The Lesser of Two Evils?

[maxrandb]

I get so pi$$ed when I hear voters complaining that they weren’t going to support the Democrats because “they don’t want to vote for the lesser of two evils”. Our entire political system comes down to choosing the “lesser of two evils”, and by staying home last November, we surely unleashed “evil” on this country to a massive scale.

Get a clue! Choosing the better, but flawed side is all we’ve done in this country for over 200 years. Folks who think they are going to get 100% of what they want from a particular politician or party are simply delusional

Yes, that means that Dems, liberals and progressives who stayed home in November 2010 because “there was NO DIFFERENCE between the two parties”…are “delusional”. Right now in WI, OH, NJ, PA, and God knows where next, evidence shows that there is ONE HELLUVA LOT OF DIFFERENCE between the two parties.

You simply can’t govern by absolutes. Perhaps our most absolutist President of all, you know the one who fought a great Civil War to preserve the Union, was a contrasting mix of right-ism, left-ism, centric-ism and pragmatism.

So where does that leave us? If we are not going to get 100% of what we want, then how do we decide who to support?
It’s an easy question to answer when you think about it, but, then again, maybe using the terms “voters” and “think” in America is oxymoronic. But if you want to know who to support, look at the political party that has your best interest in mind.

For me, that’s an easy call to make…it’s the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Despite the chumminess with some Wall St folks, despite the “reasoned” use of American military power, despite the myriad of faults, there is no doubt that if you are a middle-class, blue or white collar, FREEDOM loving American (yes that includes you too Libertarians), this is a no-brainer. The values, policies, practices and reason of the Democratic Party are much more in tune with the majority of the American people…and if you don’t believe me…just look at every poll of every issue, of every demographic in this country.

This country is overwhelmingly on the policy side of the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly on the right side of the issues. All the other side has is FEAR, LIES and INTIMIDATION! Oh and one more thing…they can count on that tried and true standard, that evil will prevail when “good men do nothing”…say, like staying home on election day.

- So what if you have to swallow Heath Shuler to preserve the rights of workers.

- So what if you have to accept some compromise in health care legislations to achieve near universal health insurance coverage.

Ask the workers currently under assault in WI, OH, NJ, PA and throughout this country, how much they appreciate the “message” folks sent by staying home in November.

[JuniperLea]

1. INTIMIDATION!

Someone had to say it... I'm glad you did.

[Rex]

2. Actually you can thank Obama and Biden for opening their stupid mouths

and saying idiotic stuff that caused some spite in their base RIGHT before the elections last year! Stupid thing to do and they paid for it along with the rest of us. HOPEFULLY they won't be stupid and actually keep their mouths shut before the election next year. People are fickle and saying childish things will only lead to childlike behavior. Like we saw last November.

EDIT - and it is NOT the lesser of two evils, the GOP should NEVER, EVER be allowed to control anything! I will take anything over the devil, even if it is not to my liking.

[defendandprotect]

4. True .. .however, Democrats have been staying home for decades ....

and 2010 just saw another bunch of them quitting!!

They quite well understand that the Dem Party has NOT been working in their

interests!!




The Rightwing Koch Bros financed the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[Rex]

11. And now we have to replace all those that won't vote again

and I'm not so sure they are willing to drink the kool-aid. All over a few words, guess words do have meaning and an impact when they come from the VP and POTUS.

Ya I just started reading up on the DLC and Koch...wow, just wow.

[Scuba]

23. Bingo!

[BzaDem]

33. And so have some Republicans, for the same reason. Negligable - negligable roughly balances to zero.

Of course there will continue to be a few in each party who will never be satisfied with the ideological positions of any candidate their party ever nominates, throughout their whole life. This has been going on since our nation's founding, and is nothing new.

[Aerows]

47. Amen

And all the justifying didn't make it any less stupid of a strategy. I swear, it was like they WANTED to give the elections away in 2010.

[defendandprotect]

3. Voting against your conscience is voting for a downward spiral --

the differences between the two parties are FADING FAST --

Let's get some real dems like Sen. Bernie Sanders to run on the Dem ticket --

and a very strong anti-war VP -- maybe Tom Hayden --

Guess you've noticed that tho we elected the Dems to END THE WAR in '06 -- as confirmed

by Pelosi on video the morning after -- "Dems were elected to end the war!" --

here it is 2011 and both wars are still raging and enriching MIC -- and the national

security state!

