Greeks Bearing Gifts....

[j_b]

It's worth recapitulating the retreats already made. The most sensible position, supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the beginning of this process, is simply to lift the debt ceiling, itself a procedural anomaly, with no preconditions simply to cover the debt that the nation is committed to by measures passed into law by the Congress.

 

Instead, congressional Republicans said they'd blow up the economy and refuse to lift the debt ceiling unless there was significant deficit reduction as part of the deal. The president conceded that; Democrats said nothing.

 

Then Republicans arbitrarily demanded that there be $1 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years for every $1 the debt limit was raised. The president conceded that; Democrats said nothing.

 

Then Republicans said there could be no increase in tax rates -- not on hedge fund billionaires who pay a lower tax rate than their chauffeurs, not a surcharge on bankers who got bailed out, not on corporations sitting on $2 trillion in cash. The president conceded that; Democrats remained mute.

 

Then Republicans said, needless to say, no new taxes -- no taxes, for example, on Wall Street's financial gaming which would simply be good policy The president conceded that; Democrats... sigh.

 

Then Republicans demanded cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, largely to help them off the limb they put themselves on by passing a budget that would end Medicare as we know it and slash Medicaid. The president conceded that; Democrats sounded a remorseful concern.

 

The reported deal now on the table amounts to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, including $200 to $300 billion in cuts from Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. The president sought about $150 billion in loophole closings -- oil company subsidies, private jet depreciation rates, and that there be some allocation of the spending cuts to the military. That's $150 billion over 10 years; $15 billion a year in new revenue.

 

Not one to one spending cuts to tax hikes, despite the fact that Bush tax cuts dug much of the hole we are in. Not half of the spending cuts from the defense budget that has been bloated over the last decade. Instead 10 to 1 in spending cuts to tax loopholes closed, and the Pentagon cuts left to the measured judgment of Republican appropriators in the House.

 

And Republicans said no. They want no loophole closing which they term tax hikes. And no allocation to the Pentagon. And oh, by the way, a prior vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Next week, they'll demand prayer in the school, exile of Elizabeth Warren for championing consumers, and the president's first born.

 

And Democrats say -- nothing. If Republicans say yes to what is apparently on the table, the president and his Democratic allies will sign onto an agreement that will damage any growth -- for the cuts apparently are to begin in October in a faltering economy, exact greater sacrifice from programs for the vulnerable than from the wealthy, and basically exempt the Pentagon budget, by far the greatest source of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. They will make Gilded Age inequality worse, extend poverty, slow growth, and most likely, increase unemployment. Then they can explain to voters that they are the moderate alternative to Republicans, even though they just cut a deal on the terms of a "faction" that even David Brooks says is bereft of "moral decency."

 

This is a losers' game, bad for the country, bad for the economy, bad for the possibility of reform vital to this country's future. If Democrats were an organized political party, they would simply say no. No Democratic votes for a deal as imbalanced as the one on the table, one that exacts sacrifice from the vulnerable, cuts programs for the middle class, and exempts the wealthy and the Pentagon. They would demand shared sacrifice. As much in tax revenues from the rich and corporations as cuts in programs for the people; as much in cuts in the Pentagon as cuts from domestic programs. No shared sacrifice; no deal. Not all Democrats would agree -- that goes without saying -- but with a little leadership, enough could sign on to bring the circus to a halt. Instead, Harry Reid should introduce a bill to raise the debt limit only to the level required by the budget House Republicans just passed, and announce that Americans should decide in the election which party they trust to figure out how to get under that ceiling.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/06-10

[Jim]

Of course there is the minor problem in that the RF's own one house of Congress with a good complement of tea baggers who are pushing much of the non-compromise position. And guess what - they were voted in; so the public gets what they want again.

[JayB]

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

don't bother the fucktards with facts Jay!

[JayB]

Next: Longitudinal Data!

 

Edited July 7, 2011 by JayB

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Of course there is the minor problem in that the RF's own one house of Congress with a good complement of tea baggers who are pushing much of the non-compromise position. And guess what - they were voted in; so the public gets what they want again.

 

Weird, 'cos the Dem's ran the whole show for 2 years, and got Jack Shit done.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The news is even better! That chart doesn't account for the value of employer sponsored benefits, which have become a considerably higher component of total compensation over the time period the table covers.

 

Where is inflation factored in?

[JayB]

Oops - health benefits included!

 

Think the numbers are inflation adjusted.

 

 

[Jim]

Of course there is the minor problem in that the RF's own one house of Congress with a good complement of tea baggers who are pushing much of the non-compromise position. And guess what - they were voted in; so the public gets what they want again.

 

Weird, 'cos the Dem's ran the whole show for 2 years, and got Jack Shit done.

 

Oh, I ain't arguing against that, but the tea baggers really are taking lack of wherewithal to new heights.

