• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on What Fate Is Ours?
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on What Fate Is Ours?
    William on What Fate Is Ours?
    William on What Fate Is Ours?
    William on What Fate Is Ours?
    jmac on What Fate Is Ours?
    Beata on What Fate Is Ours?
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Media-Created “Reality…
    Propertius on Media-Created “Reality…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Media-Created “Reality…
    Propertius on Media-Created “Reality…
    Propertius on Media-Created “Reality…
    Beata on Media-Created “Reality…
    Propertius on Media-Created “Reality…
    Beata on Media-Created “Reality…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    August 2012
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • What Would Chinese Democracy Look Like?
      A few months ago I read a couple of books by the Singaporean intellectual Kishore Mahbubani. In “Has China Already Won he discusses Taiwan. The one exceptional trigger for a war involving China is Taiwan. Most of the time, the Chinese leaders have a lot of policy flexibility. There are no strong domestic lobbies to worry about. But the one issue where the Ch […]
  • Top Posts

Business and Industry hold Americans hostage over future tax increases

So saith the NYTimes:

A rising number of manufacturers are canceling new investments and putting off new hires because they fear paralysis in Washington will force hundreds of billions in tax increases and budget cuts in January, undermining economic growth in the coming months.

Executives at companies making everything from electrical components and power systems to automotive parts say the fiscal stalemate is prompting them to pull back now, rather than wait for a possible resolution to the deadlock on Capitol Hill.

Democrats and Republicans are far apart on how to extend the Bush-era tax breaks beyond January — the same month automatic spending reductions are set to take effect — unless there is a deal to trim the deficit. The combination of tax increases and spending cuts is creating an economic threat called “the fiscal cliff” by Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve.

This is the biggest bullshit excuse I have ever heard.  It’s just applying the screws with more torque.  If business doesn’t get its way, they’re just going to lay off more people, have I got that right?  If rich and powerful people, especially people in the finance and defense industry, are asked to sacrifice even one teensy tiny piece of their enormous share of the pie, they will pull the plug on any economic recovery.

This is the equivalent of domestic economic terrorism, in my humble opinion.  It’s a test of Obama’s and the Democrat’s fortitude.  When are they going to get tough on these bastards and the Republicans?  It’s time to stop pretending there is any compromise possible with these assholes.  Some of them need to be thrown in jail for threatening to send the economy into another destructive recession.  These industrialists and their finance industry allies are enemies of the people.


BTW, there’s a rumor going around that we are going to ban people who want to vote for Romney.  The person who is starting this rumor knows better.  We hardly ever ban people.  We *do* moderate them however.

If you want to vote for a party that is totally into crazy, loves kissing the whip and secretly reads 50 Shades of Gray under the covers, go right ahead.  Apparently, there is no amount of greed, hard hearted, mean, selfishness, judgmentalism, ignorance or just plain stupid that will embarrass you.  Your inability to remember the past will condemn you.

Not my problem.  It’s the Democrats’ problem and if they don’t know how to deal with it, maybe it’s time they make like a dinosaur and meet with a meteor.  I’m of the opinion that the rest of us reasonable, FDR style Democrats have to form our own club and begin the long hard slog back to relevancy.

But if YOU want to hate the party that fucked you over in 2008 (and it did, noooo doubt about it) by voting for the most looney and dangerous bunch of pseudo- religious conmen since the Ku Klux Klan discovered the whitening power of bleach, knock yourself out.  I personally think that any person not making $500+K per year and is still voting Republican should have their head examined but we don’t lock people up for their own safety anymore.

In other words, the left might have been right about some of you guys in 2008.  You are dumber than a box of rocks.

Be careful what you wish for.

In any case, my blog, my rules.  No party propaganda, from either party, is going to get a free ride here.  If I find you are looking for converts, you will be moderated.

33 Responses

  1. When are they going to get tough on these bastards and the Republicans? It’s time to stop pretending there is any compromise possible with these assholes.

    When? Never — they are on the same team and are just drafting off each other.

    I think that what has to happen is a flood of candidates. I used to think unemployed people but now I think from all walks of life. All walks of regular life – the budget class.

    The only way to throw the bastards out is for us to run against them. It has to become the new normal for women & non-lawyers or doctors or MBAs to run.

    We have to debate the ass*** in every public forum. We have to take control of the issues.

    And the only way to do that is as candidates. For any and every office.

