Does anyone really think extending unemployment benefits for 6.7 million people is a bad thing?

[JamesA1102]

Or extending child care tax credits? Or extending middle class tax rates? Or giving the working class a payroll tax cut for a year? Are any of these which help average people bad things?

Is it really worth losing help for the unemployed just to stick it to rich people?

[HuckleB]

1. No, but in the face of the "deficit commission" BS, it does seem like pure crap.

:shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

73. Thank you! eom

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Yes.

Every revolution demands, and claims innocent victims, but in the long sweep of history, their sacrifice is necessary, if that's what it takes to finish off the GOP.

I am sure if we asked them, those so inconvenienced would admit as much.

One question -- what's the best memorial to them? Commemorative stamp, or something tasteful and not too showy, on the Mall in Washington?

I'm torn.

Lenin is alive, well, and posting on DU.

[JamesA1102]

8. For a minute there I thought you were being serious

However, I'd bet that there are people here who would agree with what you said and they wouldn't be joking.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. DU stands for...

"Don't do nUance...."

[JamesA1102]

70. LMAO!!!! nt

[blondeatlast]

72. Edit: self-delete; I reacted before I read. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

3. The only right economic answer would have been to let the ...

tax cuts expire.

I think the extension is good, but the rest of the package is not, including that 2% defunding of Social Security as a stimulus.

And the anger it has caused, where complete justified or not, amounts to a "Read my lips" moment. If obama loses in 2012, which I now think is likely, it will be because of this.

[JamesA1102]

5. So you would prefer that millions lose their unemployment benefits

and that taxes be increase on stuggling middle clase families?

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Please reread my post, the answer is there... n/t

[JamesA1102]

64. But the benefits would not have been extended

without the rest so at best you're being unrealistic.

[Ozymanithrax]

112. You are looking for a yes or no answer...

I was commenting on the problems with the legislation, but to sum up:
(1) unemployment extension: good
(2) Tax extension: abysmal politics on both parties that quite possibly will lose the White House in 2012.
(3) 2% on social security: really, really bad politics. It isn't enough to actually stimulate the economy and assaults one of the only efficiently operated programs in the U.S and opens the door for more heinous assaults.

Overall grade C for necessity, F in politics, quite possibly leadig to E for Oama being expelled in 2012.

[JamesA1102]

113. But the reality is that they are all bundled together

whether we like it or not. And I don't agree on number 3, it is not a cut to Social Security. Plus number 2 would include tax cut extentions for the middle class.

[Ozymanithrax]

122. I stand by my grading of the whole bill.

Of course, I will have to revisit it if Democrats pass the damn thing.

[JamesA1102]

134. So you're saying the extention of tax cuts for the middle class is bad nt

[Ozymanithrax]

174. Once again, read my posts.

Clearly, you have not.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Can you respond to the issue of "defunding" of SS.....as stated in

this post?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9708174


Thanks.

[Ozymanithrax]

17. So now we are going to borrow money form China...

put that money into the General revenues, to loan to Social Security, that is taken as a woefully inadequate stimulus to the economy.

Why not just borrow money from the general fund. Well, except that there is no money in the General fund. Our government financing more and more resembles a set of books kept by the mafia.

Back when Bush put through his tax cuts "they said" that it would lead to jobs and a booming economy. Instead, we have seen an explosion of debt, stagnant wages, and a net loss of jobs. I find that "They" persons, whoever they are, to be unreliable spokespersons. They speak loudest when they are polishing a turd, but a turd remains a turd.

I suppose it comes down to trust. I've fought for some time against an anti-Obama tide, but I have lost my trust, and trust an exceedingly difficult thing to find again, once lost.

[stopbush]

20. SS currently runs a surplus. It takes in more than it pays out.

Whatever it doesn't pay out gets put into the general fund where it is borrowed to fund wars and bridges to nowhere. SS is currently owed something like $2-trillion that has been borrowed.

Seems to me that while a 2% cut in taxes paid to SS is technically a cut in the trust fund, in reality it just means that there will be less money to borrow from SS to fund non-SS programs.

And THAT is where the real battle will be fought.

Let's face it, if the government ever paid back the $ it currently owes the SS trust fund, the fund would be solvent forever. A drop of 2% in funds it never got to borrow in the first place shouldn't make any difference at all.

