats over repubs because they have been "discredited," yet there have been so many democrats who have voted with the repubs and many more have "negotiated" by first, ignoring the will of the people and the past Democratic principles that made the Democrats the party of the people. Has this changed?

[robinlynne]

182. The change is that we the people are tired of being suckers. voting Dem

has gotten us republican light.

[sofa king]

183. That talking point only sticks to the uninformed.

Name the last Republican President to cut defense spending by half a trillion dollars.

[saras]

173. "This is how you deal with criminals, by treating them as criminals". When do prosecutions start?

When, and if, Obama starts talking seriously about prosecuting criminals in numbers, and ends this charade of "left-wing versus right-wing", I'll believe they're considered to be criminals.

REAL criminals you prosecute. People you agree with in principle, but who defeat you personally, you CALL criminals.

[sofa king]

184. This is a different level of criminality.

The level of corruption within a system of government has historically usually only been temporarily lowered in one of two ways: by bloody conflict, or by change from within.

The criminals are still in charge, but this is how you confront the criminals from within.

[defendandprotect]

154. + 3

[dotymed]

157. Thank You. Sure they will "automatically expire."

Just as soon as we force them to.

[woo me with science]

8. So this is what we've come to as a party, is it?

Now we excuse embracing policies that Democrats have historically considered destructive - policies that will harm millions of actual Americans and further starve an already struggling economy - by insisting that they won't really be THAT bad.

Why support this? Why?

[bigtree]

11. you haven't outlined one of the cuts in any detail

I can't debate your hyperbole. I'm just not interested.

[woo me with science]

24. "haven't outlined the cuts in any detail."

Good grief. :eyes:

[Enthusiast]

117. "I'm just not interested."

Good grief. :eyes:

[girl gone mad]

31. It doesn't need to be outlined in detail.

Removing over 1 trillion dollars from the economy during a period marked by high unemployment, wage declines and slow growth is bad.

[bigtree]

79. by that logic, why touch defense spending?

It's not as if they can't make choices and set priorities. Let's just pretend that all of the spending benefits the economy.

[Donnachaidh]

88. wow, the amount of smoke and piss poor deflection going on is amazing

So tell me, when is the meme entitled *I know you are, but what am I?* going to be implemented to muddy the waters? Enquiring minds and all that....

[rhett o rick]

101. So what do you recommend? nm

[Enthusiast]

118. That would be pretending alright.

[girl gone mad]

177. Defense spending is a bad investment..

and those dollars would be better spent elsewhere. Things like education and infrastructure yield a much higher ROI than defense spending.

That does not alter the fundamental reality that 1 trillion in spending cuts will reduce economic activity across the board.

[rhett o rick]

100. If you dont understand the cuts, it's because you have your fingers in your ears. nm

[defendandprotect]

155. + 1

[bhikkhu]

163. Fact-check your OP

It doesn't come out particularly good.

What policies exactly? What cuts exactly? When do they start? What does the agreement say about the tax cuts for the rich?

[Donnachaidh]

86. seems to me the same sort of huff-puffing about *outrage* was used before

the extensions were EXTENDED in 2010.

So please find a barracks bag and blow the false puffery out of it. It's old, and smells like a dead horse.

:grr:

[UnrepentantLiberal]

114. Nothing to see here folks.

Move along and stop questioning authority. (And blocking the sidewalk.)

[Enthusiast]

115. Bull. Shit.

Anyone that isn't outraged is fucking brain dead.

[grantcart]

170. And in addition the cuts to the military are very real.

I have a relative who holds a non partisan elected office. He is a conservative Catholic and votes Republican because of his personal view of abortion but he is doesn't like the Republicans war on the poor.

I talked with him recently on the phone and asked him what he thought about the Super Committee (this was a few weeks back) and he said he hopes that it fails because of the cuts in the military. "This is the only conceiveable way that we will be able to reduce the size of the military, and they will probably find some compromise BUT if the size of the military budget can be linked to the size of the amount you pay in income tax then we have a chance of substantially reducing it. Because so many bang the patriotic drum about military budgets it is almost impossible to bring any rationality to it."

I was absolutely dumbfounded. I wonder how many other Republicans are there who secretly feel the same way.

As for the deficit people seem to turn off their brain. Deficits hurt the poor and the middle class. Every penny that is paid in interest on the deficit is a penny that is going to bond markets instead of going to alleviating misery and redistributing wealth. Its not a sexy point and won't get the response that this OP does, but that is why yours is one of the sanest voices on this board.

For the record the OP and the recs are for cuts that were never agreed upon, never voted upon and never passed.

As LO repeatedly says, "nothing is agreed to unless everything is agreed to".

Have a Happy Thanksgiving Bigtree.

[bertman]

172. Thanks for posting that, grantcart. I have talked with some rightwingers who say the

same thing your relative says.

BUT, the military cuts might help if the money saved by the cutting were designated for infrastructure improvements or for something that will rebuild our economy. Instead it's going to be used to REDUCE THE DEFICIT. That means we will have more unemployed service members and defense contract workers ADDING TO THE ROLLS OF THE UNEMPLOYED.

We need JOBS JOBS JOBS. People who are making a decent living spend money. This administration is buying into Republican talking points.

