The new party of no?

[Riot]

Prove it? Have you not paid any attention to the news for the past few months? I've never seen a poll say differently. Do you have one? Google poll and Bush tax cuts and you'll get pages and pages of polls over the past months, pre- and post-election:

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm (Fox News)

http://www.politico.com/morningscore...gscore173.html (SEIU poll, Washington Post, Politico)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/2...cans-want.html (McClatchy)

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...or-the-wealthy (Gallup)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html (CBS, NYT)

http://southcapitolstreet.com/2010/1...t-health-care/ (Opinion Research)

Here's a good synopsis of multiple polls via party, showing how even the GOP members want tax cuts eliminated in favor of fiscal conservatism
http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress...-for-the-rich/

Here's what I think (hope) will happen: The Bush tax cuts cannot be partially arbitrarily extended (can't extend part, not extend part). So those bills will expire as scheduled - they will be gone January 1, 2011. However, the Dems in lame duck will pass a House bill providing new equivalent tax cuts for $250,000 and below, that will pass the House easily. In the lame duck Senate, the Dems will dare the GOP to vote down a Dem-sponsored bill for middle class tax cuts. They can't do it. It will pass. That will leave the new GOP, once they are in control in January, to try and pass a separate GOP tax cut bill for the top 2% of earners in the US, millionaires and billionaires only, a special tax cut for that income over $250,000/year. It's political suicide.

The above is why the new GOP Senators sent a letter to Harry Reid begging him not to address the tax cuts in lame duck (trying to control the agenda of a Senate they are not yet a part of)

[Cannon Shell]

I just want to know if you Dem's think that moving your party further left and allowing an extremely unpopular politician to remain the face of the party is going to workout in your favor?

I would also like an explanation on why the Dem's can now be the "party of no" (admittedly so seemingly at the expense of their former golden child) and why no one in the media (or Riot) is writing about it as being "anti-American" or "out of touch" like the GOP was characterized as?

And many of the Blue Dogs lost because the vast majority of them were running in relatively conservative districts where being a Dem (and being associated with Pelosi/Obama) hurt them, not because democrats wanted more liberal representation. That is a fairly ridiculous theory.

[Riot]

I just want to know if you Dem's think that moving your party further left and allowing an extremely unpopular politician to remain the face of the party is going to workout in your favor?

Apparently the Dems think it will work wonderfully for them. You disagree. So you should be happy about it. We'll see how it works out.

I would also like an explanation on why the Dem's can now be the "party of no" (admittedly so seemingly at the expense of their former golden child) and why no one in the media (or Riot) is writing about it as being "anti-American" or "out of touch" like the GOP was characterized as?

Have the Dems actually done any of that yet? No one can write about what hasn't happened.

I'm sure the first time the Dems obstruct passage of a normal-business bill (like allowing the military to continue getting paychecks) via filibuster, with a 100% vote for political reasons, requiring a 60-vote filibuster-break vote for a bill to pass, rather than the Constitutional majority of 51 votes, you'll let us know.

And many of the Blue Dogs lost because the vast majority of them were running in relatively conservative districts where being a Dem (and being associated with Pelosi/Obama) hurt them, not because democrats wanted more liberal representation. That is a fairly ridiculous theory.

Good think nobody here has proposed that theory then, right?

I agree with your assessment, above. I'll repeat again, I was not trying to say the election was about eliminating blue dogs. It wasn't. Only that it turns out, that indeed was the result - the in-office Dems left are now the most progressive of the lot. And they are banding behind Pelosi and Reid with that in mind.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Apparently the Dems think it will work wonderfully for them. You disagree. So you should be happy about it. We'll see how it works out.



Have the Dems actually done any of that yet? No one can write about what hasn't happened.

I'm sure the first time the Dems obstruct passage of a normal-business bill (like allowing the military to continue getting paychecks) via filibuster, with a 100% vote for political reasons, requiring a 60-vote filibuster-break vote for a bill to pass, rather than the Constitutional majority of 51 votes, you'll let us know.



Good think nobody here has proposed that theory then, right?

I agree with your assessment, above. I'll repeat again, I was not trying to say the election was about eliminating blue dogs. It wasn't. Only that it turns out, that indeed was the result - the in-office Dems left are now the most progressive of the lot. And they are banding behind Pelosi and Reid with that in mind.

Please answer the question. I asked what the dems HERE thought.

Pelosi's stated goal is to obstruct any compromise Obama has with the GOP. That seems to fit the bill.

There is very little progressive about being liberal. As I asked a few times, do you think the Democrats going further left will really serve them well?

[Riot]

Pelosi's stated goal is to obstruct any compromise Obama has with the GOP.

No it's not. She never said that. Why don't you quote what Pelosi actually said?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No it's not. She never said that. Why don't you quote what Pelosi actually said?

Do you need me to decipher the code for you?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Do you need me to decipher the code for you?

The only code I see is you misquoting what was said.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

That will leave the new GOP, once they are in control in January, to try and pass a separate GOP tax cut bill for the top 2% of earners in the US, millionaires and billionaires only, a special tax cut for that income over $250,000/year. It's political suicide.

