This passive/agressive approach to bargaining is utterly un-Presidential. http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/why-obama-may-stall-the-debt-talks-20110628
LOL. A great recap from Legal Insurrection http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/06/obama-press-conference-false-choices-and-demagoguery/ The comments are pretty good, as well.
The Democrats' new strategy? Say the debt limit is unconstitutional. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html We're fucking doomed.
It's a dry topic, but an important one. It's up to you do decide whether or not you wish to participate.
Liberals have always played the class warfare card. It's what one does when they can't be honest. But I wonder how much longer such sound bites will stir up the masses. In a time when both sides have GOT to learn civics and compromise, they still seem to stick to their old ways.
yeah, because the republicans and the right wing are just begging to compromise and not sticking to their old ways.
What are the "old ways" of Republicans? They've been almost as profligate as the Democrats. Real austerity is a new position for the GOP, forced on them by the Tea Party.
What percentage of the nation's wealth do you think is appropriate for the top 1% to own? As much as they can arrange? Does it matter to you if there is no middle class because all the wealth is concentrated at the top? barfo
A quote right from the lefty playbook. Don't forget to color the pictures on the page. The top workers and businessmen can own whatever they want to. I could care less. That's not why we're losing the middle class. It's because we're paying for too much socialism. I take home less money than I did 1, 2, 3 or even 4 years ago while social spending goes up. That's why the middle class is shrinking. And I am adamant that if both sides don't work together this country is going to implode to some degree.
It wasn't a quote, it was a question. And I notice that you didn't answer it. So you think if the top 1% owned 100% of the wealth, that wouldn't affect the middle class? It's funny that you think that you are losing money because of "socialism". The bottom 40% owns 0.2% of the wealth. Yeah, they are getting rich off socialism. barfo
Everything to do with socialism, nothing to do with rich billionaire firms fucking up the economy with fraud...
I'll answer: It make no difference to me. All that matters is how well-off society is as a whole. If the poorest people continue to get richer (i.e., access to refrigerators, cell phones, clean water, etc.) then that's good. If there are some super-rich people living under the surface of the moon it doesn't matter to me if the rank-and-file citizenry is better off than they have been in the past. Ed O.
We're being offered a false deadline: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...rtisan-study-confirms-default-geithners-hands
McArdle with sage advice for Obama: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/how-to-deal-with-the-debt-ceiling/241237/
The jet thing is about the dumbest argument EVER. Does it really move from the real of fairness to outside of the ream of fairness by allowing corporations to write off jets over seven years, rather than five? Dumb, dumb, dumb. Ed O.
To me, the loss of the middle in politics over the past decade has done the country tremendous harm. The difference between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton wasn't massive. The gulf emerged during the 2000 Presidential election and we've just gotten wider from there. Now it's to the point where I think there's not philosophical overlap in the national political Venn diagram. I'm not saying the result will be the same, but we're behaving much like the Republicanas and Nacionalistas in Spain during the early 1930s, who grew further and further apart, making the middle the deadliest place to be.
