Democratic presidents and the left

[ProSense]

Democratic presidents and the left

By Ezra Klein

Two readers e-mailed me in the past 24 hours with quotes showing the complicated relationship past Democratic presidents -- both real and fictional -- have had with the left. First up is a quote from Taylor Branch's book, "," which recounts a contentious interview President Clinton sat for with Rolling Stone:

(Clinton) said Rolling Stone's founder, Jan Wenner, had come to the White House with author William Greider, a former Washington Post editor whose books included a populist critique of the Federal Reserve banking system. They had agreed not to discuss NAFTA because of Greider's implacable opposition, and the president said all went fine until Greidier brandished a photograph of a destitute-looking American to mount a sudden, dramatic attack.... Greider confronted him saying here is one of the countless poor people who looked to you for leadership -- you were their last hope. Now they feel utterly disillusioned and abandoned. Can you look into this face and name one thing you have done to help? Or one principle you won't compromise ? One cause you will uphold? One belief you would die for?

The president said he had replied in kind. "I kind of went off on him," the president recalled. He told Greider that he had done things already that no other president would do. He had raised taxes on the rich and lowered them for the poor. He had introduce the AmeriCorps service program, which Rolling Stone had campaigned for, and established it into law. He was taking on the gun lobby and the tobacco lobby. He had proposed fair treatment for gay soldiers. He was fighting for national health care, and more, but liberals paid very little attention to these things because they were bitchy and cynical about politics. They resented Clinton for respecting the votes of conservatives or the opinions of moderates. They wanted him to behave like a dictator because they didn't really care about results in the world.... He said he had pointed at Greider to tell him the problem is you, Bill Greider. You are a faulty citizen. You don't mobilize or persuade, because you only worry about being doctrinaire and proud. You are betraying your own principles with self-righteousness.

Clinton took a breath. "I did everything but fart in his face," he concluded.

At least President Obama didn't resort to farting. The next example comes from a fictional television character, not a president, but it certainly resonates with left's current feelings about Obama:

more

The Presidency and the age of Internet blogging.

[saracat]

1. But Clinton never obviously and regularly had his subordinates

insult his base nor did he stand at a podium and insult them himself.

[JamesA1102]

2. You're incorrectly assuming that the extreme left is his base

It never was. His base is moderate Democrats and they still overwhelmingly approve of his job performance.

[saracat]

3. Perhaps so but after yesterday, I doubt it.

[JamesA1102]

9. You think middle class working Dems wanted their taxes to go up? nt

[niceypoo]

13. Taxes have to go up

We are $15 trillion in debt. You are pushing another GOP talking point.

[JamesA1102]

19. Please!!! No talking point

Working and middle class families are struggling right now. These people don't want to face a tax increase right now.

[niceypoo]

21. With supply sider Democrats...

...who needs republicans?

We now have 'Democrats' openly pushing GOP policy.

[JamesA1102]

23. No one is being supply side

again you're dishonestly putting words in people's mouths.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. Yes.

They were against the tax cuts in the first place.

[JamesA1102]

44. Maybe but

That was ten years ago when the econmy was much better and we were running big surpluses. Most polls show that very few people wanted all the tax cuts to expire.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. So something that was a bad spending idea when we were running surpluses...

is now a GOOD spending idea when we are running the largest deficits in history?!

You do realize that just buys into the GOP meme that "tax cuts stimulate the economy"?

[JamesA1102]

47. Don't dishonestly put words in my mouth

I'm just acknowledging that economic conditions have changed since those tax cuts went into effect and thus people's opinion of them changed just how the public's opinion of the Iraq war changed over time.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. What words did I put in your mouth?

From your post "That was ten years ago when the econmy was much better and we were running big surpluses."


I pointed out the REASON the democrats thought the tax cuts were a BAD IDEA when we were running big surpluses and then applied the same reasoning to today, pointing out that the democrats reasoning is faulty either then or today. The fact is they have flip flopped on this issue.

The fact that people are easily manipulated by unchallenged republican talking points, such as the nonsense like "you don't raise taxes during a recession" doesn't change reality.

[JamesA1102]

50. Please you're doing it again.

No one is being manipulated by talking points or has flip-flopped.

Economic conditions today are different than they were 10 years ago. That is not a talking point, that is reality. So people's economic circumstances have changed, so their additude about middle class tax cuts have changed. I'm not going to demonize working people just because their opinion on tax cuts have changed. Someone else's children should not have to go hungry to stand up for my principles.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. We agree... conditions have changed. No words in your mouth.

And the original REASONING behind not taking the tax cuts in the first place, the REASON they were opposed by democrats.. FILIBUSTERED and forced to pass in reconciliation was that they were unaffordable with little positive return.

So explain to me how POORER economic conditions and a huge deficit make something was a bad idea in a GOOD ECONOMY suddenly a GOOD IDEA in a BAD ECONOMY?

It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever, except that the people have completely flip-flopped.

[JamesA1102]

53. Because in the intervening 10 years

Average income has stayed the same while prices have gone up across the board. Thus, the low and middle class have less buying power to purchase consumer goods. If taxes on low and middle class people go up in January, they'll have even less buying power.

One reason that unemployment has been so high is the consumer spending has been depressed. If consumer spending goes down in January, more people will lose their jobs. That will cause consumer spending to drop even more causing more people to be laid off and before you know it we are in a double dip recession.

However, if the low and middle class retain their current tax rate and get more from the payroll tax cut, they'll spend more on consumer goods. Thus companies will start hiring more people to fill their orders. More people working means more consumer spending which leads to more people working and then we are on the road to recovery.

One question: Were you this opposed to the stimulus bill?

[Milo_Bloom]

54. This doesn't change the underlying logic problem.

First, any economist will tell you that the middle class tax cuts are not significant enough to have a major impact on spending, ESPECIALLY since they are spread out over the course of a year... so you can toss the "depressed spending" concept out the window where it belongs when it comes to keeping or losing these tax cuts (this was one of the problems with the tax cuts from the beginning.. it is too small of amounts on an individual basis to have an impact... again.. that logic hasn't changed.)

