Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Of course, the cause of the bitter division we face is Boomers. And as they continue to slide into irrelevancy, solutions will be possible. I don't remember how long it's been since I posted in this thread, but it's exactly as it was when I left it -- aging left wing Boomers blathering on, not realizing that their grip on society is nearing its end.

We Boomers need a Mohandas Gandhi instead of a Karl Rogue.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

just checked the net and I see the Republicans have walked out of the budget talks because the Democrats insist on some tax increases. So Obama has a chance to stand up for at least a Clinton-era level of responsibility. The Republicans however have no freedom of action in this matter. Grover Norquist owns them all. He may be, next to Clinton and Bush, the most powerful Boomer in our political life. He is also a lifelong frriend, business associate and political associate of Jack Abramoff.

Right. And I heard a constitutional scholar on Charlie Rose last night say that in fact, failing to raise the debt ceiling and thus defaulting would be "unconstitutional" because it violates the 14th amendment. Does this give Obama a way to stop the irresponsible and fanatical Republicans?

Bernie Sanders has a backbone.

After Republican congressional leaders stomped out of debt-reduction talks, Bernie announced plans to give a major speech Monday on budget priorities. "The budget must not be balanced on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick and the poor while the wealthiest people laugh all the way to the bank," he said. He urged President Obama not to yield an inch to Republican demands to take revenue proposals off the table.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

just checked the net and I see the Republicans have walked out of the budget talks because the Democrats insist on some tax increases. So Obama has a chance to stand up for at least a Clinton-era level of responsibility. The Republicans however have no freedom of action in this matter. Grover Norquist owns them all. He may be, next to Clinton and Bush, the most powerful Boomer in our political life. He is also a lifelong frriend, business associate and political associate of Jack Abramoff.

What seems to be conventional wisdom right now is that this is all political theater. When the final deal comes, the Democrats will say they stood firm for the entitlements and the Republicans will say they stood firm for no taxes. The missing actor in the drama is still Obama. He maintains a passivity that has almost become a characteristic of this presidency. We will no doubt go to the last minute or even beyond.

Mickey Kaus is a kind of renegade Democrat in California. He had an interesting post this morning talking about an "all cuts" solution to the deficit problem.

Cut First! Andrew Sullivan (along with Ezra Klein and every other respectable center-left writer) believes the solution to the deficit problem will require a “balanced” mix of budget cuts and tax increases. Of course it will. But that doesn’t mean the partial deficit cut package Obama negotiates now has to include tax increases. Why can’t we have a deal with just tough spending cuts (and some stimulative short-term tax cuts)? We can raise taxes later.**

Sullivan is guilty of punditism. He wakes up every morning believing he must have a full solution for each and every policy problem. Then the policymakers can implement these thoughtful solutions–sort of like pressing a button. Cuts and tax increases! Shared sacrifice! That’s the fair and responsible plan. Where’s my check?

But policies can’t be implemented by pressing a button, or saying “Let’s do what Sullivan says.” Deals must be honored over time, and parties rightfully distrust each other. Opponents of illegal immigration, for instance, don’t trust “comprehensive” reformers to follow through on the border-enforcement part of the deal once they have their amnesty (they didn’t after 1986). So sequencing becomes important. Do the “enforcement” parts first, to gain the trust of the restrictionists. Then, after a few years, amnesty is possible. Try to do it all at once and it doesn’t happen, as we’ve seen.

Same with the deficit, no? Opponents of bloated government don’t trust politicians to make cuts if extra revenues are in the offing. Neither, sensibly, do many voters. But if you make dramatic cuts, demonstrate you’ve sweated out the fat–and there’s still a deficit, you’ve got a shot at getting a tax increase through. Cuts First! You could start with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.

In any case. it’s inane to argue that every step on the road to deficit reduction has to be a balance of cuts and tax increases. That’s like saying you can’t take a piss unless you take a drink.

