He has the guts to keep everything ‘on the table’ when it comes to Social Security, so I suppose we shouldn’t frame letting the rich’s taxcuts expire as ‘guts. Perhaps an appeal to his cool, cerebral nature: do you have the smarts and common sense to let Paris Hilton’s taxes go back to their pre-Bush rates, Mr President?

If not, why not?

We are 10 Years without a Leader.

No guts, no balls, no spine. When is some bright spark from the Dems going to suggest a tax cut for the less wealthy majority?

The RWNFs claim that tax cuts for the super rich puts needed money into the economy assuming, of course, that the really, really rich will spend that “extra” money rather than stash it in Hong Kong, The Caymans or some other tax haven. However if the non super rich were to get a tax break, one can be certain that the money would go right back into the economy and yet nary a soul in Congress or the pres. is suggesting a tax break for those that really need it. Jeeze I wonder why not.

If not, maybe a later primetime address to the rest of us, like at NRN 2010, to suck it up, raise our hands to our betters with the money, and wait for the drenching of the morning dew of trickle-down manna.

Well, we’ll see, but I think this is the last thread or two from me hitched to Obama’s Political Wagon.

You know what socialist comrade Dwight D. Eisenhower would do. Tax ‘em.

Be sure that the same deficit hawks that think its up to us working folks to make up for their years of profligacy will be insisting that now we have to give up social support programs to create jobs that they destroyed.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/61828

OT: The talk of the town seems to be the Wikileaks data dump. This morning, Glenn Greenwald notes:

[a CIA document prepared in March, 2010 -- and previously leaked by WikiLeaks -- plotted how to prevent public opinion in Western Europe from turning further against the war and thus forcing their Governments to withdraw; the CIA's conclusion: the most valuable asset in putting a pretty face on the war for Western Europeans is Barack Obama's popularity with those populations].

“allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire” is only a little bit better then “raise taxes on the wealthy”

these are NOT successful methods for framing the issue, they SHOULD read;

“the revenues given to the wealthy as an investment failed miserably and MUST be returned if this economy is to recover”

I’ll tell you what, if the president tried that line EXACTLY the entire issue shifts to his side on the offense instead of actually trying to defend methods for getting our frigging money back

I’m not holding my breath that it’ll happen. Money talks in Washington.

Good morning, pups. It’s The Pasty Little Putz and Krugman this morning. The Pasty Little Putz is once again addressing the same topic as Prof. Krugman. In “The Right and the Climate” he says if cap-and-trade is dead, it was the American conservative movement that ultimately killed it. He’s pleased about this. Prof. Krugman, however, has a question: “Who Cooked the Planet?” He asks why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? The triumph of greed and cowardice.

Here they are.

The coffee and tea are ready, the cold drinks are in the fridge, and the biscuits are out of the oven. I’m off to water the garden while it’s still “cool,” at 80°. The heat index may hover around 115 this afternoon, and there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight. Have a grand day, and try not to melt.

“Comrade Eisenhower,” what a cool Birchist concept!

Thanks, Marion, already am sticky tho – and Krugman points out what those of us who live in Big Oil territory have learned, it’s not about the whole economy; ‘those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.’

Discussing United States’ politics of economic class in terms of “guts” is a public display of ignorance. After rich folks were given the keys to the U.S. treasury by our “leaders,” someone needs to come up with money to replace that which was given away. It’s going to be working people.

The paradigm is understandable. When the rich are getting public money deficits are good. When the bill comes due, deficits are bad and benefits to the not-rich (e.g., social security) must be cut. These policies are coldly calculated to transfer money up the economic food chain.

Unfortunately, the level of understanding shown in these comments tells me that things are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

If courage is needed, it is on the part of the 98% of the American people who are being fleeced.

Good morning everyone. Spent the weekend in Maine enjoying the beauty of the coastline. Now, back to reality.
Am I correct that inaction will cause them to expire? Nothing needs to be done and poof their gone? I think we can do inaction pretty darn well.

