bring it on! but i'd feel much better about the chances if the democratic party wasn't filled with dinos....

I've said this before but it's amazing watching Democrats almost instinctively find ways to screw this up. Not only is the public completely behind them on letting the cuts expire, to let the cuts expire they have to do... absolutely nothing.

That's it. Literally. If they do NOTHING, there are no more tax cuts for millionaires. They can propose any selective tax cut they want, and Republicans can either work with them or get... NOTHING. And then be on the side of opposing tax cuts.

Do they really not understand this?

Oh good. Instead of debating which jobs program would help Americans more, we're debating which tax cut is helping build capital. But then, with Democratic leadership like we have now, why am I suprised?

Stand firm, Democrats, stand firm. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Maybe if we called it "tithing..."

August, if Democrats do nothing, then taxes will go up on the middle class as well. That's why there's this battle. Republicans do have a hand to play, and a potent campaign issue if it results in a stalemate - Obama raised YOUR taxes!

I'd just as soon taxes go up on everyone. Since deficit hysteria is respectable again, let's take advantage of it. But as always, it's really raise HIS taxes, not mine.

Both parties are running on instinct . McConnell is saying existing tax policy , commenting as if it were a sacred artifact , to be admired in a museum . Reid is saying that the first amendment is whatever the wind is carrying back from Angle's headquarters .

This really is a no-brainer, but it appears that both a majority of Americans, and the officials they elect to represent them, don't have much in the way of brains.

Why on earth would this be an issue where moderate Democrats side with the GOP in Missouri and Kentucky? I'd think they'd want to compromise on the culture war stuff, not the handmaiden-to-the-rich part of the GOP agenda.

Krugman - "Or we're told that it's about helping the economy recover. But it's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren't likely to spend a windfall."

What was the top 1% doing with all that money they were getting back since 2001?

What part of the economy saw the biggest benefits from the tax cuts?

input this URL:
( http://www.fashionclothe.com )
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan s-h-o-e-s)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)
( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

EEC: Why on earth would this be an issue where moderate Democrats side with the GOP in Missouri and Kentucky?

Because they have stupid consultants who think that in order to gain any traction, they have to run to the right of Obama, who, as everyone knows, is a sochilist muslin who hates rich chrichtins.

Why do we let these Blue Dogs befoul the Democratic Party? Look, there was a time when it was necessary to accept Democrats from Red States who were more conservative on social issues. Fine. I get that. I don't expect a Blue Dog to support repeal of DADT or support gay marriage. Whatever.

But these assholes undermine the decades-old Democratic economic platform.

It isn't just that I want them out of the party. I don't understand why they want to be Democrats in the first place. They repeat GOP talking points on taxation, social spending, and government regulation. They undermine Democratic policies at every turn. If they hate what Democrats stand for, isn't there a Republican party that they can join?

I've said this before but it's amazing watching Democrats almost instinctively find ways to screw this up.

How many things have we been saying this about for how many years? And after all that experience, progressives should still expect to accomplish anything by trying to continue working within the party why, exactly?

LaBonne: ...progressives should still expect to accomplish anything by trying to continue working within the party why, exactly?

I can answer that in one bumper sticker:

NADER2000

Figures this ignorant jackass "cr", along with all his other stupidity, would buy the ridiculous myth that Nader was responsible for Gore's loss. For the record, that's complete nonsense.

Oh, but Steve, it was Nader's fault that Gore ran a DLC, Liebermanesque campaign. Then he didn't much challenge the Florida recount. I love the guy now, but he ran an awful, awful campaign.

You want to know why the Dem's don't kill this talk about renewing the tax breaks for the wealthiest 120,00 Americans? Because those 120,000 Americans live in their districts and can use their pocket change as contributions to the Dem's, as well as the Thugs, and ensure they will continue to get their million dollar tax breaks.

There will be no justice in this country until there is real reform of campaign finance.

LOL...You guys are too funny.

I never suggested that Nader was responsible for Gore's loss.

I was just trying to point out that Nader, and his extremely poor campaign in 2000, is what you guys came up with as an alternative to the Democrats.

If you think that's a workable alternative, then be my guest at another try in 2012.

We'll all just laugh harder.

I dug how Krugman likened the current phony Republican rhetoric over tax cuts to the runup to the Iraq War. If only Democrats would have the sense to repeat that idea.

Nader is a self-promoting blowhard. If you think he was ever the idol of most real progressives, you're just showing us more of your ignorance of everything that lies outside the Dembot bubble.

