>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.

Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?
http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.


Who's blinded by partisan theater?

I'm not gonna bother with the video clip, but not a single sentence in the entire quote from Michael Hudson was true.

That said, if you think Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security should stay as they are, and Wall Street should have to contribute more to the debt (say, with more taxes), then everything you want is antithetical to the Republican party.

Why exactly do you assume that Democrats are secretly working with the Republicans to implement the Republican policy platform?

I feel like we get the Republican party's policies no matter who's actually in office too. But my solution is to try to make sure all the Republicans lose their seats, so the Democrats will have to put up or shut up.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.


Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?

http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: So, what do you think? Good versus evil. We’re playing out the debt struggle and the debt ceiling issue. And if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’ll be in the apocalypse. What do you make of it all?

HUDSON: I think it’s evil working with evil.... If you have to choose between paying Social Security and Wall Street, pay our clients, Wall Street.

***

What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
***

It’s not about the debt ceiling. It’s about making an agreement now under an emergency conditions. You remember what Obama’s staff aide Rahm Emanuel said. He said a crisis is too important to waste. They’re using this crisis as a chance to ram through a financial policy, an anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid, anti—selling out Social Security that they could never do under the normal course of things.

***

They’re not going to cut back the war in Libya.

***

They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: Yeah. But what–I hear you. But what I’m–I’m saying, what could be an alternative policy? For example, don’t raise the debt ceiling. Number two, raise taxes on the wealthy. Number three, cut back military spending. I mean, there are ways to do this without having to borrow more money, aren’t there?

HUDSON: Of course.
***

Of course they could cut back the fat. Of course what they should do is change the tax system. Of course they should get rid of the Bush tax cuts. And the one good thing in President Obama’s speech two days ago was he used the term spending on tax cuts. So that’s not the same thing as raising taxes. He said just cut spending by cutting spending on tax cuts for the financial sector, for the speculators who count all of their income that they get, billions of income, as capital gains, taxed at 15 percent instead of normal income at 35 percent. Let’s get rid of the tax loopholes that favor Wall Street.

***

Mr. Obama has always known who has been contributing primarily to his political campaigns. We know where his loyalties lie now. And, basically, he promised change because that’s what people would vote for, and he delivered the change constituency to the campaign contributors...

Obama sellout? nooooooo waaaay

I haven't read those comments, but GeeSuss tends to be pretty much in line with what I believe most of the time and an overall rational guy as far as I can tell, so I'll give it a look later. Just got back from Roger Waters The Wall and chilling. Fucking amazing concert! My favorite part was when they sang the line "Mother should I trust the government" and they projected a big "No Fucking Way" across the stage. And I loved all the sellout Shepard Fairey style art during Run Like Hell. It's a shame they only showed likenesses of Bush, Hitler and Stalin and not the current warmongering President: Obama.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Glad to hear it, brother.

edit: I was talking about pennypecker and geesussfreak, not the guy in the clip.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He's not my ideological brethren. Nothing about that statement has anything to do with my ideology. Sorry.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Thought you might want to check out the authoritarian suggestions of your ideological brethren. They are a couple of sick puppies. http://videosift.com/video/Tea-Party-Only-Property-Owners-Should-Be-Allowed-To-Vote

??? >> ^choggie:

Anally rape her in front of her mother, then put that on the Oprah Windbag's Billionaire Media Whore Sellout show...

@Doc_M, to rephrase what you're saying in a way that's perhaps more objective, it's certainly true that a much larger percentage of conservatives are likely to answer "I don't trust either party" in polls, even if they reliably go into the voting booths to give the Republican party power.

The big problem is that they don't find that to be contradictory in the slightest.

I also think you're entirely wrong about Republicans being more wary of their leaders. When conservatives tell their followers something blatantly false like "tax cuts increase revenue", you all fall in line, and either defend, or at least refuse to repudiate it as false.

When Obama says something that's merely positively spun like "this historic health care legislation will bring care to tens of millions more Americans", he gets ripped apart by the left saying "but not as many as would've gotten it with single payer, corporate sellout!"