Further, the idea that the economy is depressed because of lack of consumer spending is also a false talking point to a large extent. You need to reference the Consumer Expenditure Surveys for the last few years, but you will see that spending has not DROPPED OFF at all, as some suggest (http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/) (http://www.creditloan.com/infographics/how-the-average-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/)

This point you state has been proven wrong again and again, "However, if the low and middle class retain their current tax rate and get more from the payroll tax cut, they'll spend more on consumer goods. Thus companies will start hiring more people to fill their orders. More people working means more consumer spending which leads to more people working and then we are on the road to recovery"... tax cuts do NOT spur spending, ESPECIALLY when spread out over 52 weeks.

What DOES actually work is DIRECT SPENDING and DIRECT HIRING. (ie, taking someone who was making nothing and giving them a job.. or allowing someone to make THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MORE A YEAR DUE TO A NEW OPPORTUNITY). You take someone who is existing on unemployment (250 per week) and suddenly increase their income to $1,000 per week and now you have a SIGNIFICANT and REAL increase in consumer spending that leads to job growth.).

Why did unemployment drop from 10% to 5.5% in the 1980s? B/c Reagan hid a HUGE DIRECT SPENDING STIMULUS BILL in the defense budget and injected nearly 1.5->1.7 TRILLION new dollars into the economy via defense contracts. People act like he proved the idea that tax cuts spur the economy, but in reality, his tax cuts let to greater unemployment and it wasn't until he RAISED TAXES and increased government spending that the recovery really began.


Clinton used a slightly different method to inject money into the economy. First, he RAISED TAXES and then, instead of direct spending, working with the fed, made money cheaper to get and deregulated much of the financial markets, which allowed investment companies (VC's) to take some wild and wacky risks on businesses. It created a huge influx in jobs as companies received millions in financing and were able to hire at previously unprecedented rates.

After the bubble burst, the Clinton economy COULD have sustained longer, if bush hadn't have wasted the surplus on these idiotic tax cuts, which did almost nothing for job growth.. but instead invested in direct government investment (like Reagan did). bush was only able to create a "good economy" by completely dismantling the regulation of the financial sector, allowing people to borrow millions in basically unsecured funds, which help keep spending up as people were drawing tens of thousands of extra dollars out of their overvalued homes.


So.. in the end you still end up with a basic logic problem. To suddenly be behind this idiotic tax deal, you have completely abandon the reason democrats were against the tax cuts in the first place (ie, THEY DON'T WORK TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND THEY ADD TO AN ALREADY OUT OF CONTROL DEBT). You further have to now buy into the already dis proven reasoning that "tax cuts stimulate the economy" and twist yourself into a pretzel to explain why COSTS that were unacceptable when times were "good" and the debt was under control (times weren't really good.. unemployment had risen by 60% in a year), are suddenly ACCEPTABLE when times are bad and the debt has tripled.

To answer your question.. was I opposed to the stimulus bill. Not at all. In fact, I didn't think it went nearly far enough in direct spending. Too much of the stimulus bill was WASTED on INEFFECTIVE TAX CUTS, which is a large part of the reason it had such lackluster results, compared to what was expected.

Their calculations were done based on adding 780 BILLION to the economy over a 4 year period. However, tax cuts don't work that way (as explained), so they really only added 350 billion to the economy and got results that jived perfectly with that level of spending.

[JamesA1102]

55. There is no logic problem

You're just refusing to accept reality. If millions of people have less money in their paychecks in January, their spending is going to go down.

Consumer spending is down: http://247wallst.com/2010/09/09/consumer-spending-falls-down-and-cant-get-up/ and has been down the last few years. Your links don't dispute that. Did you even read what they said? It seems you're just cut and pasting stuff without really understanding it.

The fact that you supported the stimulus despite that it added to the deficit just shows you're a hypocrite on that subject.

And getting back to the original point, most people including Dems want the tax cuts for the middle class and poor extended: http://www.gallup.com/poll/144989/Vast-Majority-Wants-Aspect-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Extended.aspx as well as unemployment benefits extended: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145109/Americans-Support-Major-Elements-Tax-Compromise.aspx

[Milo_Bloom]

56. Yes, there is a HUGE logic problem.

For some reason you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more?

And yes, consumer spending FELL in 2008, which is why I gave you stats for 2009 and 2010, where it has risen marginally from year to year. (ie, the tax cuts that were already in effect at the time didn't help!)


And no, supporting the stimulus and being AGAINST this tax package are not mutually exclusive positions that makes one a hypocrite. I am ALL FOR direct spending, because it is the best method of creating jobs that pay back (ie, they have a very strong return.)

And finally.. yes, a majority of people have bought into the idiotic spin and GOP talking points about tax cuts. Just because a majority of people have bought into a bunch of BS spin, doesn't make it right.

[JamesA1102]

57. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Raising taxes on the middle class is going to hurt consumer spending because they will have less money to spend. And when consumer spending goes down, unemployment goes up. Almost every economist of note has said this. You just don't want to admit reality because it is at odds with your ideology.

This is what Robert Greenstien of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities had to say about the middle claas tax cuts:

In several respects, the package exceeds the expectations we and many other observers had set when the negotiations began.

■ The 13-month extension of federal unemployment benefits is a major accomplishment. Only a few weeks ago, the House fell short of passing a three-month extension. The 13-month extension will prevent 7 million jobless workers from losing essential income support, without which they would have to cut their purchases substantially, causing the loss of many more jobs. The Council of Economic Advisers recently estimated that an end to these benefits would cause the loss of 600,000 ­jobs and cut already-inadequate economic growth by 0.6 percentage points by the end of next year, quite a large amount; Goldman Sachs recently made a similar estimate of the impact on economic growth.

■ The package continues for two years all of the 2009 Recovery Act improvements in the Earned Income Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit (which helps students from low- and middle-income families afford college), and the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit. These measures are simultaneously effective stimulus policy, desirable social policy, and admirable anti-poverty policy. They encourage work over welfare and help more Americans obtain a college education; they provide sound stimulus by putting money in the hands of hard-pressed working families that will spend it; and they substantially reduce child poverty.

■ The package also contains a one-year reduction of 2 percentage points in the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax; workers will pay a 4.2 percent tax on their first $106,800 in wages, rather than 6.2 percent. This provision, which would replace the current “Making Work Pay” tax cut, would raise workers’ take-home pay by $120 billion in 2011 (relative to current law) and consequently should provide some economic boost.

