grahamhgreen
grahamhgreen's JournalThere is no fiscal cliff; it's The Budget Control Act of 2011:
We need to make the Cons say they are against "Budget Control", that's what the fiscal bluff is actually called, using the term cliff loses the fight before we start.
Either they want to reduce the deficit, or they're just blowing smoke (ie, want to destroy SS, and give the money to banksters and war profiteers).
Either they're for budget control, or they're agin it:
It's the Bugdet Contol act of 2011:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s365enr/pdf/BILLS-112s365enr.pdf
We need to use the terms Fiscal Bluff & Budget Control, exclusively, IMHO.
I hope legal pot in 2 states dispels the myth that pot smokers are lazy and unmotivated!
They are, it is evidenced, Highly organized and effective.
And a great asset to our party.
Decriminalization helped GOTV!
A welcome, thank you, and congratulations to those who defeated pot prohibition in 2 states!
PS - lets not let the right goad the administration into federally interfering with pot decriminalization, thereby pushing advocates to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. We need to be the party of decriminalization, IMHO.
Time to ask: What policies will get us the House in 2014?
House elections are coming up!
If we enact the right policies we can have the Presidency, House, and Senate in 2014.
What is the best way for the Dems to position themselves for a sweep in 2014?
Edit: I think the core strategy might be to get a bunch of good, solid, progressive bills stuck in the house (popular stuff like the public option, bolstering SS and education, taxing the ultra wealthy, reducing the military, cracking down on Wall Street), then get it out to the people that we need more Dems to pass these things. If we really wanted to micromanage it, we could get bills that benefit each of our core constituencies to get them out to vote......?
Stop saying "Fiscal Cliff"!!! What the CBO says about "Budget Control"
First of all, the Democratic Party has to stop using the Republican framing words "Fiscal Cliff".
Let's call it what it's named - "Budget Control".
The fact is anyone who is really serious about deficit reduction would look at returning to the tax rates of the Greatest Generation. The Republicans are not serious, they are using this argument to destroy the social safety net.
"Under current law, the federal budget deficit will fall dra-
matically between 2012 and 2013 owing to scheduled
increases in taxes and, to a lesser extent, scheduled reduc-
tions in spending—a development that some observers
have referred to as a “fiscal cliff.”
The recent or scheduled
expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower
income and payroll tax rates and limit the reach of the
alternative minimum tax (AMT), will boost tax revenues
considerably in 2013 compared with the sums that will
be collected in 2012. The automatic enforcement proce-
dures established in the Budget Control Act of 2011
(Public Law 112-25) will lower spending in 2013
deficit by 5.1 percent of GDP between calendar years
2012 and 2013 (with the resulting economic feedback
included, the reduction will be smaller).
Under those fiscal conditions, which will occur under
current law, growth in real (inflation-adjusted) GDP in
calendar year 2013 will be just 0.5 percent, CBO.....
What would happen if lawmakers changed fiscal policy in
late 2012 to remove or offset all of the policies that are
scheduled to reduce the federal budget deficit by 5.1 per-
cent of GDP between calendar years 2012 and 2013?
In that case, CBO estimates, the growth of real GDP in
calendar year 2013 would lie in a broad range around
4.4 percent, well above the 0.5 percent projected for
2013 under current law."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcbofiles%2Fattachments%2FFiscalRestraint_0.pdf&ei=9PaiUPKUNuOQiAK364DYDA&usg=AFQjCNEfZjSWpAV7AuwPmxkUx5Gicu3STg
So there really is no fiscal cliff, yes the economy will suffer somewhat if we do nothing (by about 4% GDP), but we can bolster the economy by other means, such as by getting out of the costly trade agreements that have hemorrhaged jobs overseas.
OR
You could just follow Robert Reich's solutions to reach 4 trillion of reductions in 10 years:
A 2% surtax on the wealth of the richest one-half of 1 percent would bring in another $750 billion over the decade. A one-half of 1 percent tax on financial transactions would bring in an additional $250 billion.... Raise the capital gains rate to match the rate on ordinary income and cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 a year, and that’s another $1 trillion over ten years. So now we’re up to $3 trillion in additional revenue.
Eliminate special tax preferences for oil and gas, price supports for big agriculture, tax breaks and research subsidies for Big Pharma, unnecessary weapons systems for military contractors, and indirect subsidies to the biggest banks on Wall Street, and we’re nearly there.
End the Bush tax cuts on incomes between $250,000 and $1 million, and — bingo — we made it: $4 trillion over 10 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101647903
REICH: The President's Opening Bid in a Grand Bargain: Aim High
A 2% surtax on the wealth of the richest one-half of 1 percent would bring in another $750 billion over the decade. A one-half of 1 percent tax on financial transactions would bring in an additional $250 billion.... Raise the capital gains rate to match the rate on ordinary income and cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 a year, and that’s another $1 trillion over ten years. So now we’re up to $3 trillion in additional revenue.