[j_b]

The average two-income family earns far more today than did the single-breadwinner family of a generation ago. And yet, once they have paid the mortgage, the car payments, the taxes, the health insurance, and the day-care bills, today’s dual-income families have less discretionary income — and less money to put away for a rainy day — than the single-income family of a generation ago. And so the Two-Income Trap has been neatly sprung. Mothers now work two jobs, at home and at the office. And yet they have less cash on hand. Mom’s paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of keeping the children in the middle class.

[j_b]

And guess what - they were voted in; so the public gets what they want again.

 

You mean that the 21% of registered voter public who voted in the nutjobs in 2010 got what they wanted?

[j_b]

Only college graduates have experienced growth in median weekly earnings since 1979 (in real terms). High school dropouts have, by contrast, seen their real median weekly earnings decline by about 22 percent.

 

Median weekly earnings of full-time workers (workers 25 years old & older, 2006 dollars)

 

 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Charting the U.S. Labor Market in 2006; see http://www.bls.gov/cps/labor2006/home.htm. Updated to 2009 by Steve Hipple of the Bureau of Labor Statistics; see http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/the-value-of-college-2/

 

http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php

[Jim]

And guess what - they were voted in; so the public gets what they want again.

 

You mean that the 21% of registered voter public who voted in the nutjobs in 2010 got what they wanted?

 

And who's fault is that? Seriously - a proposed to solution to any of these crisis, any solution instead of the constant hand wringing.

[Hugh Conway]

 

 

So the rich are getting richer - and no, I don't believe that is inflation adjusted at least when you compare it to:

 

just think how much better it'll be in the future Jay_B when there are even more underployed youth to sneer at!

[tvashtarkatena]

Hey, JayB's statnastics still have plenty cred here.

 

Billcoe, where are ya, buddy!?

 

 

[billcoe]

Hey, JayB's statnastics still have plenty cred here.

 

Billcoe, where are ya, buddy!?

 

Hanging out watching the show Pat! Did Ivan and Ben get up Salathe? I haven't heard anything.

[billcoe]

BTW, I keep seeing these "thank yew for your service" kinds of things for military personal....

 

Thank yew for yer service with the ACLU. It matters. Thanks.

[tvashtarkatena]

You must now swear eternal fealty to me and my progeny, should the latter ever come into being.

[j_b]

And guess what - they were voted in; so the public gets what they want again.

 

You mean that the 21% of registered voter public who voted in the nutjobs in 2010 got what they wanted?

 

And who's fault is that? Seriously - a proposed to solution to any of these crisis, any solution instead of the constant hand wringing.

 

If you have ask after that has been said multiple times for the past ~year, I am not sure what else to do to make you understand what you read. Perhaps taking the blinders off would help though. One more time: turn out was low among liberals and independents because Obama and conservative Democrats betrayed their constituencies at almost every turn. Immense hope followed the election of a president who promised systemic changes, disenfranchisement followed when it turned out to be empty rhetoric and more of the same 30+ year old neoliberal agenda. 2012 could well be a repeat.

[billcoe]

You must now swear eternal fealty to me and my progeny, should the latter ever come into being.

 

"The Latter?" Hmmmm , am I going to have to start reading these posts? What is this relating too....Mitt getting in? Didn't I have to already swear eternal fealty when we missed the McCainwreck?

 

 

States rights went out in 1865 so forget all that down home folks will fix it baloney. It's all feds all the time. Maybe jb can jump in there and fix it all up. He talks their language.

[j_b]

[tvashtarkatena]

States rights went out in 1865 so forget all that down home folks will fix it baloney. It's all feds all the time. Maybe jb can jump in there and fix it all up. He talks their language.

 

This past year a lawsuit filed in WA state ended Don't Ask Don't Tell. Gay marriage lawsuits in several states caused the DOJ to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. WA state now has a marijuana legalization initiative which, if it passes, will most certainly lead to copycats in other states...and probably an end to the federal ban on the substance.

 

States Rights are very much alive...and quite useful.

 

Working directly at the federal level is typically a losing strategy these days. Too many kooks, too much limelight, not enough reason.

[Jim]

Hmmm. First it was the nutjobs fault

 

You mean that the 21% of registered voter public who voted in the nutjobs in 2010 got what they wanted?

 

Then the liberals

One more time: turn out was low among liberals and independents ...

 

And finally the pols along with blah, blah

..disenfranchisement followed when it turned out to be empty rhetoric and more of the same 30+ year old neoliberal agenda

 

We could try for global warming as an encore. And what is the solution here?

[billcoe]

States Rights are very much alive...and quite useful.

 

Of course. And I should know better to mix history into a joke attempt. My oblique reference to the year the Civil War ended crashed like an Iron Warship into the bay.

 

 

Won't try that one again:-)

 

 

[JosephH]

States Rights are very much alive...

 

I'd say since Gore v. Bush that 'States Rights' are only alive as another rightwing myth enshrined in their hypocrisy to be trotted on an as-needed basis when it's convenient to their agenda (and by a democratic president spinelessly dodging a basic human rights issue).