P.S. Successful pressure on the Demublican Versailles establishment will come from the streets, just as in the 1930s- not from the rigged electoral system. If you think it can't happen, just watch what a few more years of ordinary people getting economically crushed will do. And then ask yourself whether you really want all that anger to be channeled, by default, to the Right.

It's fools like the teabaggers and you, labonne, that start wars that kill people. Grow up and learn to use your head instead of praying for the revolution every night.

Revolution? Was there a revolution in the US in the 1930s? The historians must somehow have missed it. Yet it is a well-documented fact that the achievements of the New Deal were highly dependent on pressure from the streets.

Ignoramus. You're just a shill for crooked Democratic politicians- like all of your crowd you have no actual political principles at all.

There WILL BE an explosion of populist anger if current economic conditions continue for several more years. Again, the question is whether to allow ALL of that anger to be co-opted by the right. Are you really too fucking stupid to understand the danger of that?

Most of the regulars here are pretty erudite, and mostly civil in our discourse. Of course the occasion outburst appears.

Fuckwad.

cr: You are such a joke. I can't say I ever had much respect for you, but blaming liberals for "start[ing] wars that kill people" might be the biggest bit if idiocy that you've banged out so far.

Ooh, Day is clutching his pearls and fainting. Somebody catch him before he hits the ground.

Anyone who completely discounts the electoral process and looks for change to come "from the streets" is obviously too stupid to understand the potential ramifications. And if that's how you define "liberal" these days, then you've fallen directly into the trap that the cons set for you.

I'm just glad that you guys are too ignorant to ever actually have control of any decision-making institutions.

Anyone who completely discounts the electoral process and looks for change to come "from the streets"...

They work together. Read up on the history of the New deal before making a further idiot of yourself. FDR had to be pushed, and he in turn needed the threat of social disorder to force the the elites to accept real change.

And for the third time, there are going to be millions of VERY angry people if current economic conditions continue for long, whether you like it or not. So again for the third time, do you want to passively allow the Right to channel all of that energy? For somebody who likes to harp on the dangers of enabling Republicans to be elected, neglecting this potentially far greater danger seems a curious omission. It suggests that all you really care about is that your crowd is in office.

cr: The only idiot in this thread is you.

LaBonne is simply stating the obvious. When the majority of Americans start taking in the shorts, big time, there WILL BE a populist reaction.

It can either be a fairly positive reaction, with Democrats harnessing the populist energy to introduce electoral, economic, and financial reforms (see FDR's policies). Or the Democrats can let the majority of the populist energy to be channeled by Republicans, in which case we will see more racism, xenophobia, and scapegoating of "illegals".

Your choice.

labonne@12:36: Successful pressure on the Demublican Versailles establishment will come from the streets, just as in the 1930s- not from the rigged electoral system. (emphasis added)

labonne@1:19: They work together.

That was a quick change of tune.

To your insistent question: Economic conditions will improve significantly over the next two years. Any danger from an angry populace will be from the fringes, remnant teabaggers and the few that your ilk may rile. Nothing new.

That was a quick change of tune.

No, it isn't. Your abysmal reading comprension is not my problem.

Going to bet your own money on economic conditions- and especially the job market- improving significantly in the next 2 years? Remember, we're currently in way worse shape than the Obama Administration's original "worst case" projection, and recent signs are not encouraging.

The biggest contributing factor right now to the danger of a major rightward shift is the Democratic establishment's steadfast resistance to doing anything for ordinary people even as it continues to fellate the banksters (viz. the admissions leaking out the past few days about the real purpose of the HAMP program). That is a very dangerous game, for the country as well as for the party. In fact it is the height of irresponsibility.

Hey, LaBonne, the economy is booming. Haven't you heard? cr's stocks are up 20% this year, plus the dividends! Don't be a killjoy.

When you complain, it risks the GOP coming back to power. Why would that be so bad? I can't remember, but I know it would terrible. Don't ask me for specifics.

As for the rabble? Let them drink Starbucks!

Alan Grayson:

There are two groups in this country right now. I call those groups Us, and Them.

We want more jobs, better schools, better health, better pensions, and we want to keep our homes. We want not just jobs but jobs that mean something, jobs that pay a decent wage. We want to live a good life.

And then there's them. They simply have one goal and one goal only. And that is to destroy the government. They're not conservatives. They're anarchists.

I don't know why they want anarchy. In fact, they don’t know, either. Even they don't know what kind of inner darkness causes them to seek wars without end, to burn the planet, to welcome poverty for so many, to leave the old and the sick helpless, to cheer oil in the Gulf. I've spoken to enough of them to be able to tell you that they themselves don’t know why.