    • I knew they were going to apply extra pressure during the election year to get what they wanted. What surprises me is why the Democrats aren’t calling them out on this. The last thing they should be doing is cooperating and looking for a solution. The business and finance guys will only ask for more the next time.

      • II. The ratchet effect

        The American political system, since at least 1968, has been operating like a ratchet, and both parties — Republicans and Democrats — play crucial, mutually reinforcing roles in its operation.

        The electoral ratchet permits movement only in the rightward direction. The Republican role is fairly clear; the Republicans apply the torque that rotates the thing rightward.

        The Democrats’ role is a little less obvious. The Democrats are the pawl. They don’t resist the rightward movement — they let it happen — but whenever the rightward force slackens momentarily, for whatever reason, the Democrats click into place and keep the machine from rotating back to the left.

        Here’s how it works. In every election year, the Democrats come and tell us that the country has moved to the right, and so the Democratic Party has to move right too in the name of realism and electability. Gotta keep these right-wing madmen out of the White House, no matter what it takes.

        The essay goes on from there but, I believe it’s an accurate description of why the Dems aren’t calling anyone out.

        • Yep. That’s about it.
          Are we totally crazy?? No one I know wants us to capitulate. What the hell are they thinking?? They could be cleaning the floor with Republicans this year.

          • We’re not crazy and neither are they. We are lazy though. Or not committed enough. Or …. consumed by our lives and the lives of our children rather than the huge egos that consume the current generation of self-styled-leaders.

            In thinking about the idea of the regular people flooding the system as candidates — maybe “we” would move toward part-time legislating again. Well technically Congress IS part time, isn’t it? I mean would any of US be considered full time workers if we put in the hours they do?

      • The Democrats are in on it. They are part of the conspiracy.

        • And people wonder why the tax return issue generates a big yawn. Who cares? I want to know what the Democrats are going to do about these whiny business people who are holding the economy hostage. That’s all I’m interested in.

          • The Democrats under Obama leadership are plotting to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. Obama’s reverse-psychology so-called support of “tax rate restoration” against the very uppest classes are designed as false-bait teasers to fool the voterbase into thinking Obama wants to see some tax fairness restored. They are also an “apple of discord” thrown into the debate to energize the Republicans into fighting any partial Clinton-era-tax-rate restoration.
            Obama’s game is then to claim that he wanted to see some tax rate fairness against the Very Uppest Classes, but the Republicans wouldn’t allow it. McConnell and Boehner are Obama’s “symbolic bad guy” co conspirators in this conspiracy.

            Obama’s long game is to achieve the unfinished Bush agenda of bankrupting the federal government so completely and comprehensively that our retirement goverbenefits will be abolished “because we are bankrupt”, and also every public good and asset are to be sold to private upper class buyers, as in Yeltsin’s Russia.

  2. I hope you don’t think I started a rumor. I did not.
    Just saying.

  3. So I watched the PBS show last night on Chicago’s most infamous mayor’s attempt to get infrastructure rebuilt using private money in city managed and controlled projects. Emanuel said he didn’t think he could ask for public fund in the city’s time of need and that the old way of doing things was no longer possible.The first project mentioned was an LED lighting replacement project, of which I found an example here:

    Then we had a shot of the typical complainers -well intended but I, think missing some of the picture.

    They did a shot of Ed Rendell approving Emanuel’s approach and suggesting that other mayors were looking at doing similar things, because that there isn’t any public money for necessary infrastructure. Then he turned around and stated that public bonds for infrastructure around the country are being approved at a rate of 65%.

    WTF! What else is being approved at that high a rate right now?

    Now, during a construction project, I lived in a high-rise building for two years on Market Street, and I can tell you that the Chicago Loop is the land of Oz surrounded by a moat of slime, goo, unhappy neighborhoods, rusted bridges and the EL, and roads, and perpetual killing of aquatic life due to them dumping boatloads of salt contaminated road snow into the lake just short of the city’s water intake.

    I have no doubt this project will save money somewhere because I think there are more lights in the Loop, than all the rest of Chicago. However, this project is clearly intended for tourists and those that sell to them. So the complainers are right that these projects are being cherry picked.

    My point in this long winded comment, is that this is a perfect example of the continuing practice of the current crop of Democrats to hop into bed with any old oligarch and breed. Apparently this idea may been first floated by Kerry.