P.S.: It’s not as if a cuts-only deal to avert a debt-ceiling crisis would be the easy way out. Cuts are hard–arguably harder, at the national level, than even raising taxes, which is why, as now, adding revenues is so often the politicans’ path of less resistance. We are also up against the syllogism:

a) If you can’t cut the fat out of government during economic bad times, because, hey, we need the stimulus of government spending and

b) You can’t cut the fat out of government during economic good times, because,’ Hey, there’s plenty of tax revenue so why the sense of urgency?,’ then

c) When will you ever cut the fat out of government? Never, that’s when. Instead it will build up over the decades like sediment until we reach … the present circumstance.

As someone who thinks revenues need to be raised, this actually makes sense to me. I like the analogy to the immigration issues. Sequence action to build trust.

James50

One problem in all this is that different people have different conceptions of what constitutes "fat."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

just checked the net and I see the Republicans have walked out of the budget talks because the Democrats insist on some tax increases. So Obama has a chance to stand up for at least a Clinton-era level of responsibility. The Republicans however have no freedom of action in this matter. Grover Norquist owns them all. He may be, next to Clinton and Bush, the most powerful Boomer in our political life. He is also a lifelong frriend, business associate and political associate of Jack Abramoff.

Your view of Norquist as master of the Republican plantation is a bit overstated. There is a long time feud between Norquist and Republican Senator Corker. Corker has never signed the Norquist pledge. This feud erupted again recently on the vote to stop the ethanol subsidy which Corker supported but was thought by many to be a violation of the Norquist pledge.

The vote failed, 40 to 59, well short of the 60 needed for cloture, but the fact that 34 Republicans supported the amendment raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill as perhaps a sign that Norquist and his pledge have lost clout in the GOP conference. Coburn certainly touted it as such. “That’s 34 Republicans who are willing to say this is more important than a signed pledge to ATR,” he told reporters after the vote. “I think you all think [Norquist] has a whole lot more hold than I think he has.” Then, in a follow up statement, he added: “Taxpayers should be encouraged that Republican senators overwhelmingly rejected the ludicrous argument that eliminating tax earmarks is a tax increase.”

Corker also voted for the Simpson/Bowles report which sent Norquist into conniptions.

Here.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One problem in all this is that different people have different conceptions of what constitutes "fat."

I liked Kaus' metaphor of "sediment" better than "fat".

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I liked Kaus' metaphor of "sediment" better than "fat".

James50

Amounts to the same thing. Whether a given government expense should be cut depends on whether one believes it should have been spent in the first place. We are NOT broke as a nation; that's sheer deception; there are no expenditures being proposed by anyone at this point that we literally "can't afford." There is nothing that we absolutely HAVE to cut, but just about everyone thinks that there are some things that we should. The problem is finding agreement on what those things are.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Bernie Sanders has a backbone.

Does Governor Coumo lack backbone after he closed a 10 billion dollar deficit WITHOUT raising taxes. It can be done nationally too.

Originally Posted by Weave

Does Governor Coumo lack backbone after he closed a 10 billion dollar deficit WITHOUT raising taxes. It can be done nationally too.

Depends on how he balanced the budget. Where were his major cuts?

Originally Posted by Weave

Does Governor Coumo lack backbone after he closed a 10 billion dollar deficit WITHOUT raising taxes. It can be done nationally too.

Of course it can. The question remains, why should it be? Why should we do without public services that we can afford? Why should we throw seniors under the bus, slash the hell out of public education, leave our infrastructure to crumble, and become in effect the world's richest third-world country, merely to avoid making people with more money than any thousand people would ever need pay a trivial amount more towards meeting public expenses?

I mean, I can live for a month or more on bread and water. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Depends on how he balanced the budget. Where were his major cuts?

The NYTimes article is here.

As one who is not a resident of NY State, I won't make a judgment on his actions. However, I will say that NY Governors often plan to make runs for the white house in the future. And looking at his cuts to public education, healthcare and other areas, this looks like the move of an ambitious politician who plans to seek large amount of Wall Street money by proving to such interests that he is a 'safe bet' in a future national election, perhaps 2016.

