Monday, 12/6/10, Public Square


Filed under The Public Square

47 responses to “Monday, 12/6/10, Public Square

  1. fragotwofortwo

    woulda-coulda-shoulda add this to the list

    We could have said, ‘The economy is going to collapse. The world is going to go into a depression. You’re going to get the blame and your party is going to get the blame because you’re in power and we are going to ride this into the majority for the next 40 years.’ That is what the Democrats could have done,” Baird said.

    “Had we wanted to, we could have let the president, President Bush … stew in his own juices.”

    • Congress was pretty much the same people and they rightly share the responsibility even tho each and every one of them says they are innocent just like all other criminals.

      There was a letter to the editor in this morning’s paper supporting term limits. I would link to the letter but I can’t find where any letter later than those printed in yesterday’s paper is available. It’s a good letter so if you have access to the printed paper please read it.

      Here’s a bit of the letter that I think has merit:

      It would make enormous good sense to pass term limits for senators and representatives — allowing them no chance to build a dynasty or aggrandize themselves — and bar them from becoming lobbyists. They might even begin to work on the problems of this nation rather than immediately beginning to raise money for their next election. Their connection to outside funding would be transitory at best.

      They might even be able to think for themselves and their constituents rather than fall into the confining ruts of party loyalty. They would go back to their communities and work there — not gaining a huge pension and premium health care, and immediately putting themselves in tough with their constituents who have neither of these perks.

      I agree with the letter writer, and would like to know what is ‘the rest of the story,’ or ‘the down side’ of term limits?

  2. fragotwofortwo

    next wal-mart sales associate

  3. itolduso


    One of the problems I see with term limits, even though I like the thought of them, is that I am concerned that the party will become even more powereful. Now, senior members of either party can, and sometimes do, go against their party, and vote either their constituency, or their conscience.

    If there are no term limits, that goes away, in my opinion. Power abhors a vacuum. The power will move away from the senator or representative, and towards the party. Something even worse than what we have now. Just my opinion, although it would be nice to get rid of some of the powerbrokers and kings we now have in office

    • I knew there had to be a down side.

      With both parties being unrecognizable to me I wouldn’t want either to have more power. Neither has an iota of concern for Americans.

    • I could see one more possibility in your “power abhors a vacuum” reminder — the courts. Congress abdicates their responsibilities, the courts make decisions they should have addressed and that allows them to scream about activist judges.

    • indypendent

      While you paint such a rosy saintly picture of senior elected officials actually voting against their party – can you count the times since Obama has been in office that Republicans voted AGAINST their party? There were a couple of them and they were vilified by the GOP Party.

      So – that part of your logic is flawed – IMHO

      If we get term limits – then why not open to the possibility of more than two parties? That would open the flood gates of voters who now feel their votes do not count because they are not a part of the party machine.

  4. tosmarttobegop

    Franken stated facts and reality, nothing he said was made up or a deception.
    If you watch CSPAN much you will see that is how the Democratic argues and debates.

    Now I will accuse them on occasions of being guilty of one sin that the Republican are.
    “Generalizations”, taking one example that is true and painting everyone in the same situation as being that way.

    i.e., in the aftermath of Katrina there were some who were not effected and lived hundreds of mile away from the gulf and who were in no way hurting. But they applied for and received aid and assistance.
    They “gamed” the system for their benefit and profit.

    The reality was they were stealing not from the Government but from those in real need.
    But they were also a excuse used to not help those in real need, the thefts were used to paint everyone who suffered in Katrina as being thieves!

    Likewise when the Democrats paint with a like broad brush it actually distracts from those who really do need the help.

    But more back to my point, with the Democratic tending to use facts and reality to argue and debate.
    How is it they often lose?

    Often in graphic details and with straight to the point examples of facts and reality.
    Their message get lost and overlooked by the general public and not just the Fox viewers.

    While the counter has such legs and runs throughout the public.
    Not being countered with equally true and reality?

    It would seem that the way that arguing and debate is ineffective, more preaching to the choir!
    Certain those who watch it see the reasoning and reality but it is the only audience that is.
    That it counts and is swayed.

    • Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.

      Facts don’t stand a chance of capturing the attention that all things blown out of proportion garner. Plus, as we all know well, Fox News listeners never hear the complete truth.