[grantcart]

178. While you are correct that we need JOBS JOBS JOBS

We also need to make sure that the cost of financing our deficit does not go up.

If the bond markets are not satisified that we have a plan to eventually control the deficit then the cost of financing current debt will go up. This will increase the deficit, increasing the rate and so on. This is the spiral that Spain and Italy are facing.

Also remember that every penny that goes into paying interest on the debt is a penny that we can't use for job creation.

If we didn't have the pre existing Republican debt from the Bush administration our debt payments would be significantly lower and we could afford a much greater stimulus action without bringing us closer to the negative debt spiral above.

The Bush Presidency, the curse that keeps on inflicting pain - even when it is no longer around.

[bertman]

185. The first thing is to get the economy back in shape, strong wages being paid,

businesses being able to grow and hire, then we'll be taking in more tax dollars and lowering the deficit. Couple that with the top earners paying their fair share and cutting the defense budget so fewer dollars are being borrowed to finance our ongoing overseas imperial operations and you lower the deficit even farther without having to do the things Republicans have been salivating over for decades, like destroying our social safety net and privatizing every facet of government.

This fixation on demanding deficit reduction has always been a Republican talking point. It is beyond maddening to hear it parroted endlessly by Democrats.

[grantcart]

187. "The first thing"

Unfortunately economics is not a linear list.

It is not simply possible to list just one thing and then the second thing.

The fact is that we cannot command people to loan money to us. If the bond markets start raising the rates, i.e. there is less confidence and what follows is higher interest rates then you must see the logic that those higher interest rates would absorb a higher percentage of the budget and further shrink the federal government's ability to stimulate. The deficit cannot be set an abstract amount that is independent of what the bond markets attract.

The fact that you state "deficit reduction has always been a Republican talking point" reveals that you do not understand the essence of the prroblem.

The problem is not the deficit.

The problem is handling the deficit in a way that keeps us borrowing at the lowest possible interest rates.

If the interest rates were to escalate they would expand the amount owed and with higher rates a spiral would be set off that would keep on taking valuable public money away from jobs and into the bond market.

This is the problem that Italy and Spain now face.

If they don't take action to build confidence and lower the rate of their borrowing then they will not be able to absorb the debt and the outstanding payments and then the percentage of money going to debt servicing would overtake all public money.

Again the deficit is not the problem but the question are you going to pay 2.97% to attract new money to pay for old (Bush)debt or are you going to let it escalate to 5% or 6% and grow exponentiually.

Good government and good stewardship of public money has always been a Democratic talking point. Letting interest rates escalate would be a disaster for the federal government and a disaster for job creation.

[bertman]

188. Spin worthy of a Republican presidential candidate. I'm done with this.

[grantcart]

189. You may be done with it but you failed to bring a single fact or piece of logic

to counter it.

By mashing together two completely different items; the size of the deficit and the price of interest in the bond markets you have all of the clarity of Rick Perry.

It is a complicated system and there is no "one thing". The quickest way to defeat any jobs initiative, or government spending program is to allow the cost of debt (not the size of debt as you repeatedly, and mistakenly return to) to increase. Interest will soon replace the defense department as the single most costly item of government expenditures. It will continue to grow as the principle continues to grow but if the rate of interest goes up the consequences would be catastrophic. Go an ask the finance ministers of Spain and Italy what a few extra points of interest is doing to their national budget, or their ability to create jobs.

[Logical]

186. Lol....I specifically look for your responses now to see how far you will defend ...

ANYTHING Obama does. It is almost a parody at this point!

[dawg]

4. The tax cuts expire.

I don't think Obama extends them so easily next time. If they are extended at all, we will get our due for doing so.

[Yooperman]

13. MMM..... so... the super committee fails to agree on anything...

and the first word out is it was because the repubs would not let go of the tax breaks on the rich...

Well... if they really thought they would expire next year anyway...why would they not budge on them.

So as it stands, they feel they will be able to continue them otherwise they would have got what they could by letting them go...but they didn't.

It will be interesting next year to see how they plan to convince Obama to keep them or make them permanent.

[subterranean]

162. They will hold something hostage until Obama agrees to extend the cuts.

That's their game plan, and it's worked for them so far. They'll continue using that strategy as long as it works.

If Obama somehow loses the election and lets the tax cuts expire, his successor will just reinstate them (probably with even more tax breaks for the rich) in 2013.

[bhikkhu]

164. Like defense spending?

You should be able to see the difference this time.

[Doctor_J]

63. Is this a re-post from last year?

:eyes:

[sendero]

66. Next time.

... it won't be up to him. Just like enforcing the sequester won't be up to him.

[Divernan]

128. Obama will find some reason to cave and extend the cuts.

[bhikkhu]

167. Like he caved on SS, and defense cuts, and Planned Parenthood, and NPR -

and so forth - the long list of things that have had heads exploding here for years now. How long do we have to fear the impending doom that never seems to come? One way or another, he seems to get a good deal done.