Maybe not, but I won't be surprised if it turns out that way.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The NYTimes article is here.

As one who is not a resident of NY State, I won't make a judgment on his actions. However, I will say that NY Governors often plan to make runs for the white house in the future. And looking at his cuts to public education, healthcare and other areas, this looks like the move of an ambitious politician who plans to seek large amount of Wall Street money by proving to such interests that he is a 'safe bet' in a future national election, perhaps 2016.

Maybe not, but I won't be surprised if it turns out that way.

I read the article you provided (thank you) and did some additional research. Something I have discovered when dealing with budget cuts, particularly when millionaires won't be asked to give their fair share, is to find out what the clergy and the residents that are most affected think.

After reading the following, I remind myself why I don't see much light between the Democrats and Republicans at times. Balancing the budget on the backs of the vulnerable will have some dire ramifications in terms of millions falling through the cracks of the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Another sad page in this story is that the middle class will be made to pay for the mistakes of those making these heartless decisions.

250 NYC Congregations Back Letter at City Hall Rally Calling on Cuomo, Legislature to End Plan to Slash Education, Give Tax Break to Millionaires

March 17, 2011

tags: Education Budget Cuts, nyc budget cuts 2011
by edvoxny


(March 17, 2011 – New York, NY) – More than 50 faith leaders and clergy representing more than 250 New York City congregations released a letter to Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders today calling “immoral” his plan to “transfer $4.6 billion dollars from essential public services back into the pockets of the richest New Yorkers.”

Lawmakers and education advocates joined them today at City Hall to echo the call to restore $1.5 billion in state education funding cuts, and demanding Cuomo and the legislature follow the broad majority of New Yorkers who support the current progressive tax under which New York’s wealthiest pay a fair share.

“All of our faith traditions call for a society that cares for the most vulnerable in its midst,” said Rabbi Michael Feinberg of the Greater New York Labor Religion Coalition. “As religious leaders we denounce cuts to essential human services, and decry as unethical efforts to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.”

“Eliminating programs that provide services to children living in poverty is a disgrace,” said Imam Souleimane Konate of Masjid Aqsa. “We believe that supports must be provided for those family members and communities who are caring for these children. In the Islamic faith it is said, ‘The Best among you is he who has learned and teaches others.’ What lessons are Gov. Cuomo teaching by not extending the Millionaire’s Tax? Where are his priorities?”

“As religious leaders we believe the governor’s plan to balance the state’s budget by reducing educational funding while protecting millionaires is unconscionable,” said Bishop Orlando Findlayter of Churches to Save and Heal. “We urge our legislators to stand with our children and oppose this detrimental budget.”

“I stand in solidarity with the poor and suffering seniors and youth on the issue of unfair budget cuts,” said Harlem pastor Rev. Vernon B. Williams. “It is time the rich shared in our state crisis by extending tax measures and other taxation methods that will help the great society and not just the rich.”

“The sum total of Jewish tradition insists that workers be paid on time and adequately, and that they be treated with dignity,” said Rabbi Ellen Lippmann. “Gov. Cuomo’s intention to let lapse the so-called ‘Millionaire’s Tax’ places an unjust and morally unacceptable burden on New York’s workers by asking them to shoulder a $4.6 billion burden that can sit lightly on the shoulders of the millionaires.”

“Gov. Cuomo says budgets are management documents. We say budgets are moral documents,” said NY Faith & Justice Executive Director Lisa Harper. “They reveal the heart—what and who we value and what and who we don’t. If Cuomo’s budget passes, history will look back on this generation of New Yorkers and will hear us saying: ‘We do not value children!’ We will say to history: ‘We do not value the sick!’ We will say to history: ‘We do not value workers and we do not value the poor!’ If we pass Cuomo’s budget, we will declare to history with no ifs, ands, or buts: ‘We value millionaires. Period.’ This is not who we are. We’re better than that.”

More: http://edvox.org/2011/03/17/250-nyc-...-millionaires/

All right, for once something actually about the 2012 election.