What we absolutely don't need is any more Koch funded DLC'ers self-selecting for office!!

We need to dump the Koch/DLC from the Dem party and anyone ever affiliated with Koch!

[DFab420]

6. Oh yea

I could totally see the general American public voting for a Sanders/Hayden ticket

:sarcasm:

[jtown1123]

12. If pple didn't know Sanders was a socialist & just heard him talk, I think it's not that far fetched

h/e people seem to hate New YOrkers so maybe his thick accent would work against him.

[DFab420]

15. That and once you hit the national stage

Hiding the fact you openly support socialistic policies tends to become a bit hard. Esp if your voting record is looked at..

[defendandprotect]

24. Why would Sanders want to hid the fact that he supports socially responsible policies?

Stack that up with Obama's no single payer/no MEDICARE FOR ALL -- private deals

with Big Pharma and the private health care industry -- and I think the balance

is in Sanders' favor!!

The public understands the need for MEDICARE FOR ALL -- we all do --

74% and more -- !!


:nuke:

[maxrandb]

10. But you have to be reasonable

I'm telling you, as much as I love Bernie Sanders, he would lose 49, maybe 50 states!

As for the wars, it is going to take time, but we have alread pulled all combat troops out of Iraq. You can't just pack-up and leave in a day.

As an active duty member, I agree with Colon Powell's gift shop analogy. We broke the "eff" out of Iraq, to simply just do a massive walk-away is not fair to Iraq, it's people...and most importantly...The United States.

Afghanistan is a little bit of a different story, because that was the place where we were actually attacked from. Hell, one of the greatest progressive Presidents in our history fought a World War, and despire the "hell" that put our citizens and treasure through, would hardly be described as the "wrong thing to do".

[defendandprotect]

25. You think you're being "reasonable" -- ???

You saw the losses for Dems in 2010 -- based on what Obama has done so far!

It was a disaster -- and will be worse in 2012, especially since he's continuing

to move to the right!

Can't believe anyone here would still be supporting GOP permanent wars and the national

security state!!

And you agree with Colin Powell? The guy who lied about WMD at the UN?


Iraq had a military the equal of our LAPD -- We've been bombing them for 30 years now

-- killed half a million kids there with the crap we let loose on the nation --

We sure don't look like anything but a terrorist nation -- as the UN has pointed out!

And you actually believe W's story that we were "attacked from Afghanistan by BL" ... !!??

:rofl:

Don't bother replying -- you'll be on "Ignore" by then!!

[BzaDem]

29. Except your proposal of enabling the greater of two evils is voting for a MUCH faster spiral.

Reality doesn't change just because a tiny few deny reality.

[defendandprotect]

34. Only if you expected Obama to trample our best chance yet for

universal health care which 74%+ of the nation wanted --

and numbers still rising as vote was taken!

Back room deals with Big Pharma -- and with the PRIVATE health care industry --

who would have expected that from Obama? Did you?

The loss of MEDICARE FOR ALL was a tremendous loss for the nation and our citizens --

and certainly I don't think you could find even one DU'er who ever anticipated anything

like that from Obama!!

And how many here thought they'd see Obama put the notorious anti-Social Securith Repug

thug Alan Simpson on a panel where cutting Social Security became the primary goal --

and we now call it Obama's "Cat Food Commission?"


:nuke:


If it comes down to "Who do I trust in 2012" ... it will be Sen. Bernie Sanders who can

run as a Dem -- !!






The Right Wing Koch Bros financed the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

[BzaDem]

43. Actually, what I said is true regardless of your post (which was completely irrelevant to my point).

Don't get me wrong -- the points in your post are bogus. But even if we accept your false post as true, and pretend we live in a fantasy world where Obama could somehow have gotten single payer passed, your strategy STILL results in a faster downward spiral.

[AKDavy]

5. It isn't just a choice between voting parties or staying home

People who still place principles above pragmatism (read "compromised principles") can find other candidates who follow their principles.

A rejection of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party minor variations of the status quo is an ethical and moral choice.

I have no plans to stay home.

[defendandprotect]

26. Exactly ... if the Dems are counting on voters "having no place to go" ... they will

certainly be wrong because there is always a place to go -- even if it's a

write-in vote for a liberal Democrat!!