Maybe I'm blurring the lines between trust and loyalty, but it seems like the right is always loyal to the Republicans and their mythology about conservative governance, whereas the left can't seem to muster the loyalty to just nod their heads in agreement to factually accurate statements with a positive spin.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I just saw Glenn Beck make the same point about this being a distraction from the financial reform bill. You guys are kindred spirits. Still though, Vilsack taking the fall for this and claiming no White House involvement smells like rich bullshit. >> ^NetRunner:

@dag, I find myself (yet again) in total agreement with what John Cole wrote on this topic.
The left blaming Obama for Tom Vilsack being duped by enemy action is purely icing on the cake.
IMO, the big score is that a landmark financial reform bill is getting zero coverage, because this non-story has taken all the oxygen out of the room. It means once again, progressives are going to generally think "Obama hasn't done anything but capitulate to the right" when in fact he and the Democratic party just scored another historic victory over Republicans and their masters on Wall Street.
But he (and the rest of the Democratic party) is getting little or no credit for it from any part of the political landscape, left or right, because we're all too busy being pissed off that one of his underlings (who, if you're a good progressive with a good memory, you never liked in the first place because he's a big agribusiness sellout) got duped by a prank from a petty prankster.

@dag, I find myself (yet again) in total agreement with what John Cole wrote on this topic.

The left blaming Obama for Tom Vilsack being duped by enemy action is purely icing on the cake.

IMO, the big score is that a landmark financial reform bill is getting zero coverage, because this non-story has taken all the oxygen out of the room. It means once again, progressives are going to generally think "Obama hasn't done anything but capitulate to the right" when in fact he and the Democratic party just scored another historic victory over Republicans and their masters on Wall Street.

But he (and the rest of the Democratic party) is getting little or no credit for it from any part of the political landscape, left or right, because we're all too busy being pissed off that one of his underlings (who, if you're a good progressive with a good memory, you never liked in the first place because he's a big agribusiness sellout) got duped by a prank from a petty prankster.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @ghark, Democrats aren't going on TV to effectively say that being a sellout to corporations is a good thing.

As a matter of fact, Democrats who vote with Republicans against their party are almost universally the ones who receive the largest campaign contributions from the industry most affected by the legislation.

In other words, the whole Republican platform is based on the philosophy of empowering corporations to do whatever they want, while the Democratic platform is about protecting people.

Democrats get bribed away from that to be sure, but we're talking about a handful out of the caucus on any given issue. It's only the unanimous pro-corporate Republican bloc that makes their defections significant.

that duck is a sellout

Tiger has just achieved maximum sellout level. He should consider leveling some alts.

>> ^ghark:
>> ^rougy:
50% of the American people who pay no federal taxes

Is that a reference to people on low incomes? I didn't quite catch the point he was trying to make (not being sarcastic btw).
Kucinich seems like a genuine fellow, the one good aspect from Fox's side is that they didn't interrupt him like you often see in these interviews, the questions were as biased as ever though.
Overall though, I can't believe how badly American's are being conned right now, i wonder when enough will wake up to what's happening.


Yeah, we are being conned. The worst part of it is that so many adults are sucking it up like treacle.

50% who don't pay taxes? That's news to me. I pay taxes every time I put gas in my car, or buy a six pack to drink. Federal taxes? Fuck, only the poor pay those.

There are a lot of people in scAmerica who make six figures, and they think they're rich. They are much closer to the poor, but try telling them that.

They pick on the weak and bow to the strong. They turn their heads away from all of our defense spending, and then yell about the domestic spending.

They love bombs and hate people. Some of them are mad because they can't buy a new car every year "like everybody else."

No, man, you're right. We've got big problems here.

>> ^rougy:
50% of the American people who pay no federal taxes


Is that a reference to people on low incomes? I didn't quite catch the point he was trying to make (not being sarcastic btw).

Kucinich seems like a genuine fellow, the one good aspect from Fox's side is that they didn't interrupt him like you often see in these interviews, the questions were as biased as ever though.

Overall though, I can't believe how badly American's are being conned right now, i wonder when enough will wake up to what's happening.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Comment from digg

Republicans accepted the following amounts in 2010 from:
Insurance: $1,319,521
Health Professionals: $2,982,581
And Democrats:
Insurance: $1,405,291
Health Professionals: $3,078,997
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/indus.php?cycle ...
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/indus.php?cycle ...
Why would you look at that, looks like Democrats accepted more money than Republicans from the insurance and health industries..
TSK05TSK05
19 hr 49 min ago