These provisions would protect low- and middle-income workers and their families and, by boosting their incomes, also preserve or create substantial numbers of jobs. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, estimates that federal unemployment benefits generate $1.60 in economic activity for every dollar in cost; the refundable tax credits generate about $1.20 to $1.40 in activity for each dollar in cost; and the payroll tax reduction generates about $1.25 for each dollar in cost. In other words, all of these measures rank high in “bang-for-the-buck” effectiveness.

In this part of the package, the White House achieved everything it sought for low- and middle-income families. It apparently did not compromise on these issues.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3340

And being against something because it raise the deficit while being for something else the also raise the deficit is being a hypocrite whether you admit it or not.

Plus stop demonizing working class people because they don't agree with your myopic point of view. They are not looking at talking points, they are looking at their paychecks and bills.

[Milo_Bloom]

58. Why do you keep avoiding the logic problem?

Why refuse to answer the simple question??

Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


"And being against something because it raise the deficit while being for something else the also raise the deficit is being a hypocrite whether you admit it or not."

Again, no. because you conveniently keep ignoring what I am saying.

Here, let me give you a simple example.

I am 5 million dollars in debt and pay $250,000 in interest each year... but someone extends me $500,000 in additional CREDIT.

I have 3 choices in front of me.

Choice #1) Do NOTHING.

Choice #2) Invest in Company A which has lost money every single quarter and I can be sure will lose money AGAIN in the future.

Choice #3) Invest in Company B which has made money in the past and I can be sure will make money AGAIN in the future.

What I am saying is that choice 3 is a pretty good idea, because even though it adds to the deficit, it actually helps solve the problem. Choice 2 is a BAD IDEA because it just adds to the problem.



I also have no problem with working class people... I have problems with people who buy into GOP talking points and repeat them as if they have a clue what they saying.

[JamesA1102]

59. Because there is no logic problem.

I don't accept your premise, it is not factual and is the product of myopic, ideological thinking that doesn't recognize reality. Plus, I doubt that you even understand the stuff that you're cutting and pasting as proved by the multiple choice about which is totally off point.

The original topic was is the low and middle class support having their taxes go up. You said they did and have been proven wrong on that several times. But instead of being an adult and admitting that you were wrong you keep coming back with something more nonsensical than the last time.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. Now you are just being silly

Denying the obvious logic problem isn't helping your cause. It only serves to prove that you have bought into the right wing walking points.

First, you STILL failed to answer the question. I wonder why. I will post it again for you. "Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "

What is the "premise" that you claim not to accept? That the democrats in congress didn't argue that this was a deficit busting tax cut that wouldn't stimulate spending during a drastic rise in unemployment in 2003??? So are you saying you are just denying facts because they are too inconvenient to your premise??

My issue has always been the logical inconsistency, which you keep avoiding with ad homonym attacks.

Answer the questions. It's simple. Why are tax cuts that were BAD in 2001/2003 when we had a surplus suddenly GOOD in 2010/2011 when we have a deficit?? Why did people claim they wouldn't stimulate the economy in 2001, but those same people claim they will in 2011?

When you can resolve the logic inconsistencies, let me know.

[JamesA1102]

61. So anyone that disagrees with you has bought into GOP talking points

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your hypocrisy and ignorance. There are no logical inconsistencies you are just setting up a false straw man argument exhibited by that you keep changing the premise. This was never about Democrats in congress, it was about low and middle class people who don't want their taxes going up in January, not because they are buying into GOP talking points but because they have bills to pay and can't afford a tax increase.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. When they can't answer a simple question... yes.

"Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "

What is the "premise" that you claim has changed? That the democrats in congress didn't argue that this was a deficit busting tax cut that wouldn't stimulate spending during a drastic rise in unemployment in 2003???

Since you want to have a different discussion... let's have that. Can the middle class afford this tax increase? The answer is actually YES.

" The Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending the tax cuts for just the middle class would only reduce the unemployment rate between 0.1% and 0.3% next year, and the effect if tax cuts are extended for wealthy Americans would do little more."

"But how much would you notice the difference from paycheck to paycheck? Distributed over 12 months, the tax cuts would yield only $98.33 in monthly savings for the average household."

"y comparison, households earning $200,000-$500,000 would save nearly $7,500 in 2011, and those earning $1 million or more would save exponentially more, about $129,000. If that seems a bit uneven, that’s because it is. According to the Tax Policy Center, households in the $50,000-$75,000 income bracket will see after-tax savings increase by an average of 2.3% of their income, while households earning $1 million or more will see nearly triple the savings, or about 6.2%."

That's the AVERAGE savings.. the savings go down drastically as you drop from the average household income of 52,000 per year.


Now, if you give Americans a real choice and explain to them what else could be done with that money and how it could be used to actually BOOST the economy in a significant way... the results of the polls would change dramatically (as they were in 2001 and 2003 when we first had the discussions). However, so many people have bought into the GOP talking points and accepted the false premise that tax cuts = spending, that they are simply getting the answer factually wrong. not opinion... fact.


Now, let's get back to the topic.

Why can't you answer the question?

[JamesA1102]

64. Why should anyone have to answer your BS questions?

You're not the king of DU. All the cutting and pasting in the world is not going to change that.

You can't deny that every poll shows that the low and middle class don't want their taxes going up. You can't deny that every poll shows that Democrats favor extending the middle and low class tax cuts.

As much as you try to change the subject, you are wrong. You should be an adult and just move on.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. You are the only one changing the subject.

I don't deny the polls or what they say.

The problem is the people answering the polls are dealing with a logic inconsistency, that for some reason you refuse to acknowledge, despite having it explained to you over and over and over again. When asked the same question 10 years ago, these same people answered exactly the opposite. The fact is the change in circumstances have actually made the basic idea WORSE than it was 10 years ago.

is that why you refuse to answer this simple question?

Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "

If you can't answer that simple question... answer this one...

How is this question BS? What is BS about it?

[JamesA1102]

67. Well sorry that ordinary low and middle class people

are not as logical as you would like them to me. They are too worried trying to raise their kids and paying their bills to be worried about what you think is logical. You're really being very elitist and out of touch.