[BzaDem]

23. Yes. All stimulus "comes from China" (or actually US Banks, which put much of their money in bonds).

That is the point of stimulus. To raise deficit spending. The routing number on the check does not matter. It does not affect Social Security.

[JamesA1102]

66. So you would prefer that millions lose their unemployment benefits

[Ozymanithrax]

111. Again, Please reread my post (#3), the answer is there...

But it requires reading.

[JamesA1102]

120. I've read it and don't need to read it again.

[jtown1123]

140. SS will be defunded because it relies on that payroll tax to payout benefits

the shortfall will double and this so called holiday will be extended indefinitely as every other tax cut has. This will then cripple Social Security. Obama could have fought for UE and tax cuts for middle class by allowing them to expire temporarily. Repubs would have capitulated as their constituents went ape shit that they were the ones holding UE and Middle class tax cuts hostage simply for billionaire tax cuts. He didn't even fight, and that's what makes us all so mad.

[wildbilln864]

164. well said! thanks. nt

[True_Blue]

22. I agree

I'm unemployed, but I can't support the extension under these conditions. These tax cuts for the greedy 2% "job creators" are exactly why the economy is in such a mess today. They'll end up cutting SS, Medicare, social programs, and UI to pay for the cuts, which will be the final nail in the coffin for this country. I doubt Obama will even want to run in 2012 because we'll probably be in a full blown depression by then.

[JamesA1102]

69. Good for you

But are speaking for all unemployed people? It is ok with you that their children go hungry just to win a political fight?

[True_Blue]

135. I'm not "just trying to win a political fight"

The extension didn't have to be on these terms. What is going to happen to this country when they cut SS, Medicare, social programs,and UI to pay for these tax cuts. How many children will go hungry when we end up in a full blown depression with no safety nets in place?

[patrice]

147. What's going to happen in this country when ALL of that stuff goes 100% under Republican power, so

that we can get even with Obama for not doing all of the stuff 100% perfectly that we should have been doing at least some of for ourselves.

[JamesA1102]

155. Huh?

[JamesA1102]

154. Sounds like you are

So it the extension did have to be on these terms, what terms should it have been on?

[True_Blue]

167. Reread my post then

I'm truly concerned because they *WILL* cut SS, Medicare, Social Programs, & UI to pay for these tax cuts. No jobs will be created, unemployment will continue to climb, only then there won't be any safety nets left to keep us from going into another Great Depression.

I think Obama should have told the repubs no deal and declared a national state of emergency for the millions of jobless and let Americans know that the repubs blocked UI for the jobless (at Christmas) along with tax cuts for the middle class, because they tried to use them as pawns to get tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%. Instead, he's like "Call me"... very very sad.

Are you really OK with this???

[JamesA1102]

168. National state of emergency???

You want a dictator, not a president.

[True_Blue]

175. We're talking about millions of people here

You seem to be under the impression that he's never declared a national state of emergency before ...
http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+declares+national+state+of+emergency&hl=en&prmd=iv&ei=yOf-TKSkN8X6lwekioWdCA&start=10&sa=N

[patrice]

144. It's the Un-Employed and, by extension, the Unions who are in the driver's seat now. I approve of

that much anyway.

[patrice]

145. BTW, Agree.

[Statistical]

39. Social Security isn't being defunded.

The legislation requires the 2% reduction in payroll tax to be paid from general fund.

Seeing as the general fund is paid by mainly by income & inheritance tax.

Those taxes are progressive in nature. A highly regressive form of funding is being replaced by progressive one and people on DU are upset?

Really?

Boo..... We don't want not stinking billionaires paying for social security.

[patrice]

149. Thanks for this bit of truth! nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. Terrible!

The only important thing is the Deficit and
making sure those Rich folks don't get tax cuts for the next two years.....
cause That's like the end of the world, there.

[Hannah Bell]

6. lol. oh, yes, of course, everyone is upset about the extension of UE. In Backwards-Land, that is.

[quinnox]

16. lol

exactly, it couldn't possibly be the continuation of the Bush tax cuts to the rich that people here are upset about.

