Budget talks: This is getting nasty

And Barbara Ehrenreich writes a new afterword for 'Nickel and Dimed' on its tenth anniversary.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/09/america_crime_poverty/index.html

 

What's smart about it?

What is your solution? A tax perhaps to put the "1%" back in their proper place ?

 

This. Liberals who are unhappy need to think about the alternative. If the Republicans make a sweep in 2012, say bye bye to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans couldn't care less about what happens to the poor and middle class. They have proven that time and again.

 

"He's better than the other guy" is the fundamental underpinning of the election system. The 2012 election isn't a referendum on "Has he done a good job?" It's not an opinion poll. It's not a judicial retention vote. It's a choice between A and B (and that's all it is, minor third parties notwithstanding).

So yes, the "other guy" is absolutely relevant. And there aren't any "other guys" who I want in charge of a bingo game, let alone anything else.

 

Deskslave, all relevant political science research says you are wrong. An incumbent President running for re-election is always a referendum on him and not a choice between two rivals. Voters, quite wrongly, assume the President is responsible for everything and judge him on economic conditions almost exclusively, unless a war is the biggest issue. The data indicates that ANY Republican candidate, even Bachmann, must be considered the favorite at this point.
As I've said on another thread, the voters have created the primary danger to our constitutional democracy. If a President is going to be judged as if he/she has dictatorial powers, sooner or later, some President is going to take those powers out of political self-defense.

 

Exactly.

Either the 1 percent can provide good-paying jobs, or get taxed for not doing so. They can cut into their million-dollar bonuses a little.

We just had 30 U.S. troops sacrifice their lives in Afghanistan. That's 30 U.S. families who sacrificed their sons, their husbands, for the betterment of their country.

Yet, the Rush Limbaughs can't be bothered to sacrifice a few percentage points of their millions to make the country that has allowed them to not only to make them rich, but also allows them to criticize their leaders without fear of being thrown in jail or run over by a tank, just a little bit better.

 

I don't know what data you're referring to, but no, it doesn't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_bachmann_vs_obama-1941.html

 

Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no

 

So, the only people spending (though they've been accused of hoarding) are the "rich" (and, for this article, that's now defined, not as $1,000,000 or even $250,000, but $90,000) and you want to tax them more?

You realize this will lead to them spending less, right?

What will that do to consumer demand?

 

Michelle Bachmann has never been a Presidential nominee. No one like Michelle Bachmann has been nominated by a major party to run against an incumbent President.

So, I'd say Michael is right, but if we actually nominated Bachmann (we won't), then she would prove the exception to the rule.

 

You guys make it sound like it is wrong to be financially successful.

Your point that that the 40 US troops lost their lives for the "betterment of the country" is a trite.

To accept that line of thinking one would have to first accept that the war in Afghanistan is making our country better. Personally I don't think it is. We are spending 12 billion dollars a month that could be put to better use at home.

 

Lyrics made sense when there was a military draft. Now not so much.