Do you have any links to the polls from 10 years ago that prove what you're saying?

[Milo_Bloom]

68. Gotta love the attempt to deflect....

I am not going to answer your question, because you hate the poor and are out of touch..

LOL.

You're a funny one.



If I give you the polls, will you answer the question?



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/13/opinion/polls/main553730.shtml

"TAX CUTS VS. DEFICITS, PROGRAMS
Americans are not enthusiastic about tax cuts as a means of triggering economic growth if it means the federal budget is in deficit; polls show that Americans have always been wary of government deficits, and that is true now as well. Almost six in ten think that reducing the government budget deficit - not a tax cut -- is the better way to spur economic growth.
"

"Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think the tax cuts will both help the economy and create more jobs.

Finally, few Americans expect these proposed tax cuts to make much difference in their own finances. 58 percent think the cuts will not make a significant difference in the amount of money they have after taxes, while 33 percent think they will affect their finances."

You can dig up the underlying data for yourself since the poll was of BOTH Democrats and Republicans.. you will be amazed to find that it was DEMOCRATS who were AGAINST the TAX CUTS and republicans who were for them.

Amazing.


Now... let's try this again.


"Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "

If you can't answer that simple question... answer this one...

How is this question BS? What is BS about it?"

[JamesA1102]

69. You're the one deflecting.

And your poll is not specific to the middle class tax cuts. Like it or not economic conditions today are very different than they were in 2003. Middle class people can't afford to have their taxes increased in January. Sorry that they don't agree with you or that you think they are illogical. I prefer to not demonize them.

[Milo_Bloom]

70. You gotta be kidding me.

Really? You get the poll you asked for and now you claim they didn't ask the specific question you wanted asked?

The fact vast majority of Democrats thought it was a bad idea wasn't enough. Now I am "demonizing" democrats because I am pointing out that they have mistakenly fallen for the GOP talking points, which just a few short years ago they rejected soundly.

Wow. That is some POWERFUL denial.


I am also a little curious how today's economic climate is "very different' than 2003?

The nation had just undergone a large tragedy, which caused unemployment to spike dramatically (rose nearly 60% in a year).. we were bleeding money again as we prepared to fight 2 wars with huge deficits. Yet, when presented with tax cuts as a solution... DEMOCRATS in both polls and congress said NO.


Unemployment has only risen 24% since Obama took office and we are supposedly drawing down the wars.

The reality is that circumstances are not that dramatically different.

So... let's get back to the question you refuse to answer and keep wanting to run away from.


"Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "

If you can't answer that simple question... answer this one...

How is this question BS? What is BS about it?"

[JamesA1102]

71. No you're kidding yourself

The original issue was whether low and middle class people wanted their taxes increased in January. All current polls show that they don't.

You claim that they didn't want their taxes cut in 2003 and the only poll you can come up with doesn't single out low and middle class tax cuts.

And saying that there is no difference between economic conditions shows either that you're not understanding your cut & pastes or that you're so blinded by your ideology that you're denying reality. Unemployment was 6% in 2003, it is now at 9.8%. That is a 68% increase. That is not "no difference".

[Milo_Bloom]

72. So you are unable to answer the question?

First, yes, it is no difference when you consider where they came from and went to... (ie, degree was far worse then!)

Second, the poll was what you asked for. Sorry you don't like that it exists.

Third,


"Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "

If you can't answer that simple question... answer this one...

How is this question BS? What is BS about it?"



Let me know when you can answer.

[JamesA1102]

73. It's a BS question and you know it.

And the poll was not what I asked for. It wasn't about the middle clase tax cuts specifically.

You're not dealing in reality if you think there is no difference between 2003 and now. Which is why it is a BS and flawed question.

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Once again....

Explain how a deficit busting tax cuts that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "

If you can't answer that simple question... answer this one...

How is this question BS? What is BS about it?


You claim it is a "BS question" How?

How long are you going to dodge this?

[JamesA1102]

75. Once again no one has to answer your BS questions

You're not the king of DU. It is a BS question because the premise is false.

[Milo_Bloom]

76. Didn't claim to be the king...

Just someone who has you backed into a corner so far, you don't know how to get out of it.


So... again...


"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "

If you can't answer that simple question... answer this one...

How is this question BS? What is BS about it?"

What is "false" about the premise.

[JamesA1102]

77. Not backed in to any corner, just not going to be bullied

by someone who doesn't even understand what they are cutting and pasting.

You question is BS because the premise assumes that economic conditions now are the same as they were in 2003 as they are today. How many times does that have to be spelled out for you?

Plus it has nothing to do with the original issue about low and middle class people (who you seem to have a lot of disdain for) not wanting their taxes to go up in the new year which every single poll done on the subject reflects.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. Being asked to answer a question is bullying now?

The question specifically DOESN'T assume the economic conditions are the same. In fact, I point out that the deficit is FAR worse now then it was then.


So... again...


"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "


Why are you so scared of the question?

[JamesA1102]

80. Yup that is exactly what you're trying to do

It is a BS question based on a total false premise. That is your answer. You just choose not to accept it.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Why can't you answer it?

There is nothing BS about the question, as has already been proven to you.. even by giving you the poll you asked for.

Now you are still trying to twist and spin your way out of it.

Like Bernie Sanders... I got all day and am going to keep this in your face to remind you of where you went wrong.


"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING. "


You can answer it, or have it repeated to you again until you do.

[JamesA1102]

83. Stop trying to bully me.

It is a BS question based on several false premises and is not even part of the original issue. And the only thing you have in common with Bernie Sanders are his initials.

[Milo_Bloom]

84. Being asked a question isn't bullying.

You are under no threat of harm.. only your own personal embarrassment from failing to answer a simple question.

"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

[JamesA1102]

86. Being berated with a BS question is.

[Milo_Bloom]

87. Then answer it, without the drama OR

... simply use the ignore function or stop responding. You are in control of the situation... if you don't want to answer it... just don't...

if you keep trying to make excuses as to WHY you won't and twist yourself into a pretzel explaining why you don't want to... then I am going to keep asking it.