Eliminate special tax preferences for oil and gas, price supports for big agriculture, tax breaks and research subsidies for Big Pharma, unnecessary weapons systems for military contractors, and indirect subsidies to the biggest banks on Wall Street, and we’re nearly there.
End the Bush tax cuts on incomes between $250,000 and $1 million, and — bingo — we made it: $4 trillion over 10 years."
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-s-opening-bid-grand-bargain-aim-high-1352815161
AIM HIGH. It's negotiating 101, duh.
No Cuts. Revenue Only. That should be Obama's starting position. From WIKI HOW (to negotiate):
"Open extreme.
Open at your maximum sustainable position (the most you can logically argue for). Ask for what you want, and then some. When starting off a negotiation, don't be scared to make an outrageous request. You never know--you might get it! And what's the worst that could happen?
They might think you're vain, or delusional; but they'll also know you have guts, and you value yourself, your time, and your money. Are you worried about insulting them, especially if making a very low offer to buy something? Remember that this is business, and if they don't like your offer, they can always counter-offer. Just be bold. If your opening offer is too close to your breakpoint, then you will not have enough bargaining range to concede to the other party as a way of giving satisfaction." http://www.wikihow.com/Negotiate
Somebody please - send the man to a class on negotiations!!!!
Can we refer to "True the Vote" as "Truthy Vote", please? That is all. Thank you. NT
Long lines can be less likely with paper ballots. Why?
If you are using electronic voting machines and want to have 1000 people vote at the same time, you need to buy 1,000 machines ($3,000 ea., or so).
On the other hand, if you want to have 1,000 people vote on paper ballots, all you need to do is hand them the ballot, a pen, and give them a table to write on.
The pinch point in the process is the machines themselves, most polling places can only afford to buy a limited number of these expensive, corruptible, untraceable, and unreliable electronic voting machines.
My conclusion:
By going back to paper ballots, we can reduce the lines and thus increase our effectiveness at the polls, since the more people that vote, the better Democrats do.
Voters' Picks: The Storm Changed My Vote from Romney to Obama
" Just days before Nov. 6, Yahoo! asked voters to reveal which candidate they're backing -- Barack Obama or Mitt Romney or another candidate -- and, briefly, why. Here are one voter's thoughts.
'Until the storm hit the East Coast, I was leaning toward voting for Romney. I'm an old guy who cast his first presidential vote for Harry Truman, and mostly for Democrats who ran in subsequent years. Until this past weekend, I was frankly not thrilled with either of the 2012 candidates.
I don't like Obama's Chicago pals from his early political years; they just seemed a bit too radical for me. That drew me to Romney, despite the fact that he was born too rich, and seems to have no clue about what it means to be struggling in today's lousy economy.
Then came Sandy. Obama immediately went to the disaster areas and set positive recovery measures to work. Romney did photo ops of carrying some Campbell soup cans. He still doesn't have a clue, and he lost my vote.'
-- Ted Sherman, Los Angeles "
http://news.yahoo.com/voters-picks-storm-changed-vote-romney-obama-204000761.html
Pissed. How the Rahm Emmanual/DLC "Liberals are F#cking retarded" attitude may cost us the election
So, I'm trying to get people to vote on Facebook and I get this:
"i even know a few who are much more radically left than me who are voting for romney, with the idea that at least then perhaps folks will finally start to fight back. i won't go that far but i do see their point."
Then I get a link to this Al Jazeera op-ed:
The right to indefinitely detain citizens without trial, classified kill-lists and "disposition matrices", a fast-expanding fleet of legally-unaccountable aerial drones, and the presumptive right to kill American citizens without due process - all these sweeping expansions of executive power are the legacy of four years of Barack Obama's presidency and of themselves represent a new era in the power of the American government over its citizenry.
Never before has an American president asserted their ability to act as judge, jury and executioner towards their own citizens, a power which Barack Obama claimed for the executive branch in killing the New Mexico-born fundamentalist preacher Anwar Al-Awlaki in a drone strike - followed by his 16 year-old son two weeks later.
The passage of the National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA) provides the President with the ability to place Americans under indefinite military detention without trial or even the provision of evidence; a power which extends to citizens abroad as well as to those on US soil. Such concepts seem utterly otherworldly to most Americans, especially given their origination from a liberal president who had been elected in large part as a response to the perceived belligerence and militarism of George W Bush.
With Obama facing a tight re-election battle with Mitt Romney, even his supporters - who would normally express alarm at these actions - are reticent to criticise him for fear of damaging his chances and empowering his Republican challenger. " http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121029155126349265.html
The problem is the think tank brainiacs don't understand that some people are forced to vote their conscience, and don't think like they do.
I don't want to hear how wrong or stupid my friends are - I want you to understand how wrong it is to treat our base with contempt and disrespect.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 02:05 PMNumber of posts: 15,741