  5. This article gives good advice and backs it up with factual reasons for following the advice! I have no confidence Obama will do this, but it is what he should do.

    Let’s Not Make a Deal

    Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is.

    Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too — especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong.

    • indypendent

      Obama is a corporatist at heart and will never take a stand.

      If these Republicans would think beyond their noses – they would understand that Obama is the best thing they got going right now. The elephants pretty much have what they want.

      Why, even that health care reform they are pretending to be against is similiar to the health care reform the GOP has been promising for years.

      But the Obamacare is even bettter – the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies got even more than they hoped for !

  6. indypendent

    Just my opinion, although it would be nice to get rid of some of the powerbrokers and kings we now have in office


    Those powerbrokers and kings are not only in office -they are in the lobbyist business. Example -Bob Dole is now a ‘lawyer’ who has been reported to be a lobbyist for Muslim countries. Bob Dole even lobbied for Saudi Arabia company to be in charge of security of America ports.

    In what conceivable world is that even remotely smart?

    Bob Dole is only one example – so let’s not think those senior elected officials are so saintly.

  7. indypendent

    All I can say is – Steven was right. Bless his heart.

  8. itolduso

    “With both parties being unrecognizable to me I wouldn’t want either to have more power. Neither has an iota of concern for Americans.”

    You are correct there.

  9. tosmarttobegop

    OK I will get a beating for this one: In some respects the Liberals are more like Division then not on principle.

    Division would see the destruction of the country and the total failure of the economy then to sacrifice his principles or ideology.

    The Liberal are more bound by their principles then what is good for their party.

    Conservatives are use to being lied to and betrayed by their candidates and elected officials.
    Its all part of the game for them and expected from their elected reps.
    They forgive them almost on a daily basis.

    Remember hearing the Tea Partiers when it is pointed out that their candidate did not stand a chance of being elected? They said it did not matter only their principles mattered!

    Well the same happens with some Liberals, the principles matter more than if the candidate wins or not.
    Obama is facing at this time a almost impossible task in 2012, even with the total support of the Democratic there still is a realistic probabilities of him not being re-elected.

    Only if somehow the economy were to come back would it be a sure thing and that is why the Conservatives are doing everything they can to make sure that will not happen.

    But unlike the Conservatives who would put party above principles and support the embattled GOP President.

    The liberals would put principles above partisan loyalty and look elsewhere and abandon Obama for betraying them. The discontent is spreading far enough into the mid rank and file to effect their vote.

    He has lost the independents and moderates, not likely to get them back unless either of two things happen.
    One is that the economy improves or two if no one else is viable for them.

    Yeah that is why the Left wants Palin to run and win the GOP, sure bet that most could not vote for her.
    But if there is a another Democratic challenger and one that has appeal to moderates and Independents.
    Both Obama and the Republicans are in trouble.

    • itolduso

      “The liberals would put principles above partisan loyalty ”

      I haven;t seen that in the past few years when it comes down to votes in the Pelosi House of Representatives, but it is just my impression.

    • I suppose you’re right.

      Obama lost me on the tax cut compromise. I know it’s not a done deal, but to renew the tax cuts for the top 2% is stupid, irresponsible, and unacceptable to me. He promised and this is my final straw.

      I may not cast a vote for president in 2012. If the GOP nominates one of the bat-shit crazies who are mentioned as possible contenders I may have to hold my nose and vote for Obama but it would be a vote against the GOP idiot. I’m hoping someone who can be trusted comes along, Obama has proven to me he isn’t strong enough to fight for America.

  10. tosmarttobegop

    Itoldyouso I do not confuse those in Congress as Democratic with those out in the real world as Democratic.

    Most Democrats in real life would fit well in with Moderate Republicans.
    The Democrats in Congress have shown themselves to have the same Corporate master as the Republicans.

    Not all of them but they are as outnumbered as are the Moderate Republicans are there.

  11. tosmarttobegop

    It is a sad chuckle but I am every time they mention the class action law suit against Wal-Mart.
    From personal observation the women do have a case, Wal-Mart prefers to hire women simple because women tend to work for less and put up with more crap without question.