Spent the weekend in Maine enjoying the beauty of the coastline.

I am glad you enjoyed our neck of the woods.

Beautiful. We were in Ogunquit with a few trips to Kennebunkport. I don’t have to tell you how at peace you can feel in such a setting.

“Comrade Eisenhower,” what a cool Birchist concept!

He’d be asking citizens to get up off their wallets and support their country. Obviously a soshulist concept in Bircher days like these.

Nobody told me there’d be days like these.
Strange days indeed.
Most peculiar, mama.

The ocean renews the spirit at every tide. Come back soon.

I’m afraid it’s worse, the dems have to get 40 senators to filibuster repub legislation continuing the tax cuts, that could be a deal breaker.

For you youngers out there the Afgahn war, first cousin to the Vietnam war, has been exposed today in the wikileaks in all it’s lies of omission and commission, is what the old folks remember about the Pentagon papers.

One or two notable omissions would be our equipment being taken out with heat seeking missiles, maybe Saint Ronnie left over Stingers, and the war on a feeling, terror, has now morphed into and engagement with an nuclear power country, Pakistan.

The brilliance of the bush /cheney war council keeps on giving.

Unfortunately, the level of understanding shown in these comments tells me that things are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

i think when it comes to money americans are not that stupid. People know how fucked our government is and understand the class warfare dynamic. Our understanding of the issue doesn’t matter much though when dealing with corruption because truth takes a backseat to money and influence in this post democratic environment

Good morning all.

You’ll be able to knock me over with a feather if O lets the tax cuts for the rich expire. Watch for weak economic data to be the excuse for not letting them expire; after all they stim the economy don’t they?

Of course, the original charge that the 9/11 attack was from Afghanistan ignores the arbitrary separation line between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that our attackers were jst as likely to have been directed out of Pakistan, but we couldn’t attack the regime there as we had established relations with Gen. Musharraf.

Also ignores that 9/11 was planned in Germany & manned in Saudi Arabia.

eCAHN, glad you’re here. I have to take back my glowing recommendation of The Life of Pi. The book is really divided into 2 parts, the first 100 or so pages had me hooked (his life in India and his quest to choose a religion) but once the real meat of the book began (surviving on a raft with a tiger), I didn’t enjoy it as much.

true. and the House of Saud financed much of the family enterprises Poppy lived off.

Thanks for the update.

Frankly, I’ve got so many books on my list, I won’t be able to get to Pi for awhile. Now I’m into a book about Leopold II and Congo. W can’t hold a candle to the sophisticated way he managed to capture all that land. (Not into the atrocities yet, but it seems Leopold gave W a run for the money on that front also.)

Saudis also helped finance W’s failing businesses.

And Poppy financed w, even the House of Saud wasn’t persuaded to sink their own $$ into that colossal failure.

From Road to 9/11

According to Kevin Phillips, “James Bath, who invested $50,000 in the 1979 and 1980 Arbusto partnerships, probably did so as U.S. business representative for rich Saudi investors Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mafouz…

Latter was deeply entrenched in BCCI. Also Harken connection with Saudis; contributed to the handsome W buyout iirc.

My view is that investors were inveigled into participation in w failures by Poppy – but indeed, though several layers were involved, House of Saud probably did get roped into softening w’s wipeouts.

and Blue Texan above.

The war in Afghanistan was illegal from the get go. Assuming 9/11 was planned in the Afghan hinterlands, that doesn’t make the nation responsible. It’s like saying the feds should have taken over Michigan because Timothy McVeigh learned how to make fertilizer bombs there.

The real foolishness is seeing terrorism as a national enterprise. It’s an individual matter, individuals strapping on explosive vests and going out to do damage.