  4. It’s hard finding like minded people. I “like” some “No Obama, No Romney” pages on FB, get some posts I agree with, but soon, the Ron Paul is coming out. Stuff about the absurdity of wanting the government to enforce equality and such… I remember the previous life when I was a D booster. It started Dec 15, 2000, ended May 31, 2008. No more parties for me since, thank you very much. And no excessive devotion to any candidate. Just vote for the one I wouldn’t be ashamed to admit later. It’s not like my vote counts anyway.

  5. Yesterday I was talking a little bit with an older friend of mine, a Vietnam War (not just “era”) Veteran and a Veteran of other activities
    which he can talk somewhat around but not about. (He then went on to major in Philosophy at the University of Michigan). I asked some speculative questions. First I asked whether I was right to think that President Obama wants to weaken SSMediCareCaide sooner in order to destroy them eventually? He thought Obama’s record to date suggests that he does.

    I asked him whether the DemSenators would be equally likely to pass an anti-benefits bill under either President Obama or President Romney? He said he felt that under today’s party-polarised environment, the DemSenators would be less likely to pass such a bill under President Romney than under President Obama. He said that without any prompting or leading from me. So when he said that, I suggested that That was what I had been thinking lately as well, and that my retirement goverbenefits would actually be safer over the next four years under a Romney DemSenate Combo THAN under an Obama DemSenate Combo . . . he said he couldn’t fault my logic. So my decision to vote for Romney, Dingell, and Stabenow for strategic and tactical survival reasons is once again re-inforced.

    He also felt that no one from either party would DARE to attack veterans goverbenefits, so I suggested he was completely free to vote the third party of his choice. That is probably what he will do.

    • Your logic holds for the DemSenate scenario but, I’m not all that certain how the Senate will look after the election. I think the bets case IS a divided government. But, it’s a gamble to guess how the votes will fall (or be counted) …

      I really don’t see a real benefit in voting Republican. Those votes will be interpreted as a move toward the Right. And I want my vote to stand for a move as far to the Left as I can find.

      • Exactly. The media will interpret a vote for Romney as a vote for rightie policies. Nope, I won’t vote for Obama because I’ve had enough of rightie policies.

      • It’s a desperate tactical-survival gamble on my part. That’s why part of my action will be to vote for Dingell and Stabenow. My hope is that they would be so partisanly tribalitical as to deny Romney the very same victory against SS which they are desperate to award to Obama.

        (Maybe Dingell would try withholding that victory from Obama as well.
        He may be as much an old school Democrat as his age would suggest).

        • I think that in the long run the only tactical-survival gamble that will really work is for all of us to run for office – any office. I know we’re not there yet. But, we will be, eventually.

        • Ok, I think we have heard enough of your strategy.

          • Okay, then. Question though, is SSetc. more likely to survive the next four years under one president or the other? If is more likely to survive under one president, but the other gets elected . . . and SSetc. gets destroyed or set up for destruction before a New Deal 2.0 Party takes power after a long hard slog . . . how likely or possible will it be to restore SSetc. after it has been degraded or destroyed for all the time till then?

        • I don’t mean to say that people who vote third party are clueless. Those voters as probably the most informed. My point is that the media and the two parties treat the third party voters as irrelevant to the conversation.

      • Hmm… Did the Democratic congress get the email explaining that the Obama vote meant that the party should move to the left? The Democratic congress wrote the healthcare mess that was to the right of Hillary, which was seen as too centrist? Why did the same lame duck Democratic congress extend the Bush tax cut?

        How I see it: it doesn’t make a difference how we vote. Both parties do what their masters tell them to do. Moreover, a vote that elects Obama will be seen as approval of his policies and his incompetence. Third party vote is totally ignored. That’s what happened in 2000. Did anyone look at the Nader vote as something to move the Democrats or the Republicans? No. Third party vote is seen as clueless voters who don’t know how to play the game.

        • Taking out the question mark. The sentence above should be:

          The Democratic congress wrote the healthcare mess that was to the right of Hillary, which was seen as too centrist.

        • Well, If . . . neither brand name candidate would make a substantially more destructive President in 2012 than the other brand name candidate would, Then . . . third party potential people would find eachother by voting third party to begin with. Under that theory, each third party voter counted as such would be a nucleating agent for more third party voters to condense or crystallise around in each subsequent election. If the political atmosphere is an “infra” super-saturated solution of discontent, enough such third party nucleating-agent voters could trigger a Third Party Crystallization Cascade throughout the entire political atmosphere. (My apologies for taking poetic liberties with scientific terminology . . . “infra” supersaturated indeed . . .)