I have come to the conclusion that the Republican nominee will be either Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann. Which one of these receives the nomination depends on the extent to which the GOP establishment can defend itself against the Tea Party insurgency. Romney will be the favored candidate of the former, Bachmann of the latter.

Should Bachmann receive the nod, it's important not to underestimate her; she seems as goofy as Sarah Palin in her own ways, but she's much more intelligent and capable. It was thought once that Ronald Reagan was too extreme to win a national election, too. I do think the odds are stacked against her winning the election, but it's not a total slam-dunk and it would be a mistake to think of it that way.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All right, for once something actually about the 2012 election.

I have come to the conclusion that the Republican nominee will be either Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann. Which one of these receives the nomination depends on the extent to which the GOP establishment can defend itself against the Tea Party insurgency. Romney will be the favored candidate of the former, Bachmann of the latter.

Should Bachmann receive the nod, it's important not to underestimate her; she seems as goofy as Sarah Palin in her own ways, but she's much more intelligent and capable. It was thought once that Ronald Reagan was too extreme to win a national election, too. I do think the odds are stacked against her winning the election, but it's not a total slam-dunk and it would be a mistake to think of it that way.

Kathy Gifford asked Bachmann if she has always been a bigot or was it something that grew on her? Bachmann's response, "I'd have to think about that." So much for smarter than Palin.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Kathy Gifford asked Bachmann if she has always been a bigot or was it something that grew on her? Bachmann's response, "I'd have to think about that." So much for smarter than Palin.

That's actually a pretty good answer. I wouldn't have been able to come up with something that good on the spot; I'd have just stuck with the knee-jerk "fuck you" that any "have you quit beating your wife"-asshole question deserves.

So credit to Bachmann for being able to be quick on her feet and more creatively glib than me.

-----
-edit-
I don't know anything about the "Bachmann" person, nor do I care. I take it from the context that she is a scumbag like all the rest that the political class allows to move to positions of nationwide-talked-about. But even murderous parasites can deserve credit for being quick on their feet.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Kathy Gifford asked Bachmann if she has always been a bigot or was it something that grew on her? Bachmann's response, "I'd have to think about that." So much for smarter than Palin.

How did Kathy Gifford get to the point where she was comfortable enough to ask that question? Was Backmann so pathetic in the interview that she pissed Gifford off and she didn't care anymore?

Originally Posted by millennialX

How did Kathy Gifford get to the point where she was comfortable enough to ask that question? Was Backmann so pathetic in the interview that she pissed Gifford off and she didn't care anymore?

I made a mistake in spelling Kathy's last name. It's Griffin and not Gifford. Anyway, here is the video of what went down between Griffin and Bachmann.

http://jezebel.com/5814870/when-kath...chele-bachmann

Huh:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ms_110397.html

Democrats are getting their clocks cleaned in the 2012 redistricting...

I'd always seen this arguement:

Most redistricting analysis has focused on what you might call the "topline" number: Raw seats gained and lost. Using this metric, Stu Rothenberg estimates that Democrats are presently on pace to pick up one seat from redistricting, while Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report believes that Democrats will pick up two...

But:

The topline isn't the whole story, however. As Rothenberg carefully notes (and as Wasserman has observed in interviews), there is also the question of how far Republicans are able to go in shoring up their remaining districts... This is where the "real" story is.

Let's use Ohio as an example. It is slated to lose two seats this decade due to stagnant population growth. Since Republicans control the redistricting process, we might expect them to eliminate two Democrats... If the national environment were to tilt even slightly toward the Democrats in a given year, the entire Republican delegation from Ohio could be wiped out. In other words, while the "topline" would show a nice Republican win in this scenario, the victory would surely become recognized as a Pyrrhic one at some point during the decade.

Now suppose that Republicans instead chose to eliminate two Republicans... any competent line-drawer could move the median district substantially rightward, and make it almost impossible for Democrats to expand beyond those five seats in the short-to-medium term.

The redistricting that has occurred so far looks a lot more like the second scenario above than the first one (Ohio Republicans actually look set to split the difference by eliminating both a Republican and Democratic district)...