LOL

It is always funny when things like this are called "special", like it is somehow different than any other tax cut. It is available for anyone, all you have to do to qualify is be sucessful enough to qualify. Of course the Democrats in using class warfare to gain political favor among the lower income voters have succeeded in making sucessful people and "wall street" types public enemy number one, hence the poll numbers.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

LOL

It is always funny when things like this are called "special", like it is somehow different than any other tax cut. It is available for anyone, all you have to do to qualify is be sucessful enough to qualify. Of course the Democrats in using class warfare to gain political favor among the lower income voters have succeeded in making sucessful people and "wall street" types public enemy number one, hence the poll numbers.

I think the "Wall Street" types have put themselves into the public enemy number one position all by themselves

You bet the Dems are using "class warfare". About time they grew a pair. If there is a tax cut for only 2% of the population, only for income levels over $250K (the first $250K getting a tax cut), that will cost $700 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, of course the Dems want the GOP name on it - not Obama's.

Did you see a few weeks ago, where Gates and Buffett publicly came out and advised Obama to let that one tax cut expire for the wealthy?

The GOP won the election promising fiscal conservation. They will have to put their money where their mouths are, all by themselves, if the Dems do it right. Granted, that may not happen - the Dems have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think the "Wall Street" types have put themselves into the public enemy number one position all by themselves

You bet the Dems are using "class warfare". About time they grew a pair. If there is a tax cut for only 2% of the population, only for income levels over $250K (the first $250K getting a tax cut), that will cost $700 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, of course the Dems want the GOP name on it - not Obama's.

Did you see a few weeks ago, where Gates and Buffett publicly came out and advised Obama to let that one tax cut expire for the wealthy?

Yes because Wall Street has been terrible for the average American.

About time they used class warfare? LOL! yeah the party of the people versus the party of the rich hasnt been used before...
All class warfare has resulted in is further entitlement from those which least deserve entitlements.

I dont really care what those guys publicaly said. 2 mega rich old guy Democrats who are suffering from guilty consciences. Think they got rich giving money away and asking to be taxed at a higher rate? Find me a 40 year old non-liberal billionaire that agrees.

[Riot]

Yes because Wall Street has been terrible for the average American.

Yes. Losing 35-40% of one's investments had quite the negative effect on Wall Street's reputation with "the average American". Thank goodness Social Security didn't get privatized by Bush The Second - it would have been a blood bath.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

LOL...We're all grown here. Nobody is gunna change their mind about whether those making over 250k should have their tax cut extended. I just don't see how this guy negotiating on this is gunna help him get elected again. Not many of the people who want the tax cut extended for the rich will vote for this guy. So, if he gives them some sort of extention on their tax break, wtf good does it do him? Maybe this guy doesn't really want to get elected again. If he gives the rich an extension of their tax break, do you know how many people are gunna stay home when he needs them to vote for him? He better start exposing the parts of them that people don't like, and stop doing this nice crap that hasn't worked for almost 2 years.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes. Losing 35-40% of one's investments had quite the negative effect on Wall Street's reputation with "the average American". Thank goodness Social Security didn't get privatized by Bush The Second - it would have been a blood bath.

I often think of this and also the 24/7 trading they were touting during the DotCom bubble. Only people this would have benefited is the Hedge Funds who trade both sides and the Uber rich that can get in them providing it wasn't run by Madoff. Mom and Pop and their buy and hold mutual funds would be absolutely destroyed...

[Riot]

I'm fed up with these arrogant GOP losers endangering our national security just to score political points against Obama by saying "no" to everything. They've done nothing for two years.

If Jon Kyl (R Senator Arizona) continues to obstruct the START Treaty renewal just because he wants to throw a hissy fit and try and screw Obama - the exact same treaty the GOP and Reagan approved in the past, the same treaty the GOP was raving about Bush's last year in office, the same treaty plenty of other GOP say is necessary and essential to our nuclear security - WITH added funding that Kyle threw a temper tantrum and demanded and was added by Obama in a conciliatory move, then Kyl backed out again voting to approve it - un-effing- believable bunch of irresponsible babies, putting politics before this country. Can Senators be recalled?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

I often think of this and also the 24/7 trading they were touting during the DotCom bubble. Only people this would have benefited is the Hedge Funds who trade both sides and the Uber rich that can get in them providing it wasn't run by Madoff. Mom and Pop and their buy and hold mutual funds would be absolutely destroyed...

LOL. So what you are saying is that the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds didnt benefit from the dot.com bubble?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes. Losing 35-40% of one's investments had quite the negative effect on Wall Street's reputation with "the average American". Thank goodness Social Security didn't get privatized by Bush The Second - it would have been a blood bath.

So the trillions made by the average americans over the last 30 years not only by individual investments and retirement funds but by institutional investments such as pension funds is negated by losses? I guess you forgot that there is risk involved and no one was complaining when their nest eggs went up 500% during the boom times...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the trillions made by the average americans over the last 30 years not only by individual investments and retirement funds but by institutional investments such as pension funds is negated by losses? I guess you forgot that there is risk involved and no one was complaining when their nest eggs went up 500% during the boom times...

You missed the entire point. Or are simply avoiding it purposely with a straw man regarding the investment world, which is not the topic.

Currently Social Security funds are not in "risk involved" investments. To privatize social security would put them there. The private sector lost nearly half their investments when Wall Street crashed. Thank goodness that wasn't their Social Security funds, privatized by Bush.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont really care what those guys publicaly said. 2 mega rich old guy Democrats who are suffering from guilty consciences. Think they got rich giving money away and asking to be taxed at a higher rate? Find me a 40 year old non-liberal billionaire that agrees.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/...line-on-taxes/