General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFace Facts: Going Over The "Cliff" Would Suck Badly
But it will never get easier in the future. For 30 years working Americans have been savaged by hostage takers, and they only grow stronger and more voracious as we appease them.
Enough!
Time for Churchill, not Chamberlain. Let's start turning this thing around.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It's called "That difficult woman that Obama fired? We elected her to the Senate".
She'll be working tirelessly to market the FDR Liberal brand, demand will soon be huge.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Another "Obama hates Elizabeth Warren" post ... must be why he gave her a prime time speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention ... after which, she went from trailing Scott Brown in the polls, to leading him in the polls.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)More 12-dimensional chess, no doubt.
Keeping her away from the convention stage while having the likes of Deval Patrick there would have been a train wreck.
And Warren was generally leading Brown in the polls for many months before the convention. Interesting that you think her ability is insufficient to win on her own.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Interesting that you think Obama fired her.
I suspect you also think Obama opposed Reid putting her on the Senate Banking Committee.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)groups like moveon, PDA, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and others.
TiberiusB
(487 posts)He didn't say Obama hated her. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but injecting emotional bias into the discussion distracts from what should be the real debate, whether Obama's political strategy on any given matter is really in our best interest.
And no, Warren wasn't trailing Brown in the polls at the time of the convention, though her lead grew significantly shortly afterward (as expected, they don't talk about convention "bumps" for nothing...Romney got one, too, remember).
If there is a relationship to focus on here, it is not Obama and Warren, it is Obama and Geithner, who famously opposed Warren's nomination to the CFPB and who is well known to hold tremendous sway with the President with regards to financial matters.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Huh?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I mean if your logic is going to make any sense at all, the time line of events should be in the correct order.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Better?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Both of them resigned.
Warren was not appointed to the position that you seem to think she was fired from.
You need to place your manufactured outrage into a different container.
TiberiusB
(487 posts)This is the angle you are going with, not "hmmm, there's a disturbing pattern here"?
How about, "those people weren't technically fired, but I see what you are saying, that there are too many people, ostensibly left leaning, possibly even liberal/progressive people, getting left in political limbo with weak support from the White House until they withdraw from the nomination process."
Getting caught up endless on a single word, in this case "fired", feels a bit too much like the old "Bush never lied" semantic arguments.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)TiberiusB
(487 posts)Nope, the poster is irrelevant. I am simply invested in actual debate, which many politically charged threads lack, instead falling into polarized arguments that lose track of any substance and get caught up in semantics or some other tangential unrelated issue.
This thread is a perfect example. The discussion should be about the kabuki known as the "Fiscal Cliff". Look at how many posts are about the semantics ("fired", "hates" or about Elizabeth Warren and Obama and the nomination process, or about whether a negative Obama post constitutes whining (unless you run for office) while positive Obama posts somehow constitute meaningful political activism. I'm up for a debate about the broken nomination process, obviously, but even that distraction isn't really being discussed in any meaningful way. It all feels too much like the old song "Cult of Personality", with camps forming around people rather than issues.
TiberiusB
(487 posts)Whether you call it getting "Warrened" or "Riced" is irrelevant when weighed against what their failed nominations may or may not represent.
Susan Rice is the more recent, and therefore, fresher, example of "appointment limbo" which plagues Obama from time to time and seems to always result in the nominee withdrawing (or getting recess appointed... *cough* Richard Cordray *cough* ...that was for all the "Warren couldn't get past Congress" fans...*cough* Reconciliation *cough* ...sorry, that one's just a reflex from the health care debate when many people said the public option couldn't pass without 60 votes).
Focusing on chronology seems like a bit of a distraction, much like drilling down on the word "fired", as some seem to be doing. Why not discuss why Susan Rice seemed to fall into the same trap as Warren? Why recess appoint some people and not others? Is there a possible gender bias at work here? Were these nominees meant to soften opposition for the next candidate and were never really expected to get past the nomination process at all? GOP obstructionism and abuse of the "filibuster" (...which has been magically made to mean "not getting 60 votes," thanks Senate!) is obviously a factor, so what's the solution? Better outreach by the President to the people to build public support? Some sort of reform to the process, and all the problems with getting that through Congress, is clearly necessary, but how to get it done is a daunting task, to say the least.
Who fights and pushes back and tries to cut through the Orwellian sales gibberish, and who smiles and drinks the Kool Aid while using words like "save" and "strengthen," when they mean "slash" and "weaken"? Who embraces the "fiscal cliff" versus who points out that we never lack for money when it comes to banks and war, but when it comes to pennies for the people, our national wallet mysteriously runs dry?
...Or we can debate who's name will become the official shorthand for a failed nomination from the Obama administration.
Whichever.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)rather than from a politically appointed position??
After all, that's Manny's plan. He's stuck with Obama for the next 4 years ... so he needs to get working on a nominee for 2016.