...I wonder what the Elephant in that disctrict has to say, though...

I wonder if eliminating Weiner's district in NY would have the same favorable results for Donkeys?

I think Cynthia McKinney could be the Gray Champion of this 4T, after Obama. btw, why are Rethuglican women like Bachmann (Boomer) and Palin (Xer) so mean and stupid?

Why don't they have anyone who is decent and articulate?

Originally Posted by James50

Your view of Norquist as master of the Republican plantation is a bit overstated. There is a long time feud between Norquist and Republican Senator Corker. Corker has never signed the Norquist pledge. This feud erupted again recently on the vote to stop the ethanol subsidy which Corker supported but was thought by many to be a violation of the Norquist pledge.



Corker also voted for the Simpson/Bowles report which sent Norquist into conniptions.

Here.

James50

There are in fact a number of Republican Senators who haven't signed it--Lugar (who faces a primary fight now) is another--but I believe that every single House member has signed it. Incidentally there's a woman on this forum (she very rarely posts) who knew Norquist at Harvard (apparently he never took any of my classes.) She says everyone thought of him as an eccentric and somewhat obnoxious nerd and no one thought he would amount to much. At a reunion they commiserated hat they had been wrong.

Originally Posted by Weave

Does Governor Cuomo lack backbone after he closed a 10 billion dollar deficit WITHOUT raising taxes. It can be done nationally too.

He lacks backbone because he gave in to the trickle-down right-wing program. Taxes need to be raised, not lowered, in a great recession, on those who can afford to pay. Taxing wealthy and corporate "job creaters" does not dry up the trickle-down to the rest of us, because trickle-down doesn't trickle; it tinkles. People need more government help in a recession, and government help to those who need it stimulates the economy. Long term investment does too. I'm all for cutting programs that are not needed, but cutting those we need is not healthy for anyone, except the wealthy who would pay less taxes.

At least I corrected your spelling Weave. A Democrat who's going to run for president should have better name recognition than Michelle Backman and other Republican extremists.

It's too early to say who is likely to win the Republican nomination. The election goes on so long that it is an absolute absurdity. It's more fun than most other news though, I admit. But that's just for political nuts like me. Does the public really want or need elections that go on for 2 years? right now, candidates are those who want to run for office for years at a time, but don't necessarily do anything once elected except run for re-election or for another office, since that's how our election system works (constant elections; therefore no time to do anything once elected). And only wealthy candidates or those who take lots of money from special interests can really afford to run and serve in this system.

We need a woman like Eleanor.



Eleanor Roosevelt (1884–1962)

Roosevelt was born to privilege but became one of the most visible social activists of her generation. She used her prominence as first lady to advocate for reform, giving visibility to movements for workers’ rights, women’s rights and civil rights and pushing FDR and his advisers to support progressive legislation. She held press conferences and voiced her opinions in radio broadcasts and a regular newspaper col-umn. She visited coal mines, slums and schools to draw attention to the plight of the disadvantaged and to lobby for reform laws. Her resignation from the Daughters of the American Revolution—to protest its ban on black singer Marian Anderson performing at Constitution Hall—made a controversial and powerful statement for racial justice. In 1948, as a delegate to the United Nations, she helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirmed equality for all people regardless of race, creed or color.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

btw, why are Rethuglican women like Bachmann (Boomer) and Palin (Xer) so mean and stupid?

Why don't they have anyone who is decent and articulate?

Um... because, even in middle age, they still exhibit signs of "pretty-girl syndrome". You know, the idea that they can treat people any which way they choose, and the world will still adore them no matter what... simply because they are beautiful women.

That's why.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Um... because, even in middle age, they still exhibit signs of "pretty-girl syndrome". You know, the idea that they can treat people any which way they choose, and the world will still adore them no matter what... simply because they are beautiful women.

That's why.

Does this seem like DC could potentially create the type of drama and popularity contest that you would see in a John Hughes movie. Two pretty Xer's duking it out and the crowd (media) egging it on.