An exception was the tax cut extensions - but what he wanted then was three things: to extend unemployment benefits (for millions!), to end the tax cuts for the rich, and to extend the tax cuts for the middle class and the poor. Getting that through congress would have been a major feat...as it was, the timing couldn't have been worse. As it was being worked on, the GOP kicked our ass in the mid-terms, and a whole raft of teabaggers was headed to DC. Given our ass-kicked circumstances at the time, I think the compromise was reasonable - or at least didn't stink any worse than the "popular mandate" of the time.

[woo me with science]

181. Now *that's* funny.

Kind of hard for him to "cave" on Social Security, when he was the one who put the cuts on the table in the first place.

[woo me with science]

191. He is already vowing to keep the cuts.

Of course, the "Defense" cuts will be transferred to other parts of the budget, because our "national security" is at risk.

All of this was predictable as hell.

[Vincardog]

6. Cuts to the MIC are a win for progressives and even LIberals like ME!

[woo me with science]

9. And if you think they will actually happen, I have a bridge to sell you.

The President is already signaling on that. He made a point of saying during last night's address that there is plenty of time to "find" cuts in the amount we need. His Secretary of Defense was out within a couple of *hours* to stress publicly that we cannot afford to cut the military budget.

The military cuts will never materialize, and even if they did, we are talking about a TRILLION DOLLAR austerity program to starve an economy that is already causing a world of pain.

This is an outrage. It is nothing that even faintly resembles what Democrats have ever stood for or should stand for.

[Vincardog]

12. Take it up with BO

[woo me with science]

14. Indeed. nt

[EOTE]

16. If only "BO" listened to people like me rather than his corporate masters.

I've given up on him listening to me a very long time ago. He's utterly lost my support.

[Vincardog]

18. But I keep on saying polls saying how 87% of LIBERALS support him! I never get polled.

[EOTE]

20. If you were polled, I'm sure they'd tell you you were wrong.

Because, after all, ALL liberal democrats™ support Barack Obama.

[sendero]

67. There are way fewer liberals.

... than there were 5 years ago, so that number is worthless bullshit.

[Doctor_J]

97. That's because people who support him self-ID as liberals

when they're actually far to the right of Ronald Reagan.

[harmonicon]

110. "Support", or "will vote for again"?

I can not fucking stand all of the ways that "support" has come to be used in our present incarnation of newspeak.

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

150. Yay! Can't wait for two more Clarence Thomas's

Chill. Your fantasy prez won't happen as long as all the king's horses (fascist media) and all the king's men (fascist fascists-Wall Street and Walmart et. al.) dictate. I think we're lucky to have what we have at this point. And 'this point' will improve if royalty fails in its efforts to DIVIDE AND CONQUER US!

[joshcryer]

76. Obama is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The MIC cuts are inevitable.

[Chef Eric]

107. No, Iraq is getting us out of Iraq.

President Obama showed no interest in "getting us out of Iraq" until Iraq rejected U.S. demands for immunity from prosecution for war crimes. In other words, we are being kicked out of Iraq, more or less.

And MIC cuts are not inevitable as long as defense industry lobbyists continue to "contribute" heavily to members of Congress.

[joshcryer]

111. President Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq. Total revisionism.

Obama wanted to leave a small force there but he didn't get immunity. The small force would not have been an occupation force by any measure. Iraq gave progressives more than Obama campaigned for, but Obama was going to draw down the troops either way.

Unfortunately Obama made the same campaign promise to increase troops in Afghanistan. Which he did. Everyone who voted for him voted for that and is complicit in that. Sadly, Hillary and McCain both wanted to do it, too, so as a lesser of three evils, he was the only real option.

[The Wizard]

132. winner

"And MIC cuts are not inevitable as long as defense industry lobbyists continue to "contribute" heavily to members of Congress."
And the prosecution of Wall Street shysters will never happen as long as the money keeps flowing into secret off shore accounts belonging to those charged with protecting the American people from shady banking practices.
Let's face facts: The United States is in a serious decline because of unchecked corruption, and especially since the Supreme Court's hideous Citizens United Not Timid decision that essentially put the government up for sale to the highest bidders.

[Lasher]

175. They kicked us out pursuant to the 2008 US - Iraq Status of Forces Agreement

George W. Bush got us out of Iraq when he felt like it, which will have been three years after he finally left office. Obama tried to make it look like he'd kept his campaign promise to get them out sooner, when he was actually just following the instructions of GWB and Petraeus.

[Bragi]

19. No, the defence cuts are minor, if they even occur

The proposal is to cut $465 billion in military spending over the next 10 years. That works out to about $46.5 billion per year. (Math!)

The U.S department of defense budget alone, however, is somewhere between $1 and $1.4 trillion annually. So we're talking maybe, what, a 3-5 per cent cut?

As for the cost of wars, it is estimated that the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars during the last decade came in at $3.7 trillion.

And now they're going to lose $46 billion a year, maybe?

Sorry, but the planned cuts are not a big effin' deal for progressives, even if they actually happen.

[joshcryer]

77. A big chunk of those costs is interest. $600 billion in *interest* alone.

Without fixing the overall deficit by responsible cost saving measures, we're fucked.

The Bush tax cuts will expire.

[Bragi]

102. What America seriously needs: increased taxation

The bad news is that spending cuts aren't actually going to solve the US public sector financial crisis.