Warren might be a good choice. And it would be nice to see Manny post a few positive OPs from time to time.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Enjoy.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)TiberiusB
(487 posts)As for the videos, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Some people might call that "politics". Warren is and always has been a model of restraint and diplomacy with regards to her demeanor and her relationship with Obama, so none of this should surprise anyone. It's a large part of why so many like her. She just seems genuinely nice and, more importantly, honest in her convictions.
That doesn't make her perfect, however. She notoriously stepped in it with regards to the U.S. possibly going to war with Iran, a position so seemingly out of character that you have to wonder whether it was legitimate or poll tested.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)in the first place.
My post was sarcasm.
TiberiusB
(487 posts)I got that, but my point was that the sarcasm wasn't being followed by anything to help move the discussion forward. Instead, most of this thread seems to be stuck on a single word.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)others can justifiably call it Willful Distortion
and others will call it a Strawman.
Regardless of the label,
what you posted IS inflammatory,
A Logical Fallacy,
and adds nothing to the debate.
If you would respond with a valid rebuttal,
you wouldn't be forced to use embarrassing Logical Fallacies,
and acrtually contribute to the discussion.
Happy New Year!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Response to rhett o rick (Reply #17)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Warren at the helm. So Obama un nominated her. As he tends to do when the GOp asks him to.
That is why she ran for Senate. Obama took her out of his government.
the people know better.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And which is better ... to have her as a political appointee, who serves at the whim of the next President, or as a Senator, sitting on the oversight committee for the agency she created?
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)complained about her. She is serving now in spite of Obama.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)fired her for it ... then gave her a prime time slot at the Democratic Convention, but didn't want her to win ... then she won anyway, and Obama told Reid not to put her on the oversight committee, but Reid did it anyway.
Makes total sense.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)When did he fire her?
And not appointing her to the CFPB because it would be a long, drawn-out fight that he would almost certainly lose does not count.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)leftstreet
(36,102 posts)No jobs, real wages stagnant for decades, no buying power, increasing costs, no healthcare, no security
For politicians and pundits to make up a fake 'fiscal cliff' is adding insult to injury
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MineralMan
(146,281 posts)That's the only advice I have for you. If you can get elected, maybe you can do something.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)ROFL!! Much easier to snipe impotently and cynically from the peanut gallery.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)I think running for office would be a great idea for Manny. It would let him put his ideas out in front of the voters and see if they like those ideas enough to elect him to office.
I can't see any downside to that for Manny, really.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Somehow I don't think his type would be capable of accomplishing anything actually, you know, meaningful. If he ran for office where would he find the time to snipe on the internet?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)not rich enough to run for office?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)push their elected officials to do what they were elected to do. Do you know Manny in RL btw, know anything about what he does? Your comment indicates you have zero knowledge of his activities on behalf of the Dem Party and is therefore a comment with no substance or relevance to this OP.
Did you know that Dems rarely use that old tactic on internet forums?
The reason why Dems rarely use the 'run for office' pretend 'advice' instead of reasoned arguement? Because we know that the work of citizens is equally as important as the work of elected officials, in fact it is more important.
See eg, how currently citizen activism pushed elected officials to remove the Chained CPI from the current Deficit Discussions where it never belonged.
And see how citizen activism forced elected officials, no matter how reluctant they were originally, to end DADT.
So why would you think that every citizen who expresses an opinion about the policies being pushed by elected officials should become an elected official themselves?
That makes no sense whatsoever since our system never intended that the only way a citizen has the right to an opinion is to 'run for office' themselves.
You appear to have little faith in what citizens can do when they are organized, as they are currently. I have far more faith in the people especially now that they are way more informed than ever before, in encouraging our elected officials to do what they promised to do. They need to know the people will support them when they do.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)It was just a suggestion.
Activism can do many things. I've been an activist since the 60s. Generally, though, activism is best employed by speaking directly in some way to those who are in office and who can change things. Sometimes it's done through individual communications and sometimes through public demonstration. Sometimes, activism also includes running for office.
You know little about me, and what little you think you know is wrong. I hope you have a very pleasant new year.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)because you are a great Democrat and I would definitely vote for you', or was it a carefully chosen way to say to the OP that you just wish he would 'stfu' but you are afraid that if you said what you really wanted to say, you would get your post hidden?
Btw, you do not have to lecture DUers on what activism means. Knowing as many DUers as I do, they could teach people how to effectively get the attention of the people they hire to represent them. I, eg, have met most of the top Dems in this party partly due to my job and have been able to speak directly to them about issues that both they and we care about. But I don't feel the need, nor do most DUers to keep repeating what we do as most DUers expect that Democrats here are extremely active in politics outside of DU. That is how DU has always been. Your comment to Manny implied that you are not aware of this.
You know zero about Manny or me, for that matter yet you often feel the need to make declarations about other DUers. I am pointing out that perhaps you should learn more about people before using those old, internet tactics which are really useless in terms of actual discussion. The kind of discussion we used to have on Democratic forums and which actually resulted in positive results.