But that's what they want. So, now we have to decide who is going to run this country. Is it Us, or is it Them? And what's at stake is the future. The future in a country that my five children will live in, that your children will live in, that you'll live in for the rest of your life.

Are we going to have a country with a decent middle class life for everyone-- jobs, health care, roads, schools? Or, are we going to have poverty, cheap labor, helplessness and hopelessness? The choice is yours.

Which side is cr on?

I seem to recall that the French were quite successful in 'taking to the streets' for change.

In fact, the French today are quick to march and protest when they feel that the government is not representing their best interests.

And the French government fears the people.

Not the other way around, as is quickly becoming the norm here. Tasers and related deaths from simply refusing to immediately obey and officer. Free speech 'zones.' Limits on the numbers of people allowed to congregate in public spaces.

But no, we're supposed to clap louder and accept 'what we can get given the current system.' No need to ever take a stand to change the current system. No matter that the current system is increasingly changing in favor of the rich, the elite, the corporations. The new plutonomy.

No, stay home. Don't resist. We know what's best for you. Here, go watch American Idol. Or we might have to pay you a visit. Someone reported that you acting suspicious...

I don't know why they want anarchy. In fact, they don’t know, either.

They want anarchy because anarchy means might makes right, and they expect to be the ones with the might.

Fuck you, you square-headed asshole.

Get out of your momma's basement and find out what it takes to actually achieve half of the stuff that your pompous hero Grayson is talking about.

I've been organizing against republican dickheads and corporate motherfuckers and, yes, lefty fringe do-nothing assholes like you, since probably before you were born.

You're just a bunch of talk, afraid to actually take on the real world. Good luck with that.

terraformer: And the French government fears the people.

Oh yeah, France, such a wonderful populist government. I guess that's why they ban Muslim girls from wearing their traditional scarfs at school and are banning the Muslim burqa from public completely.

If that's your example of an open responsive government, I'll stick with mine, thank you.

It's no use, cr, we can see you peddling standard right-wing memes (it's not a funding crisis, just overpaid administrators) also on the "toilet paper for school" thread. Everybody can see which side you're really on.

Grayson, by the way, is a sitting Congressman. By your own definition he's thereby already achieved more than you ever have even by your own likely fictional account. But it's quite illuminating to see that you hate even elected Democrats unless they're obedient corpocrats. Again, it shows us which side you're really on.

I'm so sorry, labonne. I didn't know that the current fringe-left position was to support stooge bosses (school administrators) making twenty times as much as the union workers (teachers) as long as they're on the public payroll.

And now you're gonna get all dewy-eyed about a sitting congressman. Have no idea what you mean by "your own definition."

Grayson is a pompous ass who occasionally says something right. You should meet him sometime if you don't think so.

Seriously, grow up.

All right. All right. Why don't we all just put the guns back on the table. Nice and easy....

But then that's their strategy: don't let the Dems 'win' on any issue that will actually help 'Real Americans'. Especially an issue (tax cuts or small business help) that's a 'GOP one'. But for that to happen they have to vote against what they naturally would support. But when they get power back (if they do, excuse me) they'll bring that bill up again and THEN it will pass but as a GOP bill. They only 'care' about the American people when they have the power and therefore get 'credit' for any legislation that is beneficial.

My, aren't some of us a bit testy tonight!
Mr. LaBonne states @ "...Successful pressure on the Demublican Versailles establishment will come from the streets, just as in the 30s".
Firstly, and most importantly; Demublican? You couldn't think of anything else? How about "Repubocrat"? MUCH easier to pronounce.
Secondly; I would definitely like some sources for your assertions concerning the accomplishments of the New Deal being "highly dependent" on pressure from the streets. Of course, you MIGHT be referring to the 25%, or greater unemployment rate inherited by the incoming administration. I can see how that large a number of idle persons might "pressure" any government. Or perhaps you are referencing the nearly nation-wide closure of the banks immediately prior to FDR's inaugeration? That was definitely due to pressure from the "streets"; Wall Street, Main Street, etc.
The "revolution" that occurred in the 1930s was that it no longer was considered "immoral" for the Federal government to assist those who, for whatever reason, could no longer help themselves. THAT was the real "revolution"; obscured as it has been by strikes at car plants and in mines, the Dust Bowl, the CCC/PWA/CWA, and even the movies. Not nearly as exciting as the propaganda I used to read, but much more accurate.
As for future violence by the right, I find the idea laughable. Individual outbursts? Certainly. Organized mob violence? No. I'm certain that any disappointment caused to you by that will only be temporary.
After all, there's ALWAYS something to bitch about...