As for us, threads like this and comments are interesting but they don’t bring us closer to a solution. If we organize on the internet, it may be possible to change things without taking to the streets, but we need to change our sense of community. Take moderators for example. I oppose them. I don’t think anyone should be censored. If the thin skinned among us find an individual’s posts unbearable, he or she should be able to filter the posts out much like we have spam filters. We should be our own moderators rather than have moderation imposed from above. And so on.

That’s so easy, start your own blog without any moderation.

The mods do the yeoman’s work, like refs, in defining the limits to this site not the whole web.

You’re right. I once tried a blog and got nowhere. My people skills may not be what is required, still the fact remains we need to change assumptions about ourselves and our possibilities. May not work, but I believe it’s better than more of the same.

Not to belabor the point he said as he belabored the point, what’s wrong with each of us being our own moderator?

that’s the same thing as a market regulating itself isn’t it, it’s simply not possible

off till later, see all then

It’s not the same thing as a market regulating itself. What is wrong with empowering individuals? We’ve had a hierarchical state of mind from the beginning. Breaking with the past won’t be easy, if it’s possible. There’s no other way.

because there are a few immoderate commenters

Plus the Saudi Royal family did a lot of initial financing of Al Qaeda.

Then, as indicated, there’s all that intertwining between the Bush family & the bin Saud royalty… much like Grandpoppy Bush’s closeness with Herr Hitler. And who made out like bandits?? And who suffered??

Look over there!! It’s the Afghans who caused 9/11!!! And Saddam Hussein who funded Al Qaeda!!!! Great propoganda, and many believe it, sad to say, even relatively alert Democratic voters. The rightwing propoganda machine doesn’t just have an impact on the dittoheads, make no mistake about that.

OK so what? A person can ignore them or with sophisticated software filter them out. Suppose an immoderate commenter learned he was filtered out by the entire list, he might change his ways. As it is, it is simply orders from headquarters.

The solution is for everyone to develop a thick skin. They do this by seeing themselves as the equal of any. The solution is not to protect the thin skinned from the big bad world which as you say consists of a few immoderate commenters.

Now I understand some people see others (usually those they disagree with) as trolls and that a troll can disrupt a thread. If you are talking about dogs and someone keeps posting things about cats, it’s a nuisance. Some might be interested to hear what he has to say about cats. Others can filter him out. The point is the individual community member should be the one to decide. When you understand why you have a problem with that, you step a long ways towards the answer.

Why make everybody “develop a thick skin” so a couple people can be jackasses?

Everyone is entitled to be whatever they choose to be even a jackass. As for a thick skin, it comes in handy. Thin skins lead to nothing but grief. If you turn a thin skinned person into a thick skinned person, IMHO you do them a favor, but as in all things, the width of one’s skin is a personal choice.

You’re right. I once tried a blog and got nowhere. My people skills may not be what is required,

Gee, it could also be that being immoderate and all might be something that drives people away such that even if you (or others) have a valid point, it’s just too damn much trouble trying to dig through the crap to find it that no one has that much time or energy.

BOY DO YOU HIT THE PROVERBIAL NOTH!!!At 62 & with many years of therapy under my belt, I understand how my inability to “nut-up or shut-up” has gotten me exactly nowhere.I really think dems just have zero skills in self-aggrandizement, unlike the repugs. In my own case, I even married one! A repug I mean. And I always lose the argument and I think it’s bc the WORDS ARE ALL WRONG! Apologies for the caps but I just don’t have the words…

Let me be perfectly clear.

I’m here at Jane and Christy’s pleasure.

I think of this, or any web site, as Jane’s living room. She’s allowed me to visit with her and her friends. But it’s her house and her rules.
I’ve been smacked a few times and agree afterwards because this is Jane’s place and those are the rules.

There are many living rooms to visit on the web but don’t expect to go on someone’s site and start farting. You don’t fart in church , do you?

We should not be striving for “free speech”, i.e. the ability to say whatever we want anytime we want. What we should be striving for is discourse, the ability to discuss things. And there are those who do not want discourse, and are willing to disrupt discourse with their “free speech”. Self-moderation cannot correct the problem of discourse-limiting free speech.

On another topic, Obamarahma’s selling point for the fall is that “things could be worse.” Now there’s NOT an argument to vote for those cretinous fools in the fall.

You are right about my being immoderate, but wrong to ignore what you say may be valid points. We are all responsible for what we believe, no matter what. Belief is choice. We have many reasons for choosing, some good some bad, but individual belief is individual choice. You can choose to ignore me or not. That is your choice.

tjbs at 44. Yes this is Jane’s place and she may do with it as she pleases to the point of excluding me. I say that is not the way to go and will not accomplish the governmental changed we all want (that’s a prediction-we must wait and see) Making the site egalitarian will not diminish Jane and may make the site more powerful. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

As for farting, sometimes I can’t help myself.

When I was living in Belgium, I visited the Central African Museum (just outside of Brussels) several times. It was an easy drive or tram ride.

One story I heard there was the Leopold actually moved an entire Congolese village to the museum grounds. Then came the realization that the Belgian winter is not the same as that in the Congo and the entire village was wiped out by the cold.

You missed my point (obviously).

Yes, we are all responsible for what we believe. But if people have to dig through oceans of crap to find that one teaspoon of wisdom, they won’t do it. It has nothing to do with ignoring or not ignoring you. It has to do with the level of work required to find those teaspoons of information that may have value. If most of the stuff posted is so much crap, why would people take the time to try to find that smidgen of value? The return on invested time is just. not. worth it.

And if you make a habit of farting in people’s living rooms, remind me to never invite you in to mine.

Wow! Look at that huge swathe of orange running through that graph.

Almost looks like a section of the rust belt…

I’m not holding my breath.

Let’s say we missed each other’s point. I try to be as blunt and brief as possible, but we deal with possibilities. I say we have to break with the past, as to how that’s a matter for discussion. I don’t claim to have all the answers or perhaps any answers. I believe we begin by trying to grow FDL and combining blogs with a new kind of file system rather than buttons linking to other member blogs and keeping the blogs individual.

I promise to do my level best not to fart in your living room.

Where have you been the last three to five years? Or have you missed how FDL has grown quite nicely, using the system where the Moderators work to keep the conversation civil?

So you’ll pardon me, if I keep the opinion that Ms Hamsher has done quite nicely at growing FDL without your ideas of having things devolve into a Wild West free for all forum.

As has been suggested, if you think your way works best, set up your own blog and have at it. But as you have stated, you tried that and went no where. Seems to me, the lesson in that is your way doesn’t do very much at winning friends and influencing people and in fact has pretty much the opposite effect. And if your way is not a way that people see as a way to possibly bring change, why should anyone follow your way of doing business?

I guess it’s my lot in life to be the ant at the picnic, but going back to the public option debate I said the fix was in, that the devices created here, ie the whip with phone calls would do no good. It turned out, unpleasant though I might have been, I was right.

Then Jane called for donations. She said she was disgusted with “progressive” democrats and wanted to go in a different direction. I asked what that direction was, but got no reply. She later eliminated the ambiguity and said the donations support FDL as is. I might add I like it here. I like the people who comment and I contributed.

I continue to believe FDL no matter how it grows (and I have no idea how many members its has) will not grow large enough to make a difference nor does the fact that you dislike the way I present my case have anything to do with whether I am right or wrong. Time again will tell although I’m not sure we have all that much time.

Take as an example FDL’s linking with brother and sister sites. It would be more effective IMHO if the sites were combined and comments sorted by subject matter rather than have a bunch of proprietors. We are way too fragmented but the various proprietors like being proprietors and people fear losing their individuality to the mass. Therein lies the rub. The fact a great many people agree on something (collective thinking) means nothing to me. When something is not verifiable (ie by the scientific method) referencing what we perceive as an external world (ie a belief in God)one solitary opinion (mine) has the same philosophical weight as that of multitudes.