Have a great New Year and we will continue to speak out and to our elected officials as that is our civic duty. I hope no one minds, but regardless, we will continue to do so because it works.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)running for office. That was what I intended to write. It's not complicated.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And people would vote for him because of his sense of humor. He would have a good chance of winning.
I'm serious about this. Manny is one of, if not the, smartest DUers. I love his posts, and I think he should run for office.
Manny should run if for no other reason than to have an opportunity to voice his dismay at what is going on in the Democratic Party and share his ideas.
The more people with progressive ideas run for office, the more choices for progressive government the American people have.
Americans do like progressive ideas when well presented.
Very seriously and very sincerely, I would like to see Manny run for office.
Great ideas, Mineral Man.
His posts are among my favorites (and so are some of yours, Mineral Man).
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)Running for office makes great sense for dedicated people. Thanks for getting it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)understanding of Democratic principles mainly. And we sure need more of them in Congress.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)construct every time they get into office.
They've had a long stretch, more or less with a short interruption from 1980 to the present. They are like termites. They ate our economy out from the inside and now they are complaining that there is no more to eat. They forget that the pulp, the strength of the fiber that holds our house up is in their very round, greedy little bellies.
Time to rebuild the house, termites. And this time you are going to put the fiber in, not take it out. We are raising the price of your meals. Thank you very much. We want a strong house. You can stay as long as you don't eat so fast and so much.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)How can a new president make progress when he's stuck with the former president's disastrous policies. No appeasement, please.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)firehorse
(755 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)how much further we should be dropped.
Enough!
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)But hey, real memory is in short supply in the USA!
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)when the repercussions start to hit the masses, there will be a solution. Maybe we have to go over the cliff to show people the problems we have with this hostile Congress. I do not think that we will be over the cliff for long. It is political suicide for all involved.
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)Going back to the Clinton tax rates would raise enough revenue to cover only a small fraction of the current deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/democrats-dont-want-to-go-back-to-clinton-era-rates/
pscot
(21,024 posts)"the difference between the two plans is huge. Clintons tax code raises about $2.35 trillion more in revenues over 10 years than Obamas tax plan."
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)even if accurate that's 235 billion per year, against an annual budget deficit of $1.1 trillion. It is being discussed as some unbearable tax burden for the country to face, yet it would address only 21% of the deficit. How much will we all be hurting if taxes are increased enough to fix this budget gap just from the revenue side?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)As President Obama said in today's press conference, there must be shared sacrifice as long as he's president. Austerity will be our new normal. What national treasures do you suppose they'll sell off first?
Skittles
(153,138 posts)the working class has ALREADY sacrificed - it's the RICH BASTARDS, the ones who got ALL THE REWARDS, who did not SACRIFICE
edited to acknowledge you know that
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Everyone else, not so much.
brooklynite
(94,452 posts)We work out a deal:
- Millionaire's taxes go up
We go over the Cliff:
- Millionaire's taxes go up
- YOUR taxes go up
- Unemployment insurance is cut
- spending is cut
Which is worse?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I am strongly against chained CPI for the record.
But those of you who advocate going over the cliff while screaming about chained CPI are either mathematically challenged or just straight up hypocritical.
TiberiusB
(487 posts)Sell you on a horrible idea by taking advantage of a "crisis". Those two are completely unrelated. The imaginary fiscal cliff is supposed to be about the budget (it isn't, but we all know that). The chained CPI is an assault on Social Security, which is not part of the federal budget and shouldn't be up for discussion. Trading the long term health and welfare of an enormous (and growing) pool of citizens for a very short term "gain" is a raw deal and there is nothing hypocritical about opposing it. What's more, any damage from the austerity brigade...fiscal cliff...whatever...can be mitigated or reversed in the new year (tax cuts can be retro-active), you know, when the debt ceiling extortion begins.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...but only for a short time.
Congress WILL be forced to act,
and we will have better numbers after Jan 1st.
Falling for another hostage grabbing like in the last debt ceiling "debate"
where the Democrats traded:
* a short extension in benefits for some of the unemployed
FOR
*a ruinous Two YEAR extension of the Bush tax cuts for The Rich
..is NOT something we want to repeat.
Look, MA!
I traded the Family Cow for a handful of beans!!!!
...but the guy said it was a Good Deal because at least I got something!
Hurry Up!
Add Saving the Unemployed to "The LIST"!
spanone
(135,802 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)And thank you for saying it so clearly. We had to draw a line somewhere. We keep taking bad deals for the sake of getting a little something good in the mix. I honestly think all the grass roots activism, calling Congress and stuff, is what made the difference in preventing a horrible deal. It could have been something much worse if people hadn't been so active.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Almost impossible to get with all the baby killers out there, AND end of the Bush and SS tax cuts!!!!
Now we just need to fix unemployment payments, the AMT,