[Write Left]

10. No, Americans support those things. Thus the folly of "compromise."

[Skittles]

11. no

they it STINKS to give tax cuts to obscenely rich people

[Mimosa]

88. The past few months Warren Buffett & other rich have been lobbying against this disgrace. n/t

[madrchsod]

12. it`s better than nothing but....

it`s still not good enough to solve the long term problem in this country. the loss of jobs and the never ending wars.

[BlueCheese]

14. The choice was not dictated.

It didn't have to be "take this entire package of big tax breaks for the rich and a few things for everyone else" or nothing. With any amount of public relations acumen, the Democrats should have been able to give away a lot less. The parts of the "compromise" that the Democrats want are widely popular; the parts the Republicans want are widely unpopular. It should have been easy to bring enough public pressure to force the GOP to cave--especially before the election.

I also don't like the contention that just because a big bill does a few good things, then it's okay to accept a bunch of bad things along with it. Or that opposing the bad things means that you oppose the good things too. That's a specious argument. For example, suppose the bill involves extending unemployment benefits for 13 months, and also allocating $200 billion to build the Dick Cheney Library and National Shrine. Would we be arguing that we'd have a moral imperative to support that too?

[JamesA1102]

33. $200 Billion to build the Dick Cheney Library????

And there is no way the GOP was going to cave before an election that they were winning. So let's deal with reality.

[BlueCheese]

108. Replace building the Cheney Library...

... with tax cuts for the very rich, and it's not much different than reality.

[JamesA1102]

115. But building a library would employ people

but it wasn't a situation where we could only choose the elements that we like.

[ddeclue]

15. YES when it comes at the cost of 140B in tax cuts for the rich that could be used to EMPLOY

the unemployed.

So much for the false framing of the argument.

[JamesA1102]

34. How?

[and-justice-for-all]

18. They need to stop with the welfare for millionaires shit....

they need to be taxed and not given a reward for making millions; they also do not create jobs. 98% of us should not be carrying 2% of the population.

[Greyhound]

19. Yes. Chocolate is a good thing, but chocolate at $4,000/lb. is not. n/t

[InkAddict]

29. Ah, the sacrifices we'll be needing to soon make for chocolate explained:

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/Articles.aspx?page=articles&ID=212924

http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/08/global-cocoa-prices-20102011-forecast.html

[Withywindle]

21. No, it's not a bad thing.

It's just so much a "let them eat cake."

[Whisp]

24. having rich people buy expensive brandy and snort more cocaine

is what worries so many here.

the benefits for the 6.7 million? bah, unimportant.

We are outraged! I regret every thing I ever did for Obama, every penny, every good thought. He is dead to me! o m g, this is the second to last straw, I swear it this time, this time it's for real! O M G Obama made my wife cry! My wife never cries, Obama the cry maker homophobic corporatist weak kneed whatchamacallit! never again. O what do we do now that 6.7 million have checks coming in and won't be destitute. what will i DO~ what will WE DO! We must fight!!!!!%$$$##^^! ?We must swear out loud in all the tv's and shake our fists! call in HOWARD! Howard!!!!!!!! COME AND FIX THIS, RIGHT FUCKING NOWWWWWWWWWWWW!!! take that money away. omg now my dog is crying. He barked a swear word at Obama and I don't BLAME HIM! my vein is popping. omg. it's popping again, it's popping ALL OVER MY LAST STRAW!

[FrenchieCat]

27. I'm so laughing......

But you forgot the Deficit that China has to pay for (is that anything new?).

DU - Drama Underground to be used by the GOP and their media to fuck us whenever
they feel like it.

We are good at it! :cry:

[Hello_Kitty]

67. Just don't defend any of the future Catfood austerity shit based on "the deficit"

If you ever so much as breathe a word about "the deficit" to defend anything this admin does I'm throwing your support for this shitty deal right back in your face.

[Lorien]

121. That will happen soon enough, not doubt. nt

[SidDithers]

50. Well done...

:applause:

Sid

[Rex]

25. Stick it to rich people!? You mean the 1%? Oh man...what a laugh.

Thanks...I can't believe someone thinks denying the super rich 140 bil is 'sticking it to them'. :rofl:

[mmonk]

26. You've got it backwards. Unemployment benefits were held hostage

to force continuance of the tax cuts for the rich.