          Now If . . . one thinks one of the brand name candidates would be so much more destructive than the other brand name candidate should it be elected, then . . . dare one permit that more dangerous brand name candidate to be elected? If I say any more on that point I will just be self-repeating myself, and subjecting myself to moderation despite fair warning. So I have nothing more to say on that point.

          • Third party people have trouble finding each other. Their candidates don’t have the same or even any stage upon which to practice their message. If what I read recently is true, its shocking and a a form of voter intimidation when a state like PA requires that third party candidates get TEN times the signatures required just to get on the ballot. While you could argue that it’s a way to get their message out, its not the same thing and it takes time that the dempubs don’t have to spend. This form of discrimination should be investigated in this and other states and something should be done about it.

            As to the case for either brand name candidate. I would say one consideration is the status of the Senate. Its too close to a tip point toward the right. In four years time it’s easily conceivable that someone might have to step down, changing the balance. If a reelected Obama were to be leave, there would still be a Dem in the White House. I’ve heard that the repubs believe only 10 House members are vulnerable, not enough to change the leadership.

        • Maybe I’m misinterpreting where your comment is nesting but, you seem to be addressing your condescending “hmm” to me:

          I’m not sure where I’ve seen anyone here (ever) considering a vote for Obama. So, it seems irrelevant to pretty much any conversation about the election.

          Once again, I am not voting for either Obama or Romney. I am considering my 3rd Party options. As I said, with the hope that the Leftist vote possible will signal that some portion of the population, at least, ISN’T moving to the right.

          If it only signals that I’m clueless, well lesson learned.

          I’ve said a hundred times: We need new candidates. And I think we’re going to have to do it ourselves. Right now though, We can only do what we can do. And I’ve got a lot on my plate (as who doesn’t?)

          • John Michael Greer of The Archdruid Report wrote recently a fascinating post on the degeneration of democratic politics in theory and practice in this country from what used to be a very viable base and point of origination. In part it discusses the creation ( and reasons therefor) of the modern political party as we came to know it.

            Pretty much all normal people have a lot of stuff on their plates and a lot of people have more stuff than plate. How are huge numbers of such people to be able to pool separate tiny spare-able fractions of their time and energy towards a common political advancement purpose? Greer’s thumbnail sketch gives a pretty good explanation (unless someone else here can show the explanation is no good at all).

            How hard would it be to create a whole new political party? How much harder in the teeth of opposition and oppression and sabotooge
            from the two brand name parties in power? Would it be harder . . . or less hard . . . than a Long March of Purging and Burning through one of the two brand name parties now existing? I have read that the R party is not merely a front for the Rapturanian Armaggedonite Christian Hard Right, but rather that the Armaggedonite Rapturanians conducted a many years march of purging and burning through the R party to get where they are today. If that is a correct analysis, could a hard Class Warfare Left organize itself to treat the D party as a conquest opportunity to be won by a Long March of Purging and Burning through the D party to hollow it out and fill it with themselves?
            Local office by local office? Primary by Primary? And if only parts of the D party could be purged out and burned out and taken over in that manner, to focus on those parts and use them to deny victory to the D party wherever possible in order to exterminate the D party from existence in hopes of clearing off the wreckage and re-terraforming the disinfected political landscape?

          • What a fun essay! Kind of sad….

            I don’t know what I’m envisioning when I say we’ve all got to run. (thinking) I think people who’ve lost their jobs in the last 4-5 years are in the best position to do something… People with jobs hardly ever can run for public office.

            Since I’m really NOT committed to either party, I’m advocating that people run for office as whatever is the dominant party where they live.

            Is there any reason to invent another party? The wackos took over the Republican Party…. And the Stepford Men took over the Democrats….

            How did they do that? If both parties were flooded at local levels – as party managers as well as candidates – who are committed to the 12 word platform then we’re better off.

            We can while away the time waiting for these candidates, asking current candidates if they support, Ending the wars, jobs for everyone, taxing the rich and medicare for everyone.

  6. Modified? That doesn’t sound good. I hope you mean moderated ;-). (read the last word of your post).

  7. It’s not the taxing and cuts they’re interested in, it’s the election.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: