Weekend open thread ...
White House won't compromise with progressives on Bush II tax cuts.
So They Only Compromise with Republicans?
Secret Banking Elite Rule by Their rules
Halliburton Solution To Bribery Charges Against Cheney: A Larger Bribe
The Gulf between the truth & government statements
about condition of the Gulf of Mexico grows ...
The Oppressive 1917 Espionage Act used to suppress the free speech right
of those opposed to WWI may be used against anti-war movement by Holder?
The neoSupreme Five would support such actions against free speech,
like the good old boy court did back in the day.
Regarding Cheney and Nigeria, they'd better take what's offered or resist on principle and know that he'll never face trial in person (never mind be subjected to actual punishment!), since the US will never let another nation exert sovereignty over one of their own plutocrat power brokers. Hell, the Imposter would label them a terrorist nation and invade if it actually came to that! At least the $500M might be put to some good use.
ReplyDeleteComment from Ricahrd Kline over at nakedcapitalism.com in response to an article by Bill Black denigrating the Imposter's so-called "compromise" tax deal:
In the one election in a generation and more they could not lose, the Democrats nominated, campaigned for, and put in the White Man’s House another Republican. And not the Feckless Party will pay the price unless the genuinely principled one-third of the Democratic Party can derail this sell-the-country-out. —And there’s the prototypal sell-out, Bill Clinton, up on the same podium with Uncle O touting the same sheaf of lies. That’s a warning label on content if ever I’ve seen one. Plain fact is, all charm aside Barack Obama just doesn’t give a damn about the citizenry of the US, and can’t even be bothered to much hide it. He knows that he’s vetted, tipped, funded, touted, and sold by the 2%, and everything he’s ever done or will do is aimed straight at licking their boot as fast and as clean as he can. I still can’t believe that anyone on the left side of the dial ever fooled themselves on who this flunky was . . . .
LOTS of angst out there over this deal. The Imposter better work hard to shore up his GOP "base" over the next two years, cause his legitimate liberal base has disappeared for good.
That is really sad and catastrophic about the Gulf of Mexico.
ReplyDeleteThe government is utterly corrupt.
David Axelrod's on Face the Nation lecturing liberals on "the nature of compromise" and saying "I don't worry at about that at all" when asked about NoBama's reelection chances. He should. The Imposter has NO CHANCE from here on out without his liberal base. The Repubes will elect Palin before they'll EVER vote for the Imposter and the liberal base ain't coming back - EVER. Really, how could anyone respect a shameless carpetbagging imposter? IMPEACH THE IMPOSTER NOW!
ReplyDeleteThe White House is over the top lame.
ReplyDeleteAnd the first crack in the facade appears:
ReplyDeleteEstate tax emerges as key Democratic beef in Obama's compromise
Washington (CNN) -- House Democrats will allow a vote on the tax compromise reached by President Barack Obama and Republicans but will try to change the deal, especially an estate tax provision they believe is beneficial to the wealthy, one of their leaders said Sunday.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters that the package will get a vote in the House despite a threat by House Democrats last week to prevent it from reaching the floor.
The remarks showed a softening in the sometimes vitriolic Democratic opposition so far to the tax and benefits package that Obama announced last week.
Van Hollen said the main concern of House Democrats is the estate tax, which expired for 2010 but was set to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55%, with inheritances under $1 million exempted. A bill that passed in the House set the tax rate at 45% and exempted inheritances under $3.5 million, while the provision in the tax deal would exempt estates up to $5 million and set the tax rate at 35%.
"It did not have to be part of the overall deal," Van Hollen said of the estate tax provision pushed by Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. "The Republicans never said if we don't get the Kyl estate tax that the deal is off the table."
Not surprisingly...
However, the presumptive incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, told "Fox News Sunday" that the estate tax provision in the agreement amounts to a tax increase and therefore is a major concession from his side that can't be changed.
The Congressional Budget Office said last week that the tax deal would add $893 billion to the deficit over the next five years, with the bulk of increase from loss of revenue -- $756 billion.
According to the non-partisan CBO, the 13-month extension of unemployment benefits adds less than $57 billion to the deficit. The highest-priced item is the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which will add more than $400 billion to the deficit, followed by the payroll tax holiday at about $225 billion.
Who could make this shit up?
dem supporters, you should know that when you vote for these shameless yellow-striped bastards that you are getting something MUCH WORSE than a mere Republican; you're getting someone who will lie to your face during the campaign, actively sellout your interests immediately after taking office, and then have the stone cold brass balls to tell you to "suck it up afterward!" NEVER AGAIN! NEVER AGAIN!
These people are THE WORST kind of criminals, and yet they ply their trade unapologetically in the light of day and use THE LAW to enable their theft. Let's hope vengeance is both terrible and swift when these ponzi artists finally get theirs. That day of retribution gets closer every time the Imposter sells us out.
The Republicans and Democrats both claim to be holier than thou, but on balance the majority of dems are better than the majority of repubs. That has been proven clearly over the past decade, and will play out that way over the next decade.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that neither pary is good enough to face the reality that confronts us because they are in more denial than the general public is.
Jo Jo on Morning Joe said the president had "learned" in two years in the White House that compromise is the way of Washington.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile soon to be speaker Boehner said he rejects the word compromise.
Jo Jo conflates the word capitulate with compromise, as did Axelrod on the propaganda shows this weekend.
definition of a dem pol:
ReplyDelete1. One that enables another to achieve an end; especially : one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior.
2. In a negative sense, enabling is also used in the context of problematic behavior, to signify dysfunctional approaches that are intended to help but in fact may perpetuate a problem.[1][2] A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person themselves does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change. It is a major environmental cause of addiction.[3]
Generally, individuals who enable others have weak boundaries, low self-esteem, and have difficulty being assertive when they communicate with others.
Republicans are likely to believe in black and white principles, yet all too often they get the two mixed up.
ReplyDeleteWhat Americans think of themselves in terms of democrat and republican means little in the larger scheme of things.
What the world thinks of America, and they are watching, is far more worthy of consideration.
It minimizes self-serving rhetoric.
The Dredd Blog Post "Decline of U.S. Reputation - Why?" quotes from a ten-day congressional hearing where foreign policy experts discussed why the U.S.A.'s reputation in the world (what the world thinks of us) was at historical lows:
ReplyDelete"83 percent of countries in 2002 had a plurality of citizens judging the United States favorably; by 2006 only 23 percent of countries had a plurality saying that U.S. influence is positive."
It hasn't improved since, and continues downward. It really does not reflect what we think of ourselves, in terms of exceptionalism.