I'd prefer to vote for a Dem --

The party has been in the hands of Koch/DLC and I don't know if who we might

trust in 2012 -- other than Bernie Sanders who can run as a Dem!!

Many outside Congress -- liberals -- could run on a Dem ticket --

and many are strongly anti-war which is what we need!!

Enough with Bush/Obama wars and bankrupting of the Treasury -- let's try something

sane for a change!!


:nuke:


The right-wing Koch Bros financed the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[BzaDem]

30. Then they'll just replace the tiny few purported progressive third party voters with voters

from the center right. The more people vote against the Dems from the left, the further right the Dems get (to make up for the voters they lost). Their rough vote share is not going to change -- just the ideological make-up of the party.

This won't open the door for a third party (parties that get three tenths of one percent of the vote will never be viable at any point in anyone's life, regardless of how many deny reality), but it will cause policies to be much worse from the perspective of those who support third parties.

Third party voters need the Democratic party FAR more than the Democratic party needs them.

[defendandprotect]

35. You're saying, there is no hope EXCEPT that the Dems will continue to move to right????

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789


Let's also try something other than FEAR-BASED reasoning here for a change!!

[BzaDem]

39. I'm merely saying that supporting third parties always pushes the Democratic party to the right.

After all, it is easier to switch a rational independent's vote by moving to the right than it is to switch an irrational claimed progressive who will never be satisfied regardless. Furthermore, each independent voting for Democrats gives Democrats a net 2 votes (-1 from R, +1 to D), whereas a third partier going to D would only change the margin by 1.

However, just because one method (voting for third parties) moves the party to the right, doesn't mean there aren't OTHER methods that would move the party to the left. One method is to convince a majority to vote for more left-leaning politicians -- that would certainly move the party to the left (out of necessity), as opposed to abandoning the Democratic party, which moves the party to the right out of necessity.

[defendandprotect]

44. Your conclusion was that no matter what the voter does Dem Party will move to right ...

and, you know what -- think from what we're seeing that most of us would agree!!

Meanwhile, most here are NOT talking about voting third party -- we'd really need

IRV voting to do that -- but they are talking about write in's and putting up other

Dems to run against Obama.

Certainly Sen. Bernie Sanders is more to the left than Obama --

However, we also certainly know that the candidates corporations have been giving us to

vote for are often further to the right. And, that's also true of Dem Party candidates.

We need to find our own candidates -- liberals, humanists -- strong anti-war candidates.

Who do you trust?

[BzaDem]

46. A write-in has the same effect as a third party vote.

I would love IRV voting, but until a state institutes that at the national level, voting against the Democrat moves the Democratic party to the right and the country to the right if the Democrat loses.

The one thing that a voter can actually do to move the country to the left is to try to convince as many others as possible in the primary electorate to nominate the most liberal candidate electable, and then try to convince as many people as possible in the general electorate to vote for the nominee.

The problem isn't a lack of choices -- Dennis Kucinich was a choice in the primary. The problem is that most people in the party wouldn't/didn't vote for him, and that most people in the country wouldn't vote for him if he were the nominee. Trying to change both of those equations is the only way to move the country to the left.

[AKDavy]

38. It isn't a question of need

My only need is to be able to look at myself in the mirror. That's a function of voting my principles, not some party platform that drifts about, or a function of a party that tell me I need it more than it needs me.

I vote democratic and classical liberal principles. What the Democratic Party and the New Liberals have become is their burden to bear.

[BzaDem]

40. But if all one is doing is enabling Republicans, does it really matter how much they can falsely

convince themselves that they are somehow doing something else?

When a Republican claims he is going to help the middle class, we don't care, because vote after vote after vote shows they won't.

Similarly, if someone claims they are a progressive, but then does nothing in the voting booth but enable Republicans election after election after election, do we really care what they claim? Is there really a meaningful difference between people who enable Republicans in the voting booth from the left, and those who do it from the right? Their action is the same, so why is their intention relevant?

[AKDavy]

48. Sorry no more "least worst" voting

I voted Nader in 2000 and 2004, but gave Obama and the party a change again in 2008. They blew it.

I see to little difference between the two parties to see them as alternatives.

[BzaDem]

51. Wouldn't the 100k deaths that would never have happened if Nader didn't run

be a difference between the two parties?

If not, how many more deaths would be required before you saw a difference?