    But Wal-Mart took the suit to the SCOTUS because of the sheer numbers of the class action,
    More claimants then there are in the U.S. Military!

    Claiming it is too big to be a class action and is not fair to Wal-Mart.

    Now Wal-Mart does have an Army of their own of lawyers and that enables them to drag suits out till finally the claimant runs out of money to continue.

    So it is in their interest to have these suit done on a individual basis.

    • A Roberts court will rule in favor of Walmart. SCOTUS is complicit in the problems we have today. America being turned over to corporations was cemented with the Bush v Gore decision.

  12. itolduso

    “America being turned over to corporations was cemented with the Bush v Gore decision.”

    Worst decision in modern history: Kelo v City of New London

  13. itolduso

    Obama proposes “tax” cut for workers. This time, social security tax?
    WTH? Social Security is already paying out more than it takes in.

    Pandering? What?

    • Maybe he ‘thinks” giving something more to the middle class will soften the blow of caving in. It doesn’t for me! I refuse to be placated! What’s more, now I don’t think I can trust anything he says. He lost me.

      Is the economy worse than what we’re being told? Are there things being covered up, hidden, are the books being cooked? Is giving more absolutely necessary? Does America have to operate on credit so the entire country doesn’t tank and take the worlds economy with it?

      The stimulus money wasn’t enough and didn’t go in the best directions. It didn’t jump start our economy in the ways needed. btw, where is all that stimulus money that hasn’t been spent or assigned? I think the middle class and poor are hurting desperately, the unemployed must be helped. To have more people out on the street isn’t an answer to anything. I’m a humanitarian and those thoughts are part of my essence. I further agree that those who have nothing or little will immediately spend it (they have to in order to eat and have shelter), and that will help keep the economy moving. By extending unemployment and giving the working guy a break on payroll taxes, we’re at least helping where it’s needed. The wealthy aren’t spending! To borrow money so they keep more of what they have no need of makes no sense at all, and does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy.

  14. tosmarttobegop

    I don’t know which is more ridicules Obama getting up there and acting so offend for doing what I already knew he would do! Crap there was no doubt the Bush break the federal government tax cuts would be extended.

    Or was it more ridicules watching the reaction afterward on Fox and seeing Pirate Captain Chuck “Arrr” Krauthammer. Being so offended that not once did Obama thank the Republicans for throwing him over a table and butt Fooking him! How rude!!!!

  15. I don’t expect this to happen but it would please me if Congress refused to go along with this blackmail and let all the tax cuts expire. Take up unemployment extensions as a separate matter and take names on who opposes that extension and repeat those names often.

  16. What about the Obama tax cuts that were part of the stimulus package? Do they expire?

  17. prairie pond

    Joe Aistrup and I have been crosswise on water issues, but I gotta hand it to him. He’s brilliant, especially his study on “regional economic engines” and how some Kansas small towns are dying, and some are living.

    And I gotta give it up to Joe for this article about Sebelius and the Democrats in Kansas. Joe said, so much better, and calmer, what I’ve been saying for freakin’ years. Go Joe. Read it if you dare.

    Oh yeah. And I’m just warming up for a big goddam righteous IFREAKINGTOLDYOUSO rant about obama.

  18. prairie pond

    After you read that, keep reading here… if you dare.


    I told you when obama had donnie mcclurkin headline and MC and fundraising event that he was a motherhumpin’ liar. And he’s proven me correct. He is a liar of the first order. He no more supports equality than john “palin loving” mccain.

    I told you so when he had rickthefakepreacher give the token prayer at the inauguration. Obama no more supports equality and freedom from the religious reich than than sarah “I heart jesus” palin.

    There are so many of my democratic and liberal friends that I love with all my heart, but IFREAKINGTOLDYOUSO about obama. And now we are all paying the price.

    Think it was a blood bath in this past election? Wait two years. It will look like a picnic. The repukes have won EVERY hand with obama. EVERY. HAND. There is so little he has not rolled over for that it would indeed make jesus weep.

    Still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Check. Guantamo still open? Check. DADT still in place? Check. Defense of Marriage act still in place? Check. Oh yeah, and his DOJ is defending them both. Tax cuts for the wealthy in place? Check. If this tax cut deal passes, LOWER estate taxes than under bushco? Check.

    Oh but wait, there’s MORE…

    Decent, affordable health care? No. Public option? No. Regulations on insurance companies? No. Regulations so the banking crisis doesnt happen again? No. Regulations on credit default swaps? No.

    And with this deal, Social Security is in more jeopardy than ever. The Cat Food Commission was just a start. Sure, they didn’t get their way… this time… but it sets the stage. And by reducing SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES, it will make the program look even worse in an actuarial sense. The stage is being set to cut Social Security benefits and even phase out the program all together. Ditto on Medicare.

    And unemployment benefits get extended for THIRTEEN months while the tax cuts for the rich get extended for TWENTY FOUR months.

    Jesus wept. My freakin’ DOGS could negotiate better than this administration.

    Remember when obama said he admired St. Ronnie Ray Gun?

    Well, welcome to Ronnie’s world. Maya Angelou says “when people tell you who they are, belive them.”

    Obama told us who he was when he said how much he admired Ray Gun. He told us when he had mcclurkin on board and with his love affair with rick warren.

    Should we have believed him?


    How’s that kumbaya shit working for us now?

    America as we knew it, and we were promised, should just bend over and kiss its ass goodbye.

    Thank you obama. And thank you every one who supported him. You own him. Now you can eat him. With salt.

  19. prairie pond

    And please, save the apologist “he took over a mess, it takes time to fix” bullshit.

    He isnt even trying.

    • I agree! He gave up on every agenda item. He said, “I’ll compromise,” before the opposition stated their position. And you deserve the credit for knowing this from the git go. It took the obvious for me to wake up, and by then it was too late.

  20. prairie pond

    Thank you for saying that, fnord. I think we are all headed for the poop pile. It would have taken years to fix the bushco mess, without obama adding to it.


    I’m not sure it can be fixed. We may only WISH it was a lost decade. I think it will be longer. And when Social Security and Medicare no longer exist, it won’t be bush who will be blamed.

    It will be obama.

    If someone will lie about the little things, like mcclurkin and warren and such, why would we think they wouldn’t lie about the big things, like tax cuts and health care and bank regulation?

    It’s only going to get worse for the next two years. obama is out of cards to play and the repukes haven’t laid down one from the hand they were dealt.

  21. tosmarttobegop

    I must be a Gay I do love a certain Lesbian!

    I said it earlier and will repeat it, history will show that it was the Liberals who did not give the first Black President a second term!
    Shoot he keeps it up and the only ones that will vote for Obama is the hard Right!

    • Liberals deserve better and we expect more from elected officials. But to blame Obama’s failings on Liberals isn’t accurate! He could have kept a promise or two, he could have stepped up to the plate or even pretended he was trying. He is responsible for being a wuzz and selling out.

  22. prairie pond


    I hope that healthwise you are feeling better these days.

    I know how difficult the job search effort can be. I hope you are hanging in there, too.

  23. Do you suppose anyone will hold the Republicans feet to the fire on their statements that these tax cuts will create jobs? Any time someone asks why they didn’t create jobs since they were enacted 10 and 8 years ago, they have no answer. In fact, their eyes glaze over and they change the subject. And everyone lets them change the subject! Guess no one expects much from the GOP!

    • No, for the following reason:

      After the economy continues to stagnate, and job creation continues at a snail’s pace, the GOP will solemnly proclaim that there is so much uncertainty caused by all the onerous regulation heaped upon the poor small business person and the nice bankers by the current Administration that until there is repeal of “Obamacare” and legislative overruling of various other regulations, all that money will still be on the sidelinesand all those jobs that could have been created won’t be. I see the foundation for this being laid in various commentary that links thereto are helpfully provided by certain clients and friends.

      Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of the extended tax cuts will be investing their gains as they were going to anyway; buying stock in existing businesses from other holders thereof, foreign opportunities, etc., all the while demanding higher dividends the source of which will be higher net resulting from reducing labor costs and offshore activities.

    • Zippy

      6 is unfortunately correct in the most minute detail, but the creation of narrative is a big piece of it. Thus the ridiculous misreprentation of the Bowles-Simpson proposal a “deficit-reduction plan” by reliable Beltway flacks like David Gergen, and the overall false mispresentation of it as some sort of compromise, with lots of bought, paid for and outright stupid editorial support from many of what is left of newspapers (sigh) in the country.

      Then there is the other persistent narrative, one that even NPR is indulging, i.e., the issue is really one of conservatives vs. progressives, i.e. a difference in philosophy, a convenient fiction which too many people are willing to small whole, particularly if it’s reinforced OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

      Well, unless believes differences in philosophy require the persistent application of deceptive reasoning, manufactured facts (one of the few things the political class wants to manufacture in America), and other starlingly obvious lies, that is simply bullshit.

      But the problem is not “partisanship” or “ideology.” It’s about real-world consequences for real people.

      But politics enters the picture when you convince people what to leave and, unfortunately, people are not just dumbed down so much that, as 6 notes, that they’ll adopt whatever off-the shelf narrative makes them feel better.

      One can speculate at what would happen if all the Bush tax cuts expired or–even worse–if unemployment benefits were not extended (and I’m not sure it’s even in the deal) but Obama fails to realize capitulating his 2/3 vote before they new Congress is even seated given the Republicans a repeatable blueprint to pass almost anything.

      And the simple fact it that Reagan got first tax cuts plans passed through a Democratic House and a-far-from-bulletproof Senate (only 55 Republicans). And, for all his electioneering disdain for the DLC and Clinton-esque triangulating, the main difference in his governing appearing to weakening proposals before he even has the argument with the opposition.

      Harry Truman and the Democratic Party came back from a worse electoral, but FDR actually won more seats in 1934–not exactly a great year for the economy.

      If Barack was here, I’m sure he’d respond in wonkish fashion, hem and hawing about international markets etc, and yes, that stuff gets complex but the bottom line is working-people around the world get the shaft. And there’s nothing inherently wrong being a policy wonk if you really under the importance of the power you’ve been given and, within Constitutional limits, what a crime it is not to use it for good.

      You don’t just have a plethora of agencies, a foreign office, and the right to rubber-stamp legislation into statute. You have a racous and increasingly desperate battle to save the country from self-serving excess, and this small device (a “pen”), that can be used to nullify stupid legislation and, just as importanly, assert what you won’t give up–if anything.

      Yet he seems to be asserting his love for whatever the Republicans will b e willing to accept. He is good at picking off a handful of votes on occassion, but seems so ready to give in a the first sign of trouble, that I wonder if even that compliment belongs to Biden instead.
      The deadline was December 31st, at’s not even Dec. 8. Was Christmas vacation that friggin’ important, sir?

  24. itolduso

    I liked my “compromise” position better. Drop the Bush era tax cuts and those put in place subsequently, for everyone making over 75K per year.

    Or, at the least, drop them all.

    These assholes don;t care about budget deficits, they just care about buying votes. F m all

    Social Security already has a problem, and Obama adds to it…all on his own. As some sort of “deal” to make it more politicallly palatable to accept the continued “tax cuts for the rich”, which really campaigning for them and them only to expire, was nothing but political theater playing on wealth envy for the masses

    • indypendent

      Obama did not add to the problem …..all on hiw own…..HE had alot of help from those self-professing budget deficit hawks that don’t seem to care about the deficit when that government check is in THEIR name!

  25. Zippy

    Just an early thought: before giving Obama too much blame, let’s remember that Reid’s Senate had a proposal to kill the upper-class tax cuts coming in from the both the House and Obama’s budgets. And, telliingly, somehow only 53 votes could be found for this proposition in the Senate, even when the figure was extended to 1 million a year.

    As bad a tactical political move as this was, I don’t think I’d want the expiration of unemployment insurance benefits on my head either.

    Talk about a game of “chicken.”

    But this also the dismal post-election reality, when cowards with large majorities could have this a winning election issue though, apparently, only to lose in the 60-vote “Millionaire’s Club” by 7 votes.

    Senator Russ Feingold says he voted against both because they we’re paid for. Well, good move, Russ,–not–because if you can’t get that meme to spread, we’re likely to get something worse.

    Oh well.

  26. Zippy

    P.S. Russ Feingold’s vote will be gone next year, but Durbin will still be around.