The good news is that there's nothing wrong with America's finances that a sales tax, or some other common form of taxation, wouldn't solve.

Raising taxes requires, of course, that Americans come to accept that they can't have decent government and proper public services without paying the taxes needed to support them.

People in most countries already know this, which suggests that it is possible to make Americans understand that they have to pay more in taxes, there is no other sensible choice.

Fuck Norquist and the horse he rode in on.

[tpsbmam]

147. Just be careful what kinds of tax hikes you advocate and support.....

Sales taxes hit everyone evenly. The wealthy don't give a shit -- it's pennies to them. The poor & middle class are the ones hurting right now, and they'd be hit hardest with things like sales taxes. I'm fully in favor of tax increases FOR THE WEALTHY and for corporations. Corporations have so many loopholes, they no longer pay taxes. And what do they do with the largesse? We all know the answer to that -- it ain't passed along to regular Americans via hiring & paying good living wages with benefits.

[EFerrari]

106. Watch carefully where they cut military spending.

It will be in benefits and quality of life for our troops.

[Enthusiast]

119. I suspect you are right.

They never do anything right.

[woo me with science]

146. Very good point.

They are certainly headed in that direction already.

[Lasher]

176. You're right, they won't give up any of their toys.

Not one foreign military base will be closed on account of military spending cuts. Not one of their eleven supercarriers will be mothballed. They'll squeeze our enlisted men and women. The generals will be fine.

[robinlynne]

109. funny thing, Obama's military budget is 25% larger than Bush's was.....

[Enthusiast]

120. That tells us everything we really need to know.

[woo me with science]

148. [phone]

SOCOM. Bush- 60 countries. Obama 120 countries by end of 2011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2118912&mesg_id=2122224

[bhikkhu]

165. Which is why the cuts are a very big deal

...sharply reversing a very long trend. Credit where credit's due!

[green917]

136. Mark my words

Any cuts to the MIC will have nothing to do with forcing austerity on the real MIC. Any defense cuts (if the Democrats don't cave and dissolve that portion of the cuts entirely) will ALL be in the form of reduced veteran's benefits and health care. We have to keep building new aircraft carriers to defeat Al Qaeda's burgeoning Navy...oh, yeah...shit! And fighter jets?....and, well, you get the picture.

The OP is correct on every level! I don't know what has happened to my party! When a Senator who was the party's nominee for President less than 10 years ago can go on the national news media and say that they (the Democrats on this sham of a committee) put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts on the table during an austerity discussion...we have lost our identity as a party! As the saying goes, "You either stand for something, or you'll fall for anything!" I've had my fill of this brand of alleged "Democrats" pissing on our legs and telling us that it's raining and trying to convince us how different from the Republicans they are. Going to hell in a hand cart just a bit slower isn't much of a choice for my money!

[CrispyQ]

142. "Going to hell in a hand cart just a bit slower isn't much of a choice for my money!"

Agreed. I don't vote for republicans, even if they have a (D) behind their name.

LOL on "Al Qaeda's burgeoning Navy."

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[woo me with science]

149. Well said. nt

[Huey P. Long]

10. O.W.S., now and forever. -eom

[gratuitous]

15. You're supposed to be quiet, doncha know

We're being lectured in other threads (as well as here) about how this is all part of some grand political maneuver. Forget the Great Cave of 2010, now everything's going to be all different! The Super Committee didn't quite get to agreement on cutting people off at the knees, so you're supposed to be dancing in the goddam street!

Get with the DLC program, woncha?

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. Mind boggling the support Obama still garners after all of his bi=partisan pandering

with the repugs and others. :shrug:

[Doctor_J]

92. Spending cuts that would have made Reagan blush, with NO rollback of billionaire tax breaks

why aren't you cheering?

[Enthusiast]

121. Why do you think we have such a cast of

characters on the other side? This entire thing has been orchestrated.

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. #Occupy.

(Well-said!)

[JCMach1]

22. 3-5% off of GDP in 2013 and 1-2% next year

THAT is scary...

[Hotler]

23. k&r n/t

[dmosh42]

25. I believe the 'real' negotiations start now!

Obama has some huge cuts in military spending, a huge lobbying interest, which they don't want to stand. So now 'they'(Repukes) have to think about what they will be giving up for some flexibility in the cuts.

[ProSense]

26. "The American people are the winners"

Bernie Sanders (Video)

Good stuff!

[ProSense]

27. Also

here's how I see it:

This Congress was going to address the deficit. The scope of the cuts, limited mostly to savings, across various programs are made even more limited because of the exemptions.

Given that some Congresssional Democrats would jump at the opportunity to include Medicare and Social Security cuts disguised as changes in formula or age, the exemptions were critical.

The fact that 50 percent of the cuts are from defense is significant.

On edit:

"Five years ago, this plan would have been excoriated by everyone here as a Republican wet dream."

On what planet would cutting hundreds of billions from defense have been considered a "Republican wet dream"?

Five years ago, Congress wouldn't even agree to end the Iraq war.

In 2006, had Congress proposed cutting hundreds of billion from the defense budget, it would have been considered a major victory.

[woo me with science]

28. More spin.

Remember that Bernie Sanders also recommended that President Obama be primaried for his part in starting this whole budget slashing debacle. http://www.thenation.com/blog/162771/bernie-sanders-talks-primary-challenge-obama-good-idea-our-democracy-and-democratic-part

Bernie Sanders is not a fan of austerity measures, and to take that message from this clip, if you have any idea of what Bernie stands for, is wholly disingenuous. Of COURSE the failure is better than what we were hearing about in the final weeks of the negotiations. At that time, they were talking about "big deals" that would slash up to FOUR TRILLION from the budget, PERMANENT tax cuts for the wealthy, and slashing of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. OF COURSE this is better than that. But that is like saying that dirt tastes better than shit.

This clip is Bernie's reaction to that comparison, not a statement of preferred policy. And that is the whole point of this media spin...to get liberals to forget what we used to stand for. If you asked Bernie whether it would be better if the Super Committee had never been forced down our throats, and if you asked him whether demand side stimulus would be better than slashing a trillion from an economy that is already starving, I think you know very well the answer you would get.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Surrender on less than unconditional terms in order to sell a large and rather unbeaten army

and population.

We arguably won their game but ours was abandoned. We surrendered before the fight when we punted on the budget and gave on/adopted the tax cuts. We have redefined victory as avoiding the worst case scenario.

I reckon that the worst case scenario would be spun as a draw (hey, we did well as could be expected!), and previously unconceived of depravities would be something like "Elections have consequences!!!" (Though our wins, even landslides, have little such "consequences" for the opposition).

Bernie has to sell bullshit too because he is permitted to stray only so far from the herd before he is culled. So yeah, he'll give a little exuberance for coming out of wearing a meat suit in a shark tank alive and fairly ambulatory.

[ProSense]

36. Hmmm?

"Bernie has to sell bullshit too because he is permitted to stray only so far from the herd before he is culled."

Sellout!

[TheKentuckian]

37. Reality

[woo me with science]

47. "We have redefined victory as avoiding the worst case scenario. "

We certainly have.

And one might even suggest that is part of the game they are playing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2363464&mesg_id=2363819

[Enthusiast]

123. They employed the exact same strategy

with health care reform. You know, because it worked so perfectly then. Because their objective, their long term objective, was to prevent single payer.

Listen, people, we are being played!

[ProSense]

35. Since

"Remember that Bernie Sanders also recommended that President Obama be primaried...."

...you speak for Senator Sanders, maybe you can interpret his statement:

BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 21 - U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after the congressional deficit committee announced that it was unable to reach agreement:

"With a $15 trillion national debt, deficit reduction is clearly a huge issue for the country. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the super committee was unable to reach agreement.

"The American people have made it very clear that they believe the wealthiest people in the country - who are doing phenomenally well and are paying the lowest effective tax rate in decades - must start sharing some of the burden of deficit reduction. The American people have made it clear that they favor closing tax loopholes for profitable corporations. The American people have made it clear that it is time to take a hard look at mushrooming defense spending.

"Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress won't do what big majorities of Americans want Congress to do. The only way Republicans want to lower deficits is by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, while providing even more tax breaks for millionaires and profitable corporations.

"Now, with more than one year to go before automatic spending cuts take effect, there is time for Congress to do what the American people want."

Next, what the hell does his statement about challenging Obama have to do with the clip from the Ed Show?

Are you implying that's not Bernie Sanders and he doesn't know what he's saying?

[woo me with science]

40. What a steaming pile.

Seriously. I think this is the most ridiculous post I have seen on these boards in a while.

Bernie's principles and policies are clear to everyone here who follows him. How utterly absurd, and what a cheap rhetorical trick, to suggest that this little video clip represents his embrace of a trillion dollar austerity policy in order to be fiscally responsible.

If Bernie had his way, we would not be fellating the rich with our tax policies, and we would not be pouring billions into bloody and ever-expanding military adventures across the globe. There's your fiscal responsibility.

Bernie abhorred the craven machinations this administration used to shove the Super Committee down our throats. That is why he said Obama needed to be primaried. Now he makes a statement expressing relief that the hostage situation this administration helped create did not go through, and you are trying to spin it in opposition to everything he has ever stood for. Good grief.

Here's a good post for you. It is all about how our corporate government hawks policies that will profit them, by attempting to manipulate the people they are supposed to represent: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2363464

DU is not the place where misportrayals of Bernie Sanders will take root, Prosense. People here remember what it means to be a Democrat. They know Bernie Sanders well, and they know what he represents.

Now, I am sure that you will come back with some other irrelevancy or blue link spin. Knock yourself out. We aren't buying it.

[ProSense]

41. Wait

Since

"Remember that Bernie Sanders also recommended that President Obama be primaried...."

...you speak for Senator Sanders, maybe you can interpret his statement:


BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 21 - U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after the congressional deficit committee announced that it was unable to reach agreement:

"With a $15 trillion national debt, deficit reduction is clearly a huge issue for the country. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the super committee was unable to reach agreement.

"The American people have made it very clear that they believe the wealthiest people in the country - who are doing phenomenally well and are paying the lowest effective tax rate in decades - must start sharing some of the burden of deficit reduction. The American people have made it clear that they favor closing tax loopholes for profitable corporations. The American people have made it clear that it is time to take a hard look at mushrooming defense spending.

"Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress won't do what big majorities of Americans want Congress to do. The only way Republicans want to lower deficits is by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, while providing even more tax breaks for millionaires and profitable corporations.

"Now, with more than one year to go before automatic spending cuts take effect, there is time for Congress to do what the American people want."

Next, what the hell does his statement about challenging Obama have to do with the clip from the Ed Show?

Are you implying that's not Bernie Sanders and he doesn't know what he's saying?

...that's what I posted.

Here's your response:

What a steaming pile.

Seriously. I think this is the most ridiculous post I have seen on these boards in a while.

Bernie's principles and policies are clear to everyone here who follows him. How utterly absurd, and what a cheap rhetorical trick, to suggest that this little video clip represents his embrace of a trillion dollar austerity policy in order to be fiscally responsible.

<...>

Now, what the hell does any of that have to do with Sanders' statement (which is the bulk of my comment)? Are you saying his statement is a "steaming pile"?

Seems to me you're going off on tangents because you have no argument and can't come to terms with the Senator's comments.

Read them, agree or disagree, but don't try to obfuscate with irrelevant rants.

[woo me with science]

42. I really should

go into forecasting. :rofl:

Bye, Prosense.

[ProSense]

43. Ah

I really should

go into forecasting.

Bye, Prosense.

...what a fitting way to end your lame argument.

[woo me with science]

44. Reality.

Not advertising.

[ProSense]

48. Reality:

Defense cuts have been signed into law, everything else is hyperventilating, which includes what the Republicans are doing.

Cut. Cut. Cut!

[woo me with science]

49. Over 300 economists warned against this destructive policy.

A TRILLION in austerity cuts, during the worst economy since the Great Depression. Free trade agreements. Payroll tax holidays. It's a corporate festival!

Oh, Prosense. You know as well as I do that the military cuts won't ever materialize. But even if they did, they are a small part of this stinking austerity package. Over a TRILLION in cuts, across the board.

Starving the economy now, when so many people are desperately hurting, is nothing that principled Democrats would ever have voted for, if he had been honest about what he was planning. This plan is a disgrace, and five years ago would have been excoriated on this board as a Republican wet dream. It is textbook Republican policy and bears no resemblance whatsoever to what principled Democrats have always held dear.

[ProSense]

51. So

Over 300 economists warned against this destructive policy...You know as well as I do that the military cuts won't ever materialize.

...the only way to make the case is claim that the cuts that were signed into law will never happen?

The irony is hilarious!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

57. Instead

"Do you remember this post I made to you"

...of dragging out posts that have nothing to do with the current situation, here's an economist on the issue at hand...Krugman:


Bombs, Bridges and Jobs

Failure Is Good

[woo me with science]

62. Ah, so now Krugman is ALSO a secret fan of textbook Republican austerity measures!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2363074&mesg_id=2363661
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2363074&mesg_id=2364857

It would be so much fun to get both Sanders and Krugman together in a room with you...

It has been fun playing with you, Prosense, but I have to go to dinner now. I will leave you and your corporate playbook with one thought:

It's all very clever, but America is awake to this game now. "We are going to slash you into poverty, but the other guy would be sooo much worse..." only works for so long, before you have an OWS on your hands.

Bye bye. :hi:

[ProSense]

69. If

"Ah, so now Krugman is ALSO a secret fan of textbook Republican austerity measures!"

...you have no problem crediting the Republicans with the hundreds of billions in defense cuts, then neither do I.

Bye bye.

[indepat]

78. The Republican wet dream has been largely uninterrupted since the early days of the

gipper. What has followed includes, but is not limited to: a 15-fold increase in the national debt; burgeoning income inequality; 25 large profitable corporations that pay their CEOs more than they pay in Federal income taxes; hedge fund manager averaging a billion dollars in annual income paying a Federal income tax rate of 15%; the 0.1% of the taxpayers who earn 50% of all capital gains paying only a 15% Federal income tax rate on those gains; dividends, of which most are earned by the wealthy, being taxed at a lower rate than earned income; a dramatic decrease in almost all quality of life ranking factors among industrialized nations; 40+ million people on food stamps; even more people without access to medical care; a near depression and almost depression-like unemployment and severe under-employment; the USA, with 5% of the world's population, spending almost 50% of what the world spends on the MIC and politicians wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth over the prospect that MIC spending might be cut a bit; and add your own for good measure. Speaker Boehner claims to have gotten 98% of what he wanted in the grand bargain. Now social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are on the cutting block which is supported by probably all Republicans and an astounding number of RW Democrats. Make no mistake: anyone willing to make deep cuts in the big three, while not substantially addressing the grossly inadequate and patently unfair Federal tax code, is promoting an extremely RW agenda, no exceptions, no excuses. :patriot:

[CrispyQ]

143. "RW Democrats"

That phrase should not exist. I am sick at what the Democratic party has become.

A great post.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

125. "steaming pile"

[Bluenorthwest]

134. Very well said

That shite will not play anymore, the tawdry tactics and smarmy rhetorical spin are so very 2009....

[fascisthunter]

159. exactly

but hey.... self-deluding will make one ignore the fact that most of us here do not consider this posters arguments as honest.