"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

[JamesA1102]

88. This is called bullying and harassment.

You got nothing else. You've been proven wrong on the original issue and now you're asking a BS question based on several false premises. Grow up and get a life.

[Milo_Bloom]

89. You have yet to prove the premise false... in fact, you proved it true.

You were even given a poll, FURTHER proving it true.

I am very sorry you are unable to control yourself and thus consider it "bullying and harassment"... but I will keep asking the question until you provide an answer or choose not to answer it.

"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

Or you can just admit your were incorrect. Up to you.

[JamesA1102]

90. It is a false premise that I proved several times.

And not only is it a false premise, but since you say you didn't oppose the stimulus that added as much to the deficit, you've proven yourself a hypocrite.

I have refused to answer it because it is a BS question but you continue to harass me.

[Milo_Bloom]

91. Where is this harassment taking place?

Am I climbing in your window? Snatching your people up?

You keep coming to a message board where you have full control and twisting and spinning your way out of answering a simple question. Why?

I have proven the premise true. I have proven my stance is not hypocritical, but you STILL refuse to answer.

Why?

"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

Or you can just admit your were incorrect. Up to you.

[JamesA1102]

92. You don't think cyberharrassment is real?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment_by_computer

[Milo_Bloom]

93. No one is chasing you down.. or threatening you in any manner... thus, no harassment, except...

by your own mind.

YOU keep choosing to come back to the thread and not avail yourself of the handy dandy ignore feature, which would make all these evil questions go away.

Or simply not answer the question.

Instead you keep repeating the same dis proven points over and over again, which forces me to ask the question again.. since you keep twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid it.


"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

Here are your choices: You can

A) Answer the question
B) Ignore the author
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it.
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reason being proven wrong.

The only other explanation is that the existence of the question is SO THREATENING that you can't leave it un responded to, because you know it disproves your stance on this issue.. but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Still, your choices are above.

I am betting you will choose D.. but who knows.. I can do this all day until I leave for the concert tonight. Then I can do it all day tomorrow. It's up to you.

[JamesA1102]

94. What do you call what you are doing?

[Milo_Bloom]

95. Responding to someone who keeps responding to me.

I was right... You Chose D!! I knew it.

Someone who keeps trying to deflect attention away from the question they refuse to answer.

"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

Someone who spends more time trying to explain WHY they won't answer questions than just answering them.

Someone who has had all their theories dis proven and was even given links to polls proving them wrong.

So once again... Here are your choices: You can

A) Answer the question
B) Ignore the author
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it.
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong.


Can I go 2 for 2? I'll bet you choose D again!

[JamesA1102]

96. Please you admited it

Did you not post earlier

Like Bernie Sanders... I got all day and am going to keep this in your face to remind you

Plus I've repeately shown that you're BS question is based on several false premises and refused to answer it; but you've refused to take no for an answer. You haven't posted any links to any polls that or prove anything that you've said which shows that you're totally delusional and not interested in truth just in winning an argument that you've now kept going for 2 days. That is harassment.

[Milo_Bloom]

97. Choice D! I win again.

Yes, as I have said many times... I have all day to keep this up.

I really hope you take this case to court so I can finally get an answer to the question. A judge wouldn't let you wiggle out. As the subject matter of the case you would be FORCED, under oath to answer the question and that would be worth the time.

Now, onto reality...

You have yet to point out a SINGLE false premise.
The poll I linked to proved your premise wrong.

and you STILL refuse to answer the question.

"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

I won the "argument" a long time ago. At this point, I just wonder how long it will take and how many different excuses you will come up with to avoid answering the question.

So which choice are you going to make now??

Anyone got $20 on D???

[JamesA1102]

98. Yes this is all about you winning isn't it.

You don't care about the unemployed or low and middle class working families, you just care about winning an argument. Congratulations on your victory. Too bad it will do noting to feed the children of the unemployed.

[Milo_Bloom]

99. It's about what is best for the country.

And the long term health of the unemployed and their children.

This is why the democrats were against these tax cuts in 2001/2003, because they DON'T HELP and make getting help more difficult because money is wasted and tied up on useless tax cuts that no body wanted.

And yeah, you chose choice D again.. so I am forced to ask.. yet again....

"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


I am up $20. Double or nothing on D?

[JamesA1102]

100. Yes keep telling yourself that.

In the meantime the children of the unemployed will be forced to go hungry to stand up for your principles. Hope you are proud of yourself.

[Milo_Bloom]

101. WooT! $40.00 and counting...

Since this plan does nothing for the 99 weekers... according to you children of the unemployed will be forced go hungry anyway.

But, once again.. reality is a different picture. No one is going to go hungry. There are plenty of programs for families in need to take advantage of beyond unemployment insurance.

None of which answers the question you are STILL avoiding... yet STILL coming back to the thread.

Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

Double or nothing again?

I'm putting it on D!

[JamesA1102]

102. Good get it up there.

And donate the money to the poor, if you really care about. I don't think you do.

[Milo_Bloom]

103. If you answer the question honestly, I will donate $100 to the charity of YOUR CHOICE

and post the receipt for everyone to see. * see rules below.

Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.



*Rules:

First you have to admit there is nothing "BS" about the question.
Second: You must admit that the poll posted showed that democrats were AGAINST this tax cut package in 2001/2003


Simple enough.


I'm better you let that $100 go to waste and choose item D again. In fact, I will bet a $100 donation to whoever challenges Obama in the next election on it.


So here is how it plays.. you can either get $100 to the charity of your choice... OR... you can be responsible for a $100 donation to go against Obama in the primary or general election?

What will it be?

[JamesA1102]

109. But it is not an honest question.

And I wouldn't trust you to do the right thing anyway.

[Milo_Bloom]

110. The question is real AND honest

AND I offered to post a picture of the receipt.

By continuing your denial tactic, you have now guaranteed $100 donation in your honor be made to a candidate who runs in the primaries against Obama OR a progressive candidate who challenges him in the General Election. (Might be to Nader or a Green candidate).

Since you failed.. the original offer is withdrawn, but being a the good sport that I am, you can STILL get a $25 donation to the charity of your choice by honestly answering the question * see rules below.

Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.

*Rules:

First you have to admit there is nothing "BS" about the question.
Second: You must admit that the poll posted showed that democrats were AGAINST this tax cut package in 2001/2003


I am even willing to go double or nothing on the $100 you have already donated to Obama's opponent. So, now, you could either get $25 for your charity OR be responsible for the giving of $200 to a progressive opponent of Obama of my choosing... or I will even let the whole thing drop if you can find the strength to control yourself and choose options B or C.
Just to remind you... here are your 4 options.. and the consequences of those actions.

A) Honestly Answer the question and follow the rules above (Get $25 donated to the charity of your choice)
B) Ignore the author (no money donated to any cause)
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it. (no money donated to any cause)
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong. ($200 to a progressive candidate challenging Obama)



You and I both know it will be choice D... how long do we keep others in suspense?

[JamesA1102]

111. No it is not and

others are starting to call you on your BS.

[Milo_Bloom]

112. Choice D! I win again.

Double or nothing?

Same rules apply.

You know the question:

Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.



What's it gonna be?

Bet you can't control yourself.

[JamesA1102]

113. Yes it is all about you winning

and not about the poor or unemployed.

[Milo_Bloom]

114. Choice D! I win again.

You are up to an $400 donation.. in your honor to a progressive challenger of Obama.

I donated $4500 to Obama between the primaries and general election. He's not getting a DIME this year... you want to to go to a challenger in your honor... I got all day.

I'd say double or nothing, but your behavior doesn't warrant a $100 donation to a charity of your choice anymore... so now, it is all about how much will you give to someone who will challenge OBama from the left?

Yep, you lost a charity of your choice $100.. by not answering a simple question.

Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


So how will you proceed now.

A) Honestly Answer the question and follow the rules above (No money donated to any cause)
B) Ignore the author (no money donated to any cause)
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it. (no money donated to any cause)
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong. ($800 to a progressive candidate challenging Obama)


You are incapable of choosing anything but D, aren't you?

[JamesA1102]

115. So you don't care about the poor.

I knew it!

[Milo_Bloom]

117. Of course I do.

That is why I am fighting so hard against this rancid tax deal, which ignores the 99 weekers and only extends benefits for 13 months with no way to pay for future help.


Let's review.

You are up to an $800 donation.. in your honor to a progressive challenger of Obama. I may just send it straight to Bernie Sanders to thank him for standing up to the spin you are trying to convince everyone of... maybe.. it's my choice.

Here is the question, you are STILL unable to answer.. you know the one that completely disproves your argument.


Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


So how will you proceed now.

We won't go double or nothing.. b/c it would get you to my maximum donation too fast.. so we will move it up incrementally to extend the suspense (and my fun).


Here are your choices.

A) Honestly Answer the question and follow the rules above (No money donated to any cause)
B) Ignore the author (no money donated to any cause)
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it. (no money donated to any cause)
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong. ($1000 to a progressive candidate challenging Obama)


It's gonna be D!

(Side action anyone???)

[Milo_Bloom]

116. Of course I do.

That is why I am fighting so hard against this rancid tax deal, which ignores the 99 weekers and only extends benefits for 13 months with no way to pay for future help.


Let's review.

You are up to an $800 donation.. in your honor to a progressive challenger of Obama. I may just send it straight to Bernie Sanders to thank him for standing up to the spin you are trying to convince everyone of... maybe.. it's my choice.

Here is the question, you are STILL unable to answer.. you know the one that completely disproves your argument.


Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


So how will you proceed now.

We won't go double or nothing.. b/c it would get you to my maximum donation too fast.. so we will move it up incrementally to extend the suspense (and my fun).


Here are your choices.

A) Honestly Answer the question and follow the rules above (No money donated to any cause)
B) Ignore the author (no money donated to any cause)
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it. (no money donated to any cause)
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong. ($1000 to a progressive candidate challenging Obama)


It's gonna be D!

(Side action anyone???)

[JamesA1102]

118. Please it all about winning to you.

Or you would be sending that money to help people and not to a politician.

[Milo_Bloom]

119. Winning what is best for America.

That is why I am fighting so hard against this rancid tax deal, which ignores the 99 weekers and only extends benefits for 13 months with no way to pay for future help.

Beating you in this thread happened when you ran away from the question so many times... at this point it is just about how much money you want to be used in the primary against Obama.


Let's review.

You are up to an $1000 donation.. in your honor to a progressive challenger of Obama.

So you bring up an interesting question.. why give the money to a politician instead of directly to people who need help? Well, it actually gets to what is wrong with your view on this issue. If you just send someone $1000 it may provide some TEMPORARY relief, but doesn't solve the problem. When the money runs out, they are in the same situation as when they started. What we NEED is a politician who understands that and can help do what other administrations have done before... DIRECTLY STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.. something Obama isn't even discussing these days.


So....

Here is the question, you are STILL unable to answer.. you know the one that completely disproves your argument.


Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


Here are your choices.

A) Honestly Answer the question and follow the rules above (No money donated to any cause)
B) Ignore the author (no money donated to any cause)
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it. (no money donated to any cause)
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong. ($1250 to a progressive candidate challenging Obama)


It's gonna be D!

(Side action anyone???)

[JamesA1102]

120. You just want to win for yourself

You can't bully me no matter how hard you try. Keep cutting and pasting your BS question. Doesn't make it any less BS.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-07-17-recession_x.htm

[Milo_Bloom]

121. Choice D! I win again.

And who ever challenges Obama has won a $1250 donation.. in your honor.

Thanks for providing the link that PROVED me right. We WERE in a recession in 2001 when the democrats fought against these tax cuts. WAY TO GO!

Given that you have now proved all facets of my question as 100% true... I wonder why you are afraid to answer it?


Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


Here are your choices.

A) Honestly Answer the question and follow the rules above (No money donated to any cause)
B) Ignore the author (no money donated to any cause)
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it. (no money donated to any cause)
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong. ($1375 to a progressive candidate challenging Obama)

Bet your lack of self control leads to choice D

[JamesA1102]

122. See you admit it is all about you winning.

Hope you feel like a big man.

[Milo_Bloom]

123. WooT! Choice D Again!

And who ever challenges Obama has won a $1375 donation.. in your honor.

Since you proved all facets of my question as 100% true... I wonder why you are afraid to answer it?


Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


Here are your choices.

A) Honestly Answer the question and follow the rules above (No money donated to any cause)
B) Ignore the author (no money donated to any cause)
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it. (no money donated to any cause)
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong. ($1445 to a progressive candidate challenging Obama)

Can he control himself? Is he capable of choosing anything other than D?

Why does a simple question scare him so much?

[JamesA1102]

124. I love the movie "My Cousin Vinny"

This is one of my favorite scenes.

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!
Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!

[Milo_Bloom]

125. I love choice D!

And who ever challenges Obama has won a $1445 donation.. in your honor.

Since you proved all facets of my question as 100% true... I wonder why you are afraid to answer it?


Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more? The REASON DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED THE TAX CUT IN 2001/2003 IS BECAUSE THEY WERE UN AFFORDABLE AND HISTORICALLY CUTTING TAXES DOES NEXT TO NOTHING TO STIMULATE SPENDING.


Here are your choices.

A) Honestly Answer the question and follow the rules above (No money donated to any cause)
B) Ignore the author (no money donated to any cause)
C) Stop coming back to the thread and not answer it. (no money donated to any cause)
D) Keep harassing yourself by trying to come up with another reason you refuse to answer it, despite all your other reasons being proven wrong. ($1600 to a progressive candidate challenging Obama)

Can he control himself? Is he capable of choosing anything other than D?

Why does a simple question scare him so much?

[JamesA1102]

126. You know campaigns don't accept Monoploy money.

I'm sure your money is about a real as your BS question which is just several false premises all stack on top of one another.

False premise #1: There was no recession in 2003, it had been over for over a year.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-07-17-recession_x.htm

False premise #2: Economic conditions are not the same as they were in 2003, as shown above there was no recession, plus unemployment was only at 6% while it is now 68% higher.

False premise #3: That the 2003 tax cuts didn't increase consumer spending. First you offer no proof that anyone said this, other than you, and even if someone did they'd be wrong. Consumer spending did rise in 2003 and as noted on the previous chart unemployment did go down.

False premise #4: Grouping the tax cuts for the middle class with those for the rich. The original issue was regarding the low and middle income tax cuts, not including those for the rich.

False premise #5: Assuming the same impact on the deficit. The 2003 tax cuts were for 7 years. This extention is for 2 years only. Thus, they cannot have equal impact on the deficit.

False premiss #6: Conflating a tax cut with a tax increase. These two different things and have different impacts. No one is now proposing to cut taxes, just not increase them on the poor and middle class. And since the economy is fragile right now, low and middle class people getting less back in their weekly paychecks will give them less to spend and have a negative impact.

[Milo_Bloom]

127. DING DING DING.. You DID IT. You ANSWERED THE QUESTION!!!

First, let me correct some of your mistakes.

"False premise #1: There was no recession in 2003, it had been over for over a year.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-07-17-recess... "

The tax cuts are from 2001. They had a 10 year sunset provision, which is why we are discussing them today. We WERE in a recession in 2001.




"False premise #2: Economic conditions are not the same as they were in 2003, as shown above there was no recession, plus unemployment was only at 6%"

That is part of the question. The deficit is FAR greater and the debt is FAR worse.


Now, we can dismiss 4, 5 and 6 because you answered the question with #3.. so let's get down to it.


"False premise #3: That the 2003 tax cuts didn't increase consumer spending. First you offer no proof that anyone said this, other than you, and even if someone did they'd be wrong. Consumer spending did rise in 2003 "

Why didn't you just say this in the first place. You believe in supply side economics. You believe in the idea that tax cuts have a significant impact on consumer spending, which spurs job growth.


It was so easy.

Question: Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2001/2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011 and is suddenly worth busting the deficit over when the debt is 3 times more?

Answer: Because I believe in supply side economic theory.


Was that so hard?

When Obama is challenged I will be sure to come back and post the receipt from the donation made in your honor.. then you can argue just how BS my money is.

[JamesA1102]

128. Once again you dishonestly put words in my mouth

First, how many times did you cut & paste:

"Explain how a deficit busting tax cut that is not expected to increase consumer spending during a recession in 2003 is suddenly expected to increase consumer spending during bad times in 2011"

But now you want to change that to 2001. Dishonest

Second, you skip FP 4, 5 & 6 because you can't refute any of them and FP 2 you give a total nonsensical answer.

Finally you accuse me of supporting supply side economics. Which is laughable because you don't even know what that is. The official definition is:

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. Consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices.

So exactly how is advocating not increasing taxes on low and middle income working class families, supply side economics? It's not. If anything, it is demand side economics.

Or in other words, you don't know a damn thing you're shooting your mouth off about.

BTW I forgot to add:
False premise #7: The question has noting to do with the original issue which was low and middle income people don't want their taxes increased in January. And every current poll supports that.

[Milo_Bloom]

129. No words in your mouth. Just the answer I was looking for.

Sorry you didn't realize the implications of your statement.


You're going to have to find a way to live with that.

[JamesA1102]

130. No you're the one who has to live with your own lies and delusions nt

[Milo_Bloom]

131. I know you are, but what am I?

Really, James?

After all the time we've spent together... that was the best you could do?

I'm just glad I got you to answer the question. Be sure to check back for the receipt of the donation in your honor.

I'll have you on ignore until then. (I am not a big fan of supply siders).

Late

[JamesA1102]

132. But is the truth nt

[shellgame26]

105. There is no 5th tier for unemployment

and you know it! That is the law and president cannot change that. You are being dishonest.

[Milo_Bloom]

106. I didn't say there was.

I said there are OTHER programs.

[shellgame26]

104. Is that what this is about?

You "winning"?..Pathetic. The person who yells the loudest is the "winner" right? You've already proven yourself to be a hypocrite. You're out of your league here.

[Milo_Bloom]

107. What is hypocritical?

[jab105]

65. Good explanation of it! NT>

[polmaven]

81. I am one of hie biggest supporters,

and I was very proud to watch him yesterday. I think the vast majority of us (his base) were.

[niceypoo]

12. The left isn't 'extreme'

Another GOP talking point

[JamesA1102]

14. Not everyone on the left

but there are extremists on the left who tend to be the most vocal.