[JamesA1102]

35. Maybe so

but isn't better that the unemployed will be getting those benefits than not.

[OHdem10]

28. Economists from WH and from those who advise Congress

say the country would fall back, possibly into Recssion
if we cut umemployment the Middle Class Taxcuts.

[TheKentuckian]

30. It is not about "sticking it to the rich". It is about hamstring the capacity of the government

, feeding the wealth and income disparity, and borrowing a shit ton of money for not only no good purpose but a demonstrated drag on the economy.

The tax cuts are bad for the broader economy. They inhibit investment and funnel the wealth of the nation into the hands of a few.
This is not a "fix it later" scenario and you all know it. We've been fighting these fucking tax cuts for damn near a decade and to now pretend they are a reasonable trade off for a year of limited unemployment benefits is absurd.
Silver linings are great but they do not offset the whole cloud.

For crying out loud, these very tax cuts are part of the recipe for needing the unemployment extensions so desperately.
Do you guys think that as long as we can pretend there is no depression that it won't be one and we can bounce back by magic or "cycle"? Hell, we didn't even stop the bleeding because the 99ers are still fucked and have been told to "die quickly".

[JamesA1102]

38. So you would prefer that millions lose their unemployment benefits

[TheKentuckian]

177. It isn't a preference but you are talking a big ass hole in resource as a trade.

Don't blame me for the unemployment situation, the fuckwits should have indexed the extensions to the unemployment rate instead of at best, trying to use the issue as a recurring battle to shame the TeaPubliKlans and worst shifty fucks trying to appear to do the right thing while they seek every opportunity to cut these benefits to artificially lower the unemployment number.

These tax cuts are mostly a pretty high negative. Something isn't automatically good because it has redeeming features.

Are you saying Bush was correct?

The new appreciation for the latest fruit of voodoo economics is laughable.

[TheMadMonk]

31. Won't say it's a bad thing. But, another 4.5m pissed off people...

...could be a useful resource if directed properly.

[JamesA1102]

40. So cut off their benefits and hope to get their votes?

[TheMadMonk]

176. Not quite. Let what's going to happen eventually, happen now.

It is going to take some SERIOUS anger in the streets to effect any appreciable progressive change in the USA.

Right now UE benefits are a small carrot and a whacking great stick with which to beat the populace.

[JDPriestly]

32. I think that a good WPA program would be better than extending

the unemployment benefits. Child care tax credits don't help people who don't even have jobs. Giving the working class a payroll tax cut is great -- but it weakens Social Security and will ultimately justify cuts to the elderly who are no longer able to work.

So, really I think that those policies are not very smart right now. We can do better.

The unemployed don't need or want unemployment benefits. They want jobs.

For example, I have a close friend who was laid off from a teaching job a year ago last Spring. She cannot find another one.

It would be great if the government offered to hire teachers like her for the same amount of money they receive from their unemployment checks just to tutor students who need it for a few hours a week or to help out the regular teacher in the classroom a few hours a week. It would not be full-time job. There would be no insurance or pension benefits, but it would keep the teachers working in their field and when and if the economy gets better, they will not have so many empty months on their resumes.

Unemployment benefits are better than starving, but they do nothing for the unemployed person's resume, confidence or reservoir of experience. The longer you are unemployed, the harder it is to get another job.

And being unemployed is depressing. At least having a part-time, low-paid gig is better than unemployment benefits. I know. I've been there.

[JamesA1102]

44. WPA Program???

Do you really think that is realistic in the current environment?

[jtown1123]

141. Love this idea.

[Mimosa]

157. Worked back in the 1930s. *smile*

Back then there were many projects which gave us parks, roads, recreation centers, theatre projects, new schools.

[tekisui]

36. A Democratic majority with sense and strength would have never allowed

those issues to be conflated.

It's not about sticking it to rich people. It is about reducing the deficit and paying for our war adventures. Our country is broken.

[JamesA1102]

45. True but the GOP won the election

[tekisui]

51. They had plenty of time to sort this out before Nov. 2.

[JamesA1102]

58. True. The President wanted to deal with it then nt

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cal Carpenter]

41. +1000

Does the OP really think that's what this is about? 'Sticking it to rich people'?!?!

AAARGH :freak:

[JamesA1102]

52. For some on this board

I think they would rather stick it to rich people than help the unemployed.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

74. Just read some of the posts

and they prove what I 'think'.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

48. You know what makes me sick to my stomach

people who would rather see the unemployed lose their benefits just to make a point.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingFair]

56. Cake or Death?

Guillotines or Bridge Cards?

:crazy:

[KansasVoter]

42. Wow, you are so shallow in your thinking. It was blackmail that will continue. Get it?

[JamesA1102]

49. Unfortunately that is how government works nt

[Cal Carpenter]

59. That's how government 'works' for about 3% of the population

and everyone else gets the shaft.

Of course the unemployment benefit extension is a good thing but it has NOTHING to do with the tax cuts.

Government DOESN'T work. That's the point. This two-party charade helps the richest people (including the congresspeople themselves of course). Nearly everyone else is scrambling for crumbs.

[JamesA1102]

79. But things that have nothing to with each other is how deals are make in Congress

We may not like it but that is reality.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

123. Really? You should have explained that to Bush jr. He got everything he demanded

without compromise. THAT'S the way he worked government. Obama has no excuses other than that he's giving us what he wants.

[JamesA1102]

153. Actually he didn't

Bush wanted these tax cuts to be permanent but had to pass them through reconciliation with a sunset provision.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

43. You're conflating several things

packaging UI with tax cuts for the top 2% = dumb

We became blackmailed by our own rhetoric about 2 million unemployed left to starve to death at Christmas if they don't get their benefits extended. And that's exactly what you are doing, here. I've been through this process. Each time I got kicked off because the Republicans wanted to grandstand, benefits were extended within a week or two *retroactively*. (Full disclosure: I face losing my benefits if they are not extended.)

What we need to do is turn the Republican base against their leaders. How can we do that? Say "NO deal." Let the Democrats bring a vote to extend UI benefits every day and let the unemployed Republican base turn on their leadership. The Republican leaders will capitulate and extend benefits to appease their base. They always have. In fact, the threat that they would not was disingenuous. But Obama doesn't like his job, so he takes the path of least resistance.

Now what? Democrats say "NO deal," and the Republicans hang UI over *our* head. How could Obama allow this to happen?!!

[JamesA1102]

55. You're very naive.

I'm not conflating anything. Those are the items in the deal currently on the table.

No one is going to turn the GOP base against them or are they going to capitulate after they just won so big in the election.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

71. you're conflating several things

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9709856&mesg_id=9710414

try again

[JamesA1102]

76. No I'm not

just saying over and over again doesn't make it true.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

81. Progress. At least you don't find my second reply naive.

Saying you're not conflating doesn't make it false.

Saying I'm naive doesn't make it true.

[JamesA1102]

91. Just cause I didn't say it

doesn't mean it is not true. I'm discussing the elements of the deal currently on the table, that is not conflating anything. Saying over and over again doesn't change that.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

100. This *does* sound naive. Let me explain what I was thinking...

I see. When I said "Republican base" I was thinking of unemployed Republicans of the Republican base. From what is being reported, they agree with us about tax cuts on the top 2%.

[JamesA1102]

102. And how many of the Republican base are unemployed?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

104. I'd love to know that, too! Seems like they have few by comparison, but...

...like I mentioned, polls show that all Republicans are with us on the tax cuts for the top 2%. The Republican leadership, then, isn't representing its base en masse.

As pathetic as it is IMO we have to fight where the battles are, not continue to wait until they move to somewhere we'd rather they be.

I didn't think it would be too long before the unemployed Republican base understands that it's their leaders who are telling them, "You don't get yours until the rich get theirs." And, after all, it's their base that carries guns everywhere, not ours.

Having said that, I don't know if we can regain the moral high ground on UI. I think Obama just gave it away.

[JamesA1102]

106. I think many in the Repubican base

think that they will be rich one day and are willing to take the hit now. I think that others in the Republican base just hate Democrats and liberals so much that they'll continue to vote against their own economic interests.

If these people in the Repubican base are so rational, why are they republicans in the first place?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

152. The emergence of the Tea Party indicates that there's a schism...

...and letting the rich live high on the hog doesn't sit well with them.

I know what you're saying and totally agree--can't fix stupid. It's been easy for them to blame the Dems up to this point because we "control" everything. But now their minions are just so delighted that the Republicans won this massive mandate in the primaries that now they have complete control.

Under this illusion--Republicans are calling the shots--they will hold the Republicans responsible for extending the tax cuts for the rich while holding (their own) unemployed hostage.

[JamesA1102]

156. So you think the tea party are allies? nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

166. I wasn't thinking that...

I said that because there's reason to believe that the Republicans aren't in fact lockstep as they've been for years.


Now, to the point you just raised. Allies? Not allies per se. The Republican leadership *must* get pushback from within. That they are roused by the same matter is coincidence.

[JamesA1102]

169. One thing they are in lockstep about is hating this President

And the tea partiers are hypocrites so don't expect any pushback from them.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

170. The Tea Party people have eaten their own (Republicans)

That's the only track record they have.

[JamesA1102]

173. Not to support a Democrat nt

[undeterred]

46. Its really stupid to make us choose between the two as if

we they somehow have something to do with each other.

[PassingFair]

54. Apparently, this is the binary world of the poster.

We're either with him or against him.

:crazy:

[JamesA1102]

60. Really?

When did I ever say that?

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

57. But that is how deals are made in congress

[undeterred]

62. I hate it.

[JamesA1102]

92. I'm sure their are Republicans that hate it too nt

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lunatica]

47. They should extend benefits with no strings attached. That would be doing their job

but how convenient for them that they can attach strings. Now the unemployed are being held hostage by the GOP with a gun to their head. Nice job!

:sarcasm:

[EstimatedProphet]

63. No, no one thinks that

What people do think is that (with the exception of UI) the deficit boogeyman is a load of crap. What people do think is that what the millionaire tax break will do to any deficit reduction efforts far outweighs all the other deficit reduction initiatives. What people do think is that, if we really want to address the deficit, we should be putting people back to work instead of increasing it by giving millionaires more borrowed money.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Just don't defend anything in the future based on "the deficit", please.

When the Catfood austerity plans start coming I'm going to remember all of you who are defending this right now.

[PassingFair]

68. He'll defend that shit, too.

Well, eating CATFOOD is better than
eating SHIT, isn't it?

[JamesA1102]

78. So you think helping the unemployed is a bad thing

because it adds to the deficit?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

75. "Stick it to rich people" - nice spin. It's wonderful to see the DLC so concerned about the

most fortunate amongst us. Stick it to them? That would mean actually making them pay SOMETHING. Instead they park their money in off-shore accounts, and any left in the states is easily passed on to heirs and otherwise taxed at a very low rate (which continues thanks to our fine President).

Stick it to them? If only.

[JamesA1102]

82. Actually they tried to close that loophole

but the GOP filabustered it. So blame those responsible for it.

And do you automatically brand anyone who disagrees with you as DLC? Sort of like how the right brands anyone that doesn't agree with them as commies or terrorists.

[TBF]

89. Absolutely not - but as I detailed in my own OP this morning -

the DLC hand is showing here.

Here is the post detailing the attack on social security (with cites to DLC material) - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9709855

This is not personal, we are watching policies enacted that are very harmful to working folks. That concerns many of us - and really unhappy when we can trace them to DLC literature as opposed to republican (well, actually, many can be traced to both). It's really sad.

[JamesA1102]

94. I'm not a member of the DLC and

don't regularly read their website or materials.

The DLC has become a convient bogeyman on DU used how the right uses is commies and terrorists.

[TBF]

96. Well maybe you ought to look over their materials -

I wasn't up on them either. But now that I've done some reading it is very easy to see what is happening. And very disheartening.

[Autumn]

77. No, and no one says it's bad. What is bad is that some of

us can see very clearly the republican play here. Our President doesn't seem to be aware of it, or he is ignoring it. We know whats coming down the pike. This is merely the first of their plays. And I fear that no one will stop it.

[Marr]

83. I support maintaining our road system, too. But I don't think it's something that requires

"compromise" (i.e., conceding utterly to conservative demands) in order to do it. There are lines past which a person must refuse to haggle and simply fight. Unemployment benefits are way, way past the line.

Face it-- Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership *wanted* to extend Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Their only challenge was in convincing you that they didn't want to, even as they did it. That explains their otherwise baffling delays, strategy, everything.

[PassingFair]

87. +1 ...nt

[JamesA1102]

93. You have any proof of your accusations?

[Marr]

101. What a silly question.

How could I possibly "prove" that someone does not want what they claim to want? I would say that repeated results suggest as much, and Obama's own language is laced with conservative economic assumptions (referring to big business interests as "job creators", for instance)-- but I'm afraid I can't prove what's inside the Democratic leaderships' heads. And since elections aren't jury trials, you should be probably be more concerned with appearances than proof.

[JamesA1102]

109. So you admit that

you're just pulling this out of your butt.

[ibegurpard]

125. you'd find some way to explain it away or excuse it anyway

so cut the crap

[blondeatlast]

84. I seriously wonder what DUers in the President's position would have done. I'm pissed, but I also

know that the decisions aren't so easy when millions of Americans are affected by them.

I'm mad as hell that the rich get ANOTHER gawddamned giveaway, but my unemployed brothers and sisters and struggling friends aren't left in the cold now, either. I also think I'm going to skulk away from DU for a while. this place is toxic at this point.

[JamesA1102]

95. Exactly.

Sometimes there are no good choices.

Please don't go. DU needs good people like you to balance out the toxic ones.

[LibraLiz1973]

85. Actually, I do.

I agree with extending the benefits for the 5 or so million people who desperately need them. But I personally know people who are sitting on their asses collecting unemployment who are LOVING all of these extensions. Several of them are doing side jobs under the table to make extra money. These people COULD get jobs, but they wont. The most pathetic part? The a-holes in question voted for fucking McCain and HATE Obama.

Over the years, I have worked with many families who are scamming the system. Getting welfare, WIC, CHIP, child care subsidies, food stamps etc- and the people I am talking about did not need it. It absolutely INFURIATES me, because I work with parents every single day who need help desperately (as far as the child care subsidy goes) and they CAN NOT GET IT because the rolls are full- and some of the people it is full of are scammers.

My own sister gets cash assistance for a child who does not live with her and that she doesn't see or support.

There are millions of people who genuinely need help, and should get it. Assholes ruin it for everybody.

It makes me literally sick every time there is an extension and I know that not everyone who is getting it should.

[Mimosa]

90. You ought to report scamsters.

They're robbing from the needy.

[LibraLiz1973]

103. I have. It isn't always as easy as you would think.

A few have been caught. Others continue to get away with it. Including my sister.

[PassingFair]

86. Do you get that not collecting taxes from billionaires and corps will create MORE unemployment?

Do you get that these tax breaks, along with
the pocket fattening wars of CHOICE are what
CREATED the unemployment crisis that is only
GROWING when we capitulate to the extortion?

What will we give up for the next extension?

[JamesA1102]

97. But extending benefits for million of unemployed and tax cuts to the middle class

will help stimulate the economy. It's called a compromise.

[PassingFair]

98. It hasn't "stimulated the economy" thus far....

It's called blackmail.

[JamesA1102]

99. So you'd rather that the unemployed starve?

[PassingFair]

105. It's not an either or proposition. Although you're presenting is as such.

Where's your concern for the former SELF EMPLOYED,
who never even got to collect ONE WEEK of unemployment?

[JamesA1102]

107. At the moment it is unfortunately is.

That is how government works.

[PassingFair]

110. "That is how government works. ...

when you fail to govern.

[JamesA1102]

117. Then we've been failing for 200 years.

If everyone has your additude the continental congress would still be arguing over Jefferson's first draft of the declaration of independence.

[PassingFair]

128. If everyone had YOUR "additude", we'd still be curtseying to a king.

Oh no! King George is going to cut off
our tea!

Better pay MORE taxes!

Your ADDITUDE is NUTS.

[Individualist]

114. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9709983&mesg_id=9709983

[JoseGaspar]

116. You realize the linkage was pure bullshit, don't you?

The battle over unemployment could have been fought many times over, under more favorable conditions, than now...

...but the White House was too busy talking about "recovery" and how the UE rate was going to come down "any minute now".

Welcome to Hoovervill.


Now the Republicans can hold up SALT in return for gutting Social Security...

...and someone can put up a thread saying, "Does anyone really think that avoiding nuclear war is a bad thing?"

Or, the Republicans can hold up child nutrition program in return for gutting Medicare, and a thread will go up asking, "How can the critics not care about the children?"


This putrid racket has existed as long as I've been alive (and I'm told it was around before that).

But, you go ahead and fall for it...

Obama was just helping people.

That's the ticket...

[JamesA1102]

118. The linkage is reality and how government works. nt

[JoseGaspar]

130. That's it? That's how "government works"?

Do you mean marginal tax rates are always linked to UI? It never was linked before.

Or do you mean losing the House and letting this all lapse into the Lame Duck is how "Government Works"?

That wouldn't be "government" - that would be incompetent politics.

Or do you mean that anything you say is "how government works"?

You might as well have claimed that Obama wanted to fight but God demanded he fold.

Then, you might have at least a traditional basis for pulling rank.

[JamesA1102]

158. No I mean that often two unrelated bills are linked so that

both get passed. That's who deals in Congress have been cut for centuries.

[Lorien]

119. When it comes attached to a provision that will only cause MORE unemployment

yes. It's not a matter of "sticking it to rich people", it's a matter of saving the entire economy-and that 700 billion for the rich will do what it did to us the first time around (get us where we are today).

[JamesA1102]

159. Get your facts straight

The $700 Billion figure was the cost of the extention over 10 years. This is only a 2 year extention costing $140 Billion.

And exactly how will it cause more unemployment?

[Scurrilous]

124. It's a bad thing done by a bad man.

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

160. Not a strawman

It's reality.

[Jakes Progress]

131. I don't like shooting puppies either.

But it was idiotic and just plain incompetent to let the republicans frame the argument this way. Just once it would be nice if our guys were smarter than their guys.

[JamesA1102]

161. Blame the media. They help the GOP frame the argument nt

[Hello_Kitty]

178. You're helping to frame it right now. eom

[Dinger]

136. Nice Try . . .

really.

[slackmaster]

137. It's nowhere near as good as having them all find good jobs would be, but it's better than nothing

:argh:

[patrice]

138. Everyone in this thread needs to step up and say what they did in the fight for Un-Employment

benefits that ********WE*********** lost.

How many phone calls did you make?

How many other people did you enlist in that effort?

- and then -

Compare those numbers to:

How many posts declaring lack of support for the President have you made?

How many other people did you enlist in the effort to bring him down?

[VeryConfused]

139. Those in need should be the first priority

[patrice]

142. Precisely!! Anything else is the same thing as the worst stuff that we accuse the Plutocrats of, jus

t on a smaller scale.

[patrice]

150. BTW, did you get your clearance from the Professional Left to say that? ... just kidding!

:hi: Welcome to DU! :hi:

[county worker]

143. You are counting on a bird in the bush. It hasn't happened yet.

I don't see the re pukes getting their tax breaks and then voting for unemployment extension. I think they will block those things.

[Pisces]

146. Republicans do.

[JamesA1102]

162. Very true nt

[raouldukelives]

148. Sorta

If all the rich can get another two years of massive subsidies why can't all of the unemployed?

[patrice]

151. I'd settle for that if I was confident it would end in 2 years, but with the way things are going, w

ith the so-called Left busy deconstructing any chance/political support Obama has to do anything, even if he manages to end the Tax Cuts in 2 years, Republicans are going to take 100% control and replace them again along with all of their little SaintCo buddies to see some of us ever so sweetly off into the hereafter due to a lack of authentic care, because they're going to ruin effective Medicare reform and, thus, end any reason we would have to go for Medicare for All, a.k.a. a Universal Public Option Health Care system.

But there'll be plenty of people on this board oh so happy to have shown Obama a thing or two and oh so sad that HE lost it ALL.

[librechik]

163. it should have been routine and not a political debate

those Republicans and others who voted against the extrension shouldn't call themselves Americans. IMO

The fact that our president had to be shamed and humiliated over it is just a plus for their stupid campaign of Victory.

[patrice]

165. +1

[stranger81]

171. It's ludicrous to think the only two options

were (1) nothing for anyone, or (2) giving those in the top tax bracket $103K for every $771 given to someone earning $30K.

[Swamp Rat]

172. Fool me once...