[Enthusiast]

122. Excellent points.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[enough]

29. What are you, one of those "unreasonable" liberals? (nt)

[xchrom]

33. Recommend

[ThomWV]

34. And today he's out pushing hard for the early demise of Social Security

He is demanding continued "payroll tax" cuts. Trying to kill off Social Security as quickly as possible.

[woo me with science]

46. +1000000

Austerity measures in the general budget. Check.

On to the next goal.

Fucking thieves.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrispyQ]

45. But we're supposed to vote for him because the repubs would be worse.

Really? Even Bush couldn't cut SS.

There is no longer a democratic party. There is the rabid party, the republican party & the republican-lite party.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. I've convinced myself that there is a long term plan in place

to repeat the effect on the debt that the Clinton administration had, so as to remove the argument that conservatives economic policies have any basis in reality what so ever.

Of course, I need to convince myself of that to keep my sanity (such as it is).

[blkmusclmachine]

52. Welcome to Upside-Down World:

We're all Republicans now. And we'll work to reelect a man in 2012 who isn't what he claims to be, because his "opposition" pretends to be so very much worse. For 2012, it's "pick your poison."

[DCBob]

54. yet Bernie Sanders and other prominent liberal/progressives think this is good result.

Maybe you need to rethink this.

[woo me with science]

55. Here we go again.

Been covered already both here and in the other thread. But then, you know that. :rofl:

[DCBob]

56. Odd you still dont get it.

[woo me with science]

58. Nope, I will never "get" Republican policies. nt

[DCBob]

59. Huh?? Republicans are freaking out and on the ropes with this result.

They are getting blamed for the failure and yet they got nothing in return... except the debt ceiling raised and the prospects of the largest cuts to the military in over 50 years.

[woo me with science]

60. Yeah, those poor, poor Republicans.

Obama really got them this time with this textbook Republican budget plan.

:rofl:

[DCBob]

61. Barney Frank said the supercommittee's failure was “good news" for Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x820548

I guess you think Barney is just another promoter of Republican policies.

[Doctor_J]

72. Ah, yes the "Repukes are on the ropes" again

for the 500th time over the last 20 years. Grover is celebrating tonight

[DCBob]

85. Norquist is a simple-minded one-issue nitwit.

I wouldnt make too much of his "celebrating".

[Doctor_J]

89. who has more influence over DC policy than 300 million real Americans

this "victory for Dems" is a major step toward his goal of washing the government down the drain.

[DCBob]

90. He's like a terrorist with a bomb... I wouldnt admire that kind of "influence".

He's a dangerous extremist fool.

[Doctor_J]

96. Who gets what he wants, from an allegedly Dem president

the only one who "admires" him are the right-wingers, and, it seems, the president.

[DCBob]

98. He has "success" because he has enough Republicans in Congress who are afraid of him.

and those Republicans have just enough votes to cause chaos. That's the political reality you or I or the President can do nothing about.. at least until the next elections.

[Selatius]

131. They probably think it's "good" in the same sense that Paul Krugman thought it wasn't as bad as...

the alternatives, which is the Democrats cave in on everything. Here, the deadlock on the Super Committee guarantees pain to Republican spending priorities with Democratic spending priorities being collateral damage.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. oh when did liberals become so unreasonable?

:crazy:

[Skittles]

83. LOL.....Douglas

:rofl:

very witty INDEED :D

[JoePhilly]

65. The manufactured outrage machine runs 24/7.

That machine has sputtered this week given that it predicted the death of social security and medicare.

Since those deaths did not happen ... the outrage machine ... stalled briefly ... but its coming up with revised versions of the outrage. And this is one of them.

Apparently, Obama is a king, and there is no congress.

Oh wait ... never mind.

[Major Hogwash]

70. We're all going to die in a horrible car accident when the flames consume the car!!

Usually they have more clowns come out of the car than this, so I'm waiting for the end to see just how many there are!!

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Angry Dragon]

68. I am less worse than anyone else

It will only hurt you a little

[slay]

74. Might as well be his campaign slogan

seriously.

[woo me with science]

80. Remember this absolutely perfect OP,

posted with excitement by one of Obama's most fervent supporters? :rofl:

Most Americans not scared of Obama's reelection
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x808025

[Doctor_J]

71. Yup. We have alleged Dems cheering wildly over spending cuts

You need look no farther to figure out why the party is all but dead.

[DCBob]

87. Huh?? No one is "cheering wildly".

Many just realize there is more good than bad in what just happened.

[slay]

73. Oh you and your correct observations

those in power would really prefer you don't point out such glaring truths. I, on the other hand LOVE it - huge truth fan. K&R.

[joshcryer]

75. You're against MIC cuts.

OK, nice to know.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

91. It's not five years ago

If we'd kept Congress in 2010, this would not have happened.