[niceypoo]

16. Only extremists voice their displeasure on the left?

LOL.

[JamesA1102]

18. Never said that.

Stop dishonestly putting words in my mouth.

[niceypoo]

20. You implied it with this:

"tend to be the most vocal"

[JamesA1102]

22. I implied nothing

You're being paranoid or dishonest.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. What are they extreme about? Specific issues please. eom

[JamesA1102]

26. What are you stalking me across threads now?

There are rules against that here.

[Hello_Kitty]

27. So are accusations like that. I clicked on ProSense's thread and you were here.

Care to answer my question? What are the "extreme left" positions?

[JamesA1102]

28. Ask someone on the extreme left.

Are you denying that there are extremists in any political movement?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[JamesA1102]

30. Don't play games

There are extremists on the right and the left. To deny that is to deny reality. Now stop harassing me accross threads or I'm going to the moderators to file a complaint.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. You're accusing a lot of DUers of being "extreme leftists" and I'm asking you to clarify that.

I know some people I'd consider extreme leftists IRL. They don't identify with the Democratic Party, whereas most of the people who post on DU do. You're throwing the label around so explain it.

[JamesA1102]

33. I don't answer to you

and I've asked you nicely, stop harassing and stalking me.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Don't worry, James. You're boring and you obviously don't have an answer. eom

[JamesA1102]

39. Buh-bye

[shellgame26]

108. There are authoritarian thinkers

on both the right and the left. You are definitely one of them!

[Union Scribe]

41. You don't seem to answer anyone.

[JamesA1102]

42. I don't answer strawman questions. nt

[cornermouse]

78. Funny things happen when they start moving goalposts.

About 30 years ago I would have been considered a moderate republican. The republican party started moving the goalposts to the right and informing people who thought they were republican that they needed to move to the right too. About 26 or 27 years ago, I decided to hang on to my principles instead and started voting democratic. Today, I find myself defined by others as "too liberal". And the funny/not-so-funny thing about it is that my positions on the issues today are pretty much the same as they were 30 years ago.

Get back to me 30 years from now if there's still a planet left and tell me how far they moved the goalposts on you.

[bushisanidiot]

63. BINGO! The moderates are shoved aside by the left of the left.

I am a BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL, but I know that the President of any party should be governing from as close to the middle as possible. she or he is leading our entire nation, not just those of her or his particular political party. the majority of americans are somewhere in the middle on the political spectrum. we, here, and the idiots in freephard land, seem to forget that.

[WI_DEM]

4. The far left isn't necessarily his base--there are many progressives on the left

who are not democrats and don't pretend to be and many are on DU.

[niceypoo]

15. The left is the core of the Democratic base

It always has been. If Obama abandons the left, in favor of the right, then he should just resign for the good of the country.

[JamesA1102]

17. No it is not and has never been

The Southern Dems and union members are moderate and some lean to the right. That has been true for generations.

[StarsInHerHair]

40. or at least be honest and switch parties

nt

[ProSense]

5. Different prism

The Internet wasn't a factor during those years. Without the Internet, most people would have no idea about comments from the WH.

[saracat]

7. They would have if he insulted them at a widely publicized Press Conference.

[ProSense]

8. No,

and they certainly wouldn't have reported innocuous comments made at fundraising speeches. They have a reason to do so now. They know the dynamics and the power of blogs.

[saracat]

10. Repetition doesn't make you correct. They WOULD have reported a televised

Press Conference such as this last one. Both Kennedy's and Clinton's Pressers were very widely reported and neither ever used them to criticize their base or those of their base who criticized them. They did not whine in public. Nor did any other contemporary Democratic Presidents publicly whine about their bases.

[ProSense]

11. I still don't agree

that's why the OP anecdote comes via a book, not a press report.

[WI_DEM]

6. The problem is that the left and Dem presidents have had problems for years

In 1948 the left wanted Dwight Eisenhower to be the nominee for president instead of Harry Truman,not knowing that Eisenhower was a closet Republican. In the end former VP Henry Wallace ran as a progressive and received many votes from the left.

In 1968, the left challenged President Johnson primarily due to the Vietnam war. Even after he withdrew and Humphrey was the nominee the left didn't totally embrace him. Even Eugene McCarthy didn't endorse Humphrey until about a week before the election.

In 1980, the left was fed up with President Carter's economic policies and Ted Kennedy challenged him.

The first time the Democrats won since 1976 was in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran as a moderate and ended up passing welfare reform, NAFTA, DADT, Telecommunication and other distinctly non-progressive legislation. He won again in '96.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. About Clinton: it's amazing again, how so many liberals have given him a pass

while apply double-standards when it comes to Obama who's decidedly more progressive, even when he's not.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Charming Clinton anecdote. And we know how well NAFTA worked out. eom

[Phx_Dem]

31. K&R. What a great read. n/t

[craigmatic]

35. Clinton was worse than Obama is. At least Obama did HCR before abandoning the left.

[Milo_Bloom]

38. To many of us HCR was the beginning of the abandonment.

[craigmatic]

45. Maybe but I don't see how people have more love for Clinton who ignored the party worse

when he had power by triangulation when Obama is actually trying to convince the party to follow him. It makes little sense. Clinton did next to nothing memorable yet is loved for it while Obama has done historic things and is nearly hated even within his own party.

[Milo_Bloom]

36. So.. is the problem with the Left or the President.

I wonder how things would be if Clinton had actually paid attention and not destroyed American jobs with NAFTA or deregulated the financial markets or allowed media to consolidate?

I wonder how long it will be before we are looking back on Obama's mistakes and wondering what it would have been like if he had paid attention as well?

[ibegurpard]

43. Clinton is why I supported Obama and not Hillary

I feel foolish

[Mass]

48. The end is very telling. Klein is far from being a lefty and he understands where Obama clashes with

his base. Why cant the White House get it as well.

And it wouldn't hurt for the president, who prides himself on his ability to empathize with others, to respond to that frustration with a bit more grace. As one political consultant wrote to me, "I wish were as hard on the Republicans who are hurting the country as he is on the Democrats who don't want to compromise their principles."

[treestar]

85. this is it about being a journo

You don't have to get results. You do not have the responsibility.