[AKDavy]

53. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit

I voted for the better choice. My conscience is clear.

There are more than just two choices. The Democrats in Congress who hopped on the war bandwagon are responsible for the deaths, not Nader voters. Gore couldn't even carry his home state, and he would have pursued the neoliberal economic policies of Clintion (NAFTA, etc.). There was no war mongering in progress during the 2000 election, it was about other issues, and I was voting against trade policies and sellout liberals. Kerry promised to win the wars, not withdraw.

Armchair quarterbacking.

[AKDavy]

56. Sorry about that strong response, but...

I'm pretty sick of the liberal bashing by sellout liberals. Zinn, Nader, Chomsky, kucinich, Sanders...

They call liberals out on their hypocrisy, and they get sidelined or at least marginalized.

Nader has always stood by his principles. I admire that in a day when the only principle seems to be winning, even if it requires betraying principles.

The 100,000 deaths (probably closer to 1,000,000) are on those who voted for authorization of the use of force, and who have approved every military budget since.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I'll vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot..or write one in.

It's easy for me, too.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[BzaDem]

31. All three of the people you quoted would laugh at their own quotes if they were asked about them

after our political system evolved into the two party system we have (as opposed to the system they had in mind at the time, where the President would have been picked by the House most of the time due to the electoral college).

They (like most) would realize that it is only possible to be so irrational for so long. Eventually, the evolutionary survival instinct kicks in, whether people like it or not. Just asked the 90% of Nader voters in 2000 who abandoned him in 2004.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. So, you're saying they would sell out the revolution now?

They faced a no party system and fought a revolution to end it. But, now they would buckle under to political pundits and conventional wisdom and preserve what amounts to a corrupt one party system?

I think not.

[BzaDem]

41. Not at all. I'm merely saying your conception of the revolution is laughably ridiculous.

They certainly wouldn't claim that we have a one party system just because they couldn't convince a non-negligible portion of either party electorate to agree with them in their nominees. They wouldn't enable the principles they are vigorously opposed to just because a few people were whining about election results.

As I said, the founders assumed that contested presidential elections would usually be decided by the House (and not the people), in which case elections might not have been zero-sum. But given that the inputs to today's elections are the votes of the people (and not the votes of the House), and that one needs an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes to win, elections are zero-sum.

The founders would not disagree with this -- they were actually somewhat intelligent people after all, and they knew about the concept of zero-sum. Given the zero-sum nature of today's electoral system, not voting for the lesser of two evils enables the greater of two evils by definition. No amount of denial and cognitive dissonance can change that.

[defendandprotect]

36. Remember, Founders were strongly anti-corporate and feared the power of capital ...

Oops!!

Thanks for the quotes --




The Koch Bros Financed the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Democrats aren't perfect

but Republicans are EVIL. Does anybody honestly believe that had Democrats been (re-)elected in Wisconsin or Ohio that they'd be pushing these union-busting bills? Would the Republicans in Indiana have been pushing their "right-to-work" POS bill? Would Planned Parenthood be getting defunded and abortion rights attacked so vociferously everywhere? If Pelosi were still Speaker, would she be trying to push through $61+ billion cuts (mostly in domestic programs)? If you can honestly answer "no" to all of these questions, the DIFFERENCES between the two parties should be pretty obvious.

[maxrandb]

14. NO!

and you can see the evidence in places where they did elect Democrats, such as Illonois and California, where budget cuts are being balanced by increased revenue by increasing taxes on the top 5% of wealth holders.

There are already states out there that are showing us how they are "different" than the Repubs.

Amazing that they are doing things that are supported by 70-80% of the American people, but what we get for coverage is a "slob-knobbering" puff piece on "Fat Christie" in NJ.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Yes, it IS amazing

and sickening. :puke:

[Oasis_]

32. Agree with the OP

As a "blue dog" Democrat, I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that any plan that calls for raising taxes on any American will be met with fierce resistance, and will only lead more who believe as I do to flee the Democratic party (I'm not going anywhere--but many others I know are already on the fence)

When the data confirms the top 10% of earners paid 73% of the total taxes paid to the Feds, it becomes a spending problem, as opposed to revenue generation. 47% of Americans pay zero net federal income taxes.

California and Illinois rank among the worst with respect to budgetary problems (actually colossal debacles) and some believe the answer is to provide additional incentive to leave through an even greater degree of wealth confiscation?

Thankfully, I believe a majority of my fellow Democrats agree that resolving these budget issues will never be accomplished through increased taxation. Attracting capital (and jobs) to a state should be the primary goal.

If we embrace the Sanders'-type economic ideology where those with wealth are relentlessly plundered, we will see economic growth slow to an absolute halt.

I post because I see us losing the "war" for independents and moderates as a result of backward economic thinking. The Republicans screw enough things up themselves---let's not provide them with any additional ammunition.

[Raksha]

59. Raising taxes on ANY American is a sure loser???

Think about what you're saying...and enjoy your stay.

[defendandprotect]

27. Would we have guessed that in electing Obama he would have defeated universal health care?

You have no idea what another Dem might do as they continue to move to the right --

We've had enormous Koch Bros influence on the party via the DLC --

Obama denied he was DLC -- but now acknowledges he is "New Dem" --

Who do you trust in 2012? I'd trust Sen. Bernie Sanders to run as a Dem!!

Do I trust VP Biden who has been calling for a year and more now for Israel to attack Iran!?

Biden says, "Israel would be JUSTIFIED in attacking Iran" -- !!

Is that really what you want?

Biden was creepy enough when he chaired the Clarence Thomas hearings and ensured that

there were no actual witnesses presented against Thomas, thereby ensuring he'd make it

to the Supreme Court!! Attack Iran? No, thanks!!



The Rightwing Koch Bros financed the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[damntexdem]

9. Vote Cthulu -- why settle for the LESSER of two evils?

Oops, I meant vote GOP -- why settle for the LESSER of two evils? It's so easy to get confused.

;-)

[Rex]

13. I'd rather vote for Cthulu than the GOP.

At least with Chtulu, I have no doubt of my immediate death and destruction - with the GOP, they sneak it in from behind so you never know when your day is called.

[hgrubkcir1]

16. 5 - Year Proposal to Balance the Federal Budget

The proposal which follows is not one I would have agreed to
support in a perfect world.

It has though been reviewed by those I respect in the
academic, business and public sectors.

Further it has been debated by those on the left and right as
well as moderates of both parties.

 As you would assume, the sacrifice it mandates to balance the
budget is shared. The proposal does directly address  the
heart of our fiscal deficit crisis.

The proposal only addresses the budgetary reduction
initiatives which were included in my copyrighted essays,
“Resurrecting Common Sense in America,” written two years
prior to the Deficit Commission’s recommendations.

Due to the depth of understanding already encompassed and
researched in this matter, my remarks for your consideration
will be brief.

 Additionally, owing to the need for bi-partisan support
necessary for implementation of the proposed legislative
initiatives, they are addressed in their most generic form.

       1) Reduce federal deficits from Medicare/Medicaid 
           a.	Enact a 1% employee/employer payroll tax for the
purpose of developing a funding source to minimize general
fund obligations for Medicare/Medicaid.
           b.	Enact a New Federal Fee Schedule to minimize the
cost of all prescription drugs provided to Medicare/Medicaid
recipients.
           c.	Enact Tort Reform to limit the liabilities for
all Medicare/Medicaid services to only “gross negligence and
fraud.”
       2) Until “comprehensive federal tax code revision”
enacted extend Bush Tax cuts indefinitely.
           a.	Enact a new “stepped” surcharge rate for
individual per schedule.
           b.	Enact a new “stepped” long-term capital gains
tax. 
           c.	Enact a new “stepped” federal surcharge on
gasoline.
        3) Reduce total defense spending.
        4) Reduce discretionary spending.

While I am fully aware, opposition to the proposed initiative
remains significant particularly at the extremes of both
political spectrums, history does lend support to the concept,
America’s belief in her entitlement programs need to continue
can super-seed even partisan attack.

I note both the bi-partisan work of President Reagan and
Speaker O’Neil in restructuring Social Security during the
1980’s and the work of President Clinton with Congress in the
1990’s in developing a balanced budget as a second example.

In my proposal, conservative American’s would  receive their
mandated  “SPENDING CUTS” with over $600 Billion in reductions
by FY 15-16 using FY 09-10 as the base year. 

The second largest deficit reduction component of the proposal
comes from Medicare/Medicaid.

American can no longer afford to provide that entitlement
benefits to her citizens without paying for them with a
specific tax source exclusive of FICA contributions which
support Part A expenses.

Similar to what Speaker O’Neil and President Reagan
accomplished in refinancing Social Security, my proposal calls
for a 1% increase in FICA taxes as a contribution for both
employees and employers.

Our country’s need to create jobs is not ignored in my
proposal. The right gets a decrease in individual long-term
Capital Gains taxes which has the benefit of being considered
the most effective means to actually increase employment by
developing additional assets to allow our post-retirement age
seniors still working to retire vacating their current
employment status.

While an increase in the Federal Gasoline Tax remains nearly
universally opposed in polling, the tax has not increased from
its current 18 cents per gallon rate since 1993 and must be
increased. The tax increase would both greatly address our
infra-structure liabilities and as a means to increase
nationwide employment permanently in the construction and
manufacturing sector.

This generic bi-partisan proposal is far from perfect but is
the result of nearly three years of debate and analysis based
on the principles laid out in my essay series Resurrecting
Common Sense in America.

It does not incorporate my initiative to legislate into
existence a new long-term Treasury investment which carries a
zero federal tax burden due to the current state of the
economy and its possible adverse effect on equity values.

The proposal additionally does not address the issue of
securing tax revenues from our now more than 11 million
illegal immigrates.

The proposal’s tabled recommendations follow for your review.


Fiscal 		Surcharge	Rate 		Surcharge	Reduction	Reduction
Year		 Tax above	Long Term	Federal 		Defense        
Discretionary  
                  $750,000 	Cap. Gains	Gas Tax		Spending	     
  Spending
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
FY 11-12	 	1.00%	 	3.00%	 	$0.05	 	5.00%	 	2.00%
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
FY 12-13	 	2.00%	 	6.00%	 	$0.10	 	7.50%	 	4.00%
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
FY 13-14	 	3.00%	 	9.00%	 	$0.15	        10.00%	 	6.00%
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
FY 14-15	 	4.00%	       12.00%	 	$0.20           12.50%	      
 8.00%
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
FY 15-16	 	5.00%	       15.00%	 	$0.25	        15.00%	      
10.00%

Analysis Assumptions:										
	1	GDP increases in aggregate 12% through 10-1-2016
	2	Unemployment decreases to 6.5% through 10-1-2016
	3	Defense spending reduction is based on "Peace
Dividend"
	4	Surcharge Tax is enacted with legislated exemptions to
income.
	5	Surcharge Tax on Gas is enacted with legislated exemptions.
	6	Reduction in Discretionary Spending based from FY 09-10
budget.


Notes:										
*		27% Scheduled Doctor Fix is fully implemented		

To my fellow American's who are both offended and troubled by
the scope and magnitude of my proposal, I can assure you, I
share your concern.

All I can say to you is, "If we can balance our federal
budget by 2015-2016, our children and our children's children
will thank us for the sacrifice made to return Common Sense to
our American Agenda.

[mmonk]

17. I was just looking for a change in direction.

Others did too but didn't find it so they didn't show up. I still did. But yes, in a sense, I was voting at that moment the lesser of two evils. I voted against Republicans.

[Zoeisright]

18. Yup, exactly.

There's this quote about how evil succeeds when good men do nothing. That's what happened in November.

[DirkGently]

19. Repetition doesn't make this false dichotomy any less false.

It's actually a two-part falsehood.

1) Conflating criticism and threats to withhold votes with an overall lack of support.

It is the constituents' JOB to tell leaders what they want, not to simply sign on to one side or the other and hencefoward shut up and take orders. Further, political leaders, under pressure first and foremost, to seek re-election at all times, respond ONLY to threats to said re-election. It is in fact a well-known problem in both Democratic and Republican parties that constituents are routinely ignored because conservative and liberal-minded voters are respectively perceived as "having no where else to go."

Accordingly, it becomes the job of responsible constituents to advise leaders that they WILL withhold their votes (and their monetary contributions) absent the leader conforming to the constituents' demands.

2) Criticizing, or threatening to refrain from voting, campaigning for, or otherwise supporting a Democratic leader is not, never was, and never will be, the same as supporting Republicans. One can argue under specific circumstances that lack of support for a Democrat will benefit a Republican in a particular race from a tactical standpoint; however, this in no wise can be extended to the proposition that any criticism of, or even a threat to withhold a vote from, a particular Democrat, or even the Democratic Party, is the equivalent of supporting Republicans. Rather, these things are the ONLY mechanism by which the Democratic Party can be shaped by its own members.

These sweeping calls for uncritical conformity and pre-pre-pre-pre-election demands for voting allegiance, while doubtless well-intentioned, nevertheless are not constructive to the democratic (small "d") process.

If everyone were to simply agree "Yeah, we'll vote for whatever Democrat, under whatever circumstance, regardless of their policies / actions / failures / successes," then there would literally be nothing to discuss except for how to defeat Republicans, which while an element of the Democratic Party, is hardly the only, or even the main, point of political discussion.

[Liberal Insights]

55. And now for MORE partisanship, Please !

Well said, my friend. And while you're at it, you might want to check out my http://MorePartisanshipPlease.org/ site, which promotes the idea of applying the good old American ideal of "competition" to our political life.

[bvar22]

21. If SOMEONE would Stand Up for THIS overwhelming majority,

you would see a lot of voters at the polls.
....For More of the Same "Centrists".... not so much.
Don't blame the voters for a failure of Leadership.
Blaming the voters solves nothing.

LEAD, and The People will follow.
FIGHT, and more will join the battle.
STAND, and The People will STAND with you.
Thats what so many thought they saw in Obama in 2007.
Their disaffectation is NOT really their fault.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[slay]

22. +1

we are sadly, almost shockingly after his excellent performance on the campaign trail, lacking a LEADER in Obama. If he would actually LEAD, people would indeed follow. All that "hope and change" BS - and his new chief of staff is who again? ugh nevermind.

But in response to the OP - I will NOT be told I have to vote for ineffective Dems just to hold off republican boogymen. In fact, if that's the best Dems can offer, they need to seriously re-think their strategy. Those days are over for me. I won't stay home, but I won't vote for crap either.

[defendandprotect]

28. Unfortunately, inaction and silence can also be bought ....

The Right Wing Koch Bros financed the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414



:nuke:

[NuttyFluffers]

57. yup. 'by their works you will know them.'

done on being sold fear. the solution is staring us in the face. however Living Colour's lyric 'when that leader speaks, that leader dies,' keeps many of them quite docile pets of the Powers That Be. and after all this enabling and capitulation the only answer left is 'we are the ones we've been waiting for.'

[Better Believe It]

42. So George W. Bush represented Wall Street and big business and President Obama represents us,

working class people and the elderly.

And George W. Bush stood for war while Obama is going to end the wars and bring all the troops home someday.

And everyone knows that Bush hated the Bill of Rights while President Obama is the strongest defender of our civil liberties and constitutional rights in the history of this nation.

And everyone understands that Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of working people and the elderly while President Obama is opposed to any cuts in those programs and proposes instead a big government infrastructure and public works program to put Americans back to work.

Now that's all one needs to know.

Case Closed.

[Raksha]

60. You forgot the sarcasm smilie.

[shanti]

45. SCOTUS

THAT'S a reason to vote dem. i don't even want to think about who would have been nominated for SCOTUS had mccain won. :scared:

[VoteProgressive]

49. I 100% agree, Obama is better than any GOP candidate. But still a disappointment to me.

[sudopod]

50. Fuck that.

My actions will not be ruled by fear.

[kentuck]

52. How many folks here on DU did not vote the last election?

Can we get a show of hands?

My guess is that a super majority of DUers voted in the last election? So, who did not vote? My guess would be that it was the younger voters that came out for Obama that chose to set it out? I may be wrong?

Just because some Democrats are sniveling cowards does not cause everyone not to vote.

[fascisthunter]

54. yeah... all we need to do is swallow the bullshit you feed yourself

sorry.... democracy doesn't work that way. You moderates have capitulated for so long while you had power, and now you berate the voters. Get a fucking clue.

[readmoreoften]

58. What does what's going on in WI have to do with Democrats other than some non-elected Dems?

What's going on in WI has to do with UNIONS. And some local Democrats support them. But strong union-supporting Dems and Obama/Blue Dogs/New Dems are about as different as night and day.

I'm pretty sure my DEMOCRATIC congressperson does not support labor. I'll be happy to vote for some of these awesome, union-supporting, non-elected Dems who live in other people's districts. But that doesn't change the fact that on the national level, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Except maybe that Republicans don't have the authority to destroy public education and Democrats are a little less mean to gay people.