[Doctor_J]

95. yes it would have

the congress we had in 2009-2011 tax cut disaster

[iamthebandfanman]

105. i think thats hard to say..

given that not all democrats are liberal...

honestly, thats what hurts our causes the most..

republicans are unified almost completely in ideology for the most part...
cant really say the same for all democrats these days

[Skittles]

127. HIS INCOMPETENCE LOST HIM CONGRESS

[Bluenorthwest]

135. I think we'd have won in more states without the President's

ideological constant message of bipratisanship. He virtually campaigned for them for three years. If it was not 'my good friend Tom Coburn' it was 'Democrats have been too partisan, and our partners across the aisle are honest brokers, with good ideas'.....
Had he called them out for what they are, rather than cooing over his Republican boyfriends and how great their idea are and how we just have to compromise with them, I think 2010 would have been different. If you tell voters that the opposition is honest, smart, and that you want them, well, why vote for 'your candidate'? If you are promoting the Republicans, and claiming Democrats are too partisan...
Ah well, water under the bridge now, no taking back his ranting and raving and chiding of liberals, nor his love songs to the right wing. He gave them the House on a platter. We retained the Senate, so no one has Congress, it is split, we kept half, they took half. And why? Bipartisan rhetoric and reach arounds.

[Enrique]

93. I agree completely n/t

[ProSense]

94. "Republican wet dream."

here

I can hear them applauding!!!

[chill_wind]

103. K & R.

[Douglas Carpenter]

104. knr

[Cali_Democrat]

108. K&R

[Enthusiast]

112. Once the tax cut extensions of 2009 were agreed to

IT WAS TOO LATE.

The entire thing was theater planned years ago. How long have Republicans been advocating a plan to "STARVE THE BEAST"? Two wars and tax cuts effectively set the stage for all this austerity.

[WildNovember]

129. David Harvey says the Republicans are deliberately prolonging recession in order to cut

social spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZodgVvezNuw

[nineteen50]

130. How is the international monetary war effecting the national economic

situation. Their just isn't enough money to fight that
war,continue the tax breaks, pay social responsibilities and
pay for all the current physical wars without austerity.

[tbartlett2]

133. It is up to use

The American people have been living with blinders on for years now. If we as progressives or liberals or even just Democrats want to see change then we must make it happen. We have become a party of just laying back and letting our elected politician's run with it. We need to make sure that we understand what each politician is running for and what his beliefs are. If he or she doesn't meet our requirement than don't vote for them or get someone to replace them. Being asleep is no longer an options for this party. We need to get the blue dog Dem's out of office and replace them. If you want this country to be for We The People then pay attention and educate yourself and the issues. We must make a bold statement in 2012 or I fear all is lost to the nut bags in the other aile.

[Autumn]

138. Now it's a Democratic wet dream.

K/R

[woo me with science]

192. What a disgrace. nt

[Dutchmaster]

139. This is what i have been saying.

[certainot]

144. the left allows the 1% 1000 radio stations to crap all over them all day long, so what else is new?

the think tanks use that giant coordinated megaphone to dominate nearly all messaging in the US, to turn lies into truth with unchallenged repetition, to determine what is and what isn't acceptable in media and politics, to create an alternate reality in which 2+2 = 3 and a tea party is can be sold as a 'popular movement', to attack all liberal ideas and dem reps and candidates all day with no consequences. that's where the 1% get a free speech free ride, and the left might as well be playing politics without a front line.

politics in democracy is compromise and the collective left has still mounted NO challenge to the right's biggest weapon.

team limbaugh spent months selling the teabagegrs the idea that the there would be liittle consequence from not raising the debt ceiling and then the country was surprised that they went all the way. that was after it helped elect a bunch of teabaggers by selling enough idiot dems and many progs that it was better not to vote in 2010 because obama was a failure because he couldnt kick ass in the white billionaires house.

[Fuddnik]

152. Kick and Rec!

[ProSense]

156. Supercommittee "Failure" is a Success for Middle-Class Americans

Supercommittee "Failure" is a Success for Middle-Class Americans (video)

A dose of reality!

[fascisthunter]

158. It Still Is by a Majority on DU

only small enclave of loyalists don't say so.

[bhikkhu]

160. You have to look at the actual agreement

The agreement doesn't directly address the tax cuts for the rich, because they are scheduled to expire next year already. Their expiration is a part of the expectations of the package deal. The repugs went into the debt-deal negotiations dead set on making the tax cuts permanent; they came out with little chance of getting another extension.

The budget isn't slashed during the worst economy since the recession. In spite of what the repugs wanted, no actual cuts are made until 2013.

...and so forth. The republicans kicked our asses in the last election - might as well admit it - and the cornerstone of that was fear over the massive deficit. They had a good point, but the question was what to do about it. I think Obama has done a great job of prioritizing, and has headed off the strongest repug threat to social programs in many years.

You can't just "leave it behind" and pretend we don't have to do anything, or do nothing and expect not to get our asses kicked worse in the next election, without beginning to look like a party in a death-spiral. Obama is handling things, and his manner of handling things addresses the real problems in effective ways. Hyperbole better suits the clowns on the other side.

[JDPriestly]

166. Democrats are offering no alternative to rabid Republican politics.

Rabid is the right word. The Republicans have the mentality of a pack of dogs. The Bush administration killed the economy. And now the Republicans are rushing to ravage what is left of the carcass.

And the Democrats are standing around, hoping to pick up a few scraps when the Republicans have finished their feast.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Jamastiene]

190. Too late to Recommend, but not too late to agree wholeheartedly

and :kick: