Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, October 1, 2010 by The Oregonian
The Real Democratic Whiners
The way Democratic leaders tell it, their party's current "enthusiasm gap" comes from rank-and-file voters who are irrational and pessimistic complainers.
"Democrats, just congenitally, tend to (see) the glass as half empty," President Barack Obama said last month during a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser at the Connecticut home of a donor named (no joke) Rich Richman. Days later, Vice President Joe Biden told a separate audience of donors that voters need "to stop whining." Apparently, the two believe that a mix of Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake" motto and Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners" mantra will excite the Democratic base.
Who knows? Maybe it'll work. But probably not. The sight of Washington politicians attending fat-cat fundraisers while berating a recession-hammered nation is not exactly inspiring. It's more like a recipe for electoral backlash.
That said, this campaign season is defined neither by unreasonable petulance, as the White House asserts, nor by justifiable rage against the plutocratic machine. Instead, the moment is all about the more muted despondence expressed by that recent CNBC town hall speaker – the one who told the president that voters are "exhausted" and "deeply disappointed" in his administration.
The desperation is understandable. The Iraq war continues, and the Afghanistan war is intensifying. The Wall Street "reform" bill has been exposed as a sham, with the Associated Press reporting that banks are already planning to exploit the new rules for even more profits. Meanwhile, Obama aides admit that the new health care legislation coddles the industries it purports to regulate.
"During the campaign we fought against insurance companies," White House adviser David Axelrod said about the Obama-crafted bill. "(But) after the deals with insurance companies, the deals with Pharma – all these people are supposedly our friends."
As Axelrod's comment implies, this is not "real change" or "yes we can" – it's the demoralizing status quo of "no we won't." And few disappointments better underscore that reality than the recent non-debate over the Bush tax cuts.
Since those tax reductions were enacted, Democrats have – rightly – criticized them as ineffective economic policy that unduly expands the national debt. The data support the allegations: The Bush tax-cut years were "one of the weakest eight-year spans for the U.S. economy in decades," according to The Washington Post, and the tax cuts are the single largest factor in the deficit, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Americans understand these facts, as evidenced by polls showing majority support for eliminating the specific tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. In fact, when considering both public opinion and Democrats' previous criticism of Bush's tax policy, it's clear that opposition to the Bush tax cuts was a primary reason voters elected Democrats in the first place.
And yet, this week, the White House and Democratic congressional leaders announced they are postponing any legislation that might permanently modify the Bush tax cuts.
That's right, we're not talking about Democrats deliberately letting all the cuts expire – Democratic lawmakers say they will extend the cuts for the middle class. The issue is whether they will simultaneously deliver on promises to terminate the tax cuts that apply to income above $200,000. On that pledge, the party is now blocking a vote.
No doubt, Democratic politicians would have us believe that Republican obstructionism makes a vote pointless and that those saying otherwise are back to "glass half empty" whining. This, of course, has been the same excuse on nearly every issue.
But who are the self-defeating whiners here – politicians who don't even attempt to fulfill their own promises, or voters who expect those politicians to at least make a minimal effort? The honest answer to that question shows who is really responsible for the enthusiasm gap.
"Democrats, just congenitally, tend to (see) the glass as half empty," President Barack Obama said last month during a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser at the Connecticut home of a donor named (no joke) Rich Richman. Days later, Vice President Joe Biden told a separate audience of donors that voters need "to stop whining." Apparently, the two believe that a mix of Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake" motto and Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners" mantra will excite the Democratic base.
Who knows? Maybe it'll work. But probably not. The sight of Washington politicians attending fat-cat fundraisers while berating a recession-hammered nation is not exactly inspiring. It's more like a recipe for electoral backlash.
That said, this campaign season is defined neither by unreasonable petulance, as the White House asserts, nor by justifiable rage against the plutocratic machine. Instead, the moment is all about the more muted despondence expressed by that recent CNBC town hall speaker – the one who told the president that voters are "exhausted" and "deeply disappointed" in his administration.
The desperation is understandable. The Iraq war continues, and the Afghanistan war is intensifying. The Wall Street "reform" bill has been exposed as a sham, with the Associated Press reporting that banks are already planning to exploit the new rules for even more profits. Meanwhile, Obama aides admit that the new health care legislation coddles the industries it purports to regulate.
"During the campaign we fought against insurance companies," White House adviser David Axelrod said about the Obama-crafted bill. "(But) after the deals with insurance companies, the deals with Pharma – all these people are supposedly our friends."
As Axelrod's comment implies, this is not "real change" or "yes we can" – it's the demoralizing status quo of "no we won't." And few disappointments better underscore that reality than the recent non-debate over the Bush tax cuts.
Since those tax reductions were enacted, Democrats have – rightly – criticized them as ineffective economic policy that unduly expands the national debt. The data support the allegations: The Bush tax-cut years were "one of the weakest eight-year spans for the U.S. economy in decades," according to The Washington Post, and the tax cuts are the single largest factor in the deficit, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Americans understand these facts, as evidenced by polls showing majority support for eliminating the specific tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. In fact, when considering both public opinion and Democrats' previous criticism of Bush's tax policy, it's clear that opposition to the Bush tax cuts was a primary reason voters elected Democrats in the first place.
And yet, this week, the White House and Democratic congressional leaders announced they are postponing any legislation that might permanently modify the Bush tax cuts.
That's right, we're not talking about Democrats deliberately letting all the cuts expire – Democratic lawmakers say they will extend the cuts for the middle class. The issue is whether they will simultaneously deliver on promises to terminate the tax cuts that apply to income above $200,000. On that pledge, the party is now blocking a vote.
No doubt, Democratic politicians would have us believe that Republican obstructionism makes a vote pointless and that those saying otherwise are back to "glass half empty" whining. This, of course, has been the same excuse on nearly every issue.
But who are the self-defeating whiners here – politicians who don't even attempt to fulfill their own promises, or voters who expect those politicians to at least make a minimal effort? The honest answer to that question shows who is really responsible for the enthusiasm gap.
© 2010 Creators.com
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
59 Comments so far
Show AllOne simple step...Eliminate CAP on paying for
FICA and medicare. Make ALL income levels pay
for social spending and perhaps a millionaires
tax to reduce deficit.
What you propose is too simple and it would solve the problems, which is why it won't be enacted.
Sirota does a good job of juxtaposing Barry and Joe hanging out with their millionaire buddies while the "professional left" whines about the promises the administration has reneged on.
By the way, for someone who earns $13 per hour, it's hard for me to imagine people who make $200,000 a year (never mind $100,000)as middle class. But I guess when you're used to being around people like Rich Richman, $200,000 a year sounds like chicken feed.
Gawd bless Amerikkka.
"...it's hard for me to imagine people who make $200,000 a year (never mind $100,000)as middle class."
Even more ridiculous is their definition of "small business." The Koch Brothers and Coors are in that category because of subsidiary companies. Most people picture mom-and-pop stores (which have mostly been replaced by big box stores and businesses) that employ 5 people or maybe even 50 people.
Thank you NMLib for raising the issue of the perverted definition of "small business" that exists in this nation and hardly any other. The true small businesses are always the first to face hardship at any given time. The Koch and Coors type are deceptive. However, with plenty like them, the best litmus test to run against them is their level of resistance to "too big to fail".
History shows that the way to soak the rich is to lower their taxes, not raise them. While this is counterintuitive, it apparently is due to the tendency of the wealthy to sell appreciated assets when the tax rates are low and hold onto them or use various legal means to reduce their "recognition" of gain when tax rates are high. Also, they tend to work harder and receive more income when their taxes are low than when the tax rates rise.
The question readers should ponder is whether they want to raise taxes on the rich (no matter how defined) to fill in the deficit or because of their resentment of people better off than they are. Obama's approach is the politics of resentment. Query whether it's good national policy to reduce federal revenues in that way while spending money like a drunken sailor.
"(I)t apparently is due to the tendency of the wealthy to sell appreciated assets when the tax rates are low and hold onto them or use various legal means to reduce their 'recognition' of gain when tax rates are high. Also, they tend to work harder and receive more income when their taxes are low than when the tax rates rise."
Empirical evidence of what has happened in the economy in recent years simply does not support your hypothesis. If there is "resentment" in the working classes toward the millionaires it is because the Amerikkkan ruling elite have stacked the deck against the poor and middle classes. During the past 30 years there has been an enormous shift of wealth from the working classes to the plutocracy.
It seems that people of your persuasion can always justify cutting taxes for the rich while saying that we must stop "spending money like a drunken sailor" in order to balance the budget. It simply makes no sense.
"The average tax rate in 2006 for the top 1%, based on AGI, was 22.8%, down slightly from 2005 and the fifth straight year of declines. The average tax rate of this group was 28.9% in 1996, and was 24% in 1988. As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes."
from: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/07/wsj-wealthy-ame.html
There is more evidence to support what I said, but this is a good sample. See the charts on the website reference.
Your data prove my point. The reason that the richest 1 percent's income tax burden increased was because their incomes increased. Their income is rising faster because their tax rates are lower than they have been in at least 30 years.
Meanwhile, because of the unfair tax structure in Amerikkka the wealth continues to shift from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. The rich need to start paying their fair share.
Not to mention that the drunken sailor is spending more on wars and other corporate welfare programs than on anything else.
The wealthy, the PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS, derive the most benefits from taxes. Their investments worldwide are protected by the Pentagon/spy agencies, which account for about 1/2 of the Federal budget and their funding is with the Treasury bond proceeds which funds the deficit and has been declared the risk to national security,by Admiral Mullen.Many of the WELFARE KINGS don't even pay USG taxes as they locate offshore to avoid paying USG taxes but still get the benefit of tax proceeds paid by others, individual American taxpayers.A portion of the National debt interest should be allocated to the Pentagon/spy agencies. Even those WELFARE KINGS whom[persons SCOTUS] that don't pay USG taxes while receiving the benefits complain about taxes. Finally, Mullen's declaration that the National debt, the Federal deficit, being a threat to national security, thereby declaring the Pentagon/spy agencies are a threat to national security,is irony beyond belief. The funding of the Pentagon/spy agencies ostensibly to protect the USA, actually the WELFARE KINGS, are the threat to national security and the American taxpayers monies are funding the NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS, Pentagon/spy agencies, to protect us from threats to national security. This is so obviously insane and it proves that American population are forged into mindlessness, the inability or not knowing to discern thought from fact. Mindlessness is legitimized because it is institutionalized by the government, business and pretend christian churches[towers of babel]with phony preachers[harlots] with false doctrines.The only sense the USG has is nonsense and their nonsense doctrines make sense to the mindlessness.
You nailed it!
"History shows that the way to soak the rich is to lower their taxes, not raise them."
Please provide some more specifics for this claim. Recent history does not bear it out.
"The question readers should ponder is whether they want to raise taxes on the rich (no matter how defined) to fill in the deficit or because of their resentment of people better off than they are."
Attempting to cast the rich as victims is a troll's strategem. Simply put, the rich should pay more taxes because they benefit more from the infratructure that taxes support. The idea that everyone with lots of money has earned it purely through their own hard work and ingenuity is a myth.
q
Arthur Laffer has made some useful observations:
"It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.
"Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—hold the bulk of their wealth in the nontaxed form of unrealized capital gains? The composition of wealth also responds to incentives. And it's also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.
"People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, 'high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992—over $15 billion—in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994.'"
from: Arthur Laffer, "Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse", http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html
This response would be interesting if it actually addressed the point at hand. It doesn't. This is just another example of a troll throwing some meaningless details (selectively presented by a Reaganite economist) into a thread instread of responding appropriately.
q
You actually expect people here to realign their thinking about taxes applied to the superrich because of some things Arthur Laffer said? The laughable creator of the Laffer Curve that deceitfully rationalized Reaganomics? Is he still presenting his profound wisdom on paper napkins? It's quite clear you're here to stump for the very rich. Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here.
"It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates."
What a joke of an argument! This is what you get when you just repeat arguments without thought.
- Two of those states derive a significant amount of income from oil and gas that they can get away without income taxes. People would come to develop the oil and gas reserves whether or not they had oil and gas or not.
- The largest of those states shares a long border with Mexico and has a large immigration community from Mexico and others south of it. They would come whether or not an income tax was in the state.
- One of those states is primarily desert and arid and the state has been able to live off the taxation on gambling revenue. That state currently had the highest unemployment rate in the nation in July, 14.4%
- If you add up the population of three of those states, they still don't add up to the population of the city I live in. In other words, they are statistically insignificant to the argument.
Not to mention that the rich can cherry pick the states and nations where they carry on select activities. They purchase and base their yachts and aircraft in states or nations that have no sales tax, incorporate in Jersey...
I would differ with you in that "they are statistically insignificant to the argument" is incorrect - due to the way out Senate works, each state gets 6 votes in the senate, where as your city gets none, and your state gets only 2, no matter what the population difference.
I'm not saying it's right, just never a good idea to underestimate your opposition who game the system.
The rich don't make more money by "working harder". Good joke, though. No, the rich make more money by simply increasing their own pay for the same work, as the law allows, and by collecting interest on their existing wealth. In other words, to be blunt, they take it from others who actually do the work and end up getting paid less. And did you notice that the national debt went way up during the Bush years, after taxes were cut?
Yeah "History shows" that round of tax cuts started back in Reagans day really "socked it to the rich". You can find such Books in the "Alternative History" section of any good Fantasy bookstore alongside multiple versions of "Had Hitler only won the war" and "The South whupped the North and become a nation in its own right".
As to the work harder bit...Do you have evidence of such from "History" ?
I resent the rich. Thanks for helping me process Troll.
Nonsense. There is far, far too much financial capital in the world. The financial markets are far too big relative to real economies, the world over. The vast majority of that financial wealth is based on nothing but debt, has little to no relation to the real economy and actual production. As the poster said bellow, wealth inequality has exploded over the last 40 or so years, which explains why the rich pay so much in taxes, it helps to show the rising inequality. Giving the rich tax breaks gives them more money to use for speculation. There is no evidence what so ever that they will invest productively, they've been sitting on trillions for years and won't invest it domestically until living standards are drastically cut and we allow capitalists to destroy the environment.
The only thing that will help the real economy is increasing wages and profits, relative to debt. In other words, wages for workers and profits for industrial capital (whose debt has exploded in recent decades as well, thanks to the financialization of the economy) have to increase relative to the debt it owes to financial capital. How can you do both in today's economy? How do you increase wages and create a "good investment climate" for financial capital? Seems that something has to give, and so far it has been the real economy being gutted for the benefit of financial capital.
Besides, how did most of these people get so damn rich anyway? Inheritance is a big factor. They also monopolized the work of other people or rolled the dice in today's casino capitalism, the financial markets. If you invest money in a company and that company makes a good profit, part of which goes towards your dividend, YOU didn't earn the money. The people at that company did, you just monopolized the value of what they created. Giving how much inequality has grown, and seeing how much we rely on debt as a result of stagnating wages, it doesn't seem to be sustainable. Something has to radically change. How we divide up the surplus created by industry and society has to change and become more equitable, or all hell is going to break lose.
HORACE and the Karl Rove talking points. You create a false dichotomy for one thing; and as to the jealousy nonsense, how about the statistics... the ones that show that 1% of America's wealthiest have taken a vastly disproportionate piece out of the American apple pie since tax cuts have favored them for the past 30 years starting with Ronald Reagan's reverse Robin Hood incentives.
One wonders if Democratic voters will ever come to the same realization that Sirota has and that is to understand that no real change is forthcoming from the Democrats. If they do achieve that epiphany, will they then finally desert the Democrats en masse or will they continue to masochistically place their trust and hope in a party that has, time after time, betrayed the hopes and dreams of the working class and the poor whenever the opportunity presents itself in order to enrich the coffers of the vested interests.
I hear a WHIIIIIIINE! How about putting forth a realistic solution instead, Erroll?
Pols have a public responsibility to follow and you should be ashamed of yourself for shielding them of their irresponsible and reckless governing. You cannot go lecturing others to come up with their own solution when pols are working against the people and for the elites. Apparently, you are in DENIAL MODE about the Democrat Party ABUSING you and the rest of us.
Very well said, Jennifer B.
Thank you Erroll. It looks like the Joe Plumber Horaces and the Obamabot billyboys of this nation never cease to dominate the voting booths election after election. Principled thinking let alone on a solid progressive level just doesn't get through to them. They could get worse after the election is over.
Yikes! The rich work harder when taxes are lower? Taxing those who work and giving the money to those who don't? On what planet do you reside?
I suppose there was no economic growth or prosperity in the U.S. back when we (1)imposed tariffs on foreign-manufactured goods to compensate for the lower prices derived from manufacturing in countries where there was, for all practical purposes, slave labor and no environmental or labor safety laws with which to contend; and (2)income tax rates on the wealthy that reached 90-something percent? You know, the late 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s.
And why are countries like Sweden and Switzerland MORE competitive, economically, than the U.S.? Why don't all those poor, over-taxed, over-regulated companies not just relocating to the American south? Why do something like 95% of registered (D)s and - here's the interesting part - 92% of registered (R)s pick Sweden (without realizing they're picking Sweden, when shown income distribution models and asked, "where would you rather live?"
Gimme me a break. if you're gonna troll, at least have something intelligent to offer.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
"Democrats, just congenitally, tend to (see) the glass as half empty," President Barack Obama said last month.
Even an empty glass is always full -- of air.
And foul and pestilential air at that.
I'm beginning to think that the Democratic party needs some strong medicine if it is to be awakened from its current malaise.
Why should I vote for a party whose Senate president has taken his majority and handed the agenda to Mitch McConnell? What kind of leadership is that?
Why are they deferring the tax vote until after the election? Are they afraid someone might accuse them of standing for something? It's a strategy that betrays enormous weakness, and it will backfire big time.
I'm no fan of Harry Reid's opponent, but if I lived in Nevada I might succumb to a perverse temptation to vote for her.
In the current throw-the-rascals-out mentality, it may just be the strong medicine the Democrats need to see Reid's clock get cleaned. Maybe then they will come to the realization that if you don't stand for anything, nobody is going to want you to be in charge.
A couple of questions you put up
1) Why defer?
Democratic strategy appears to push eliminating tax cuts into next year for fear of losing too many "independent" non-party voters today. Saying stop whining (old guy Biden, not Barack 'half-[gl]ass' Obama) and look to the accomplishments is intended to buttress and corral the Party base to show up. So the strategy tells us two things: 1) they are worried about losing the young bloc and the independent bloc; 2)they expect yellow dogs to get in line.
2)Reid, why vote for him or his opponent?
An Angle vote sounds like a "gut vote" and a "anti-establishment" vote than a strategic vote. A kind of chess move that results in losing a rook for a pawn while holding absolutely no ground, nor securing any potential future move. Her radical, hard line views on the US Constitution, her simplistic use of political power for petty gain (see black HS football jerseys), her unusually amateurish handling of the Senate campaign trail, lead me to believe (apart from fundamental philosophical differences with her), she would be absolutely reckless in DC and Nevada would suffer.
But, if my opinion was riddance of Reid would be some form of a coup -knocking the head of the Senate off his mantel-- and the risk was worth the sensation (appearance) of gained power, I would argue one need look at the overall impact when Daschle was toppled. What was lost, what was gained?
Consequently, reports are stating the new chief of staff appears to be Peter Rouse, Daschle's former aide, aka "101st Senator".
Of course Angle's views are radical. She's not the issue. Harry Reid as majority leader is the issue. If Reid wins, nothing changes. Mitch McConnell will still call the shots in the Senate. If Reid loses, it may encourage someone with some leadership ability (not just skill at insider Senate manipulation) to use the position as a bully pulpit to take on the Republicans and play like you want to win. That may be pure fantasy on my part, but maintaining the status quo has gotten us nowhere.
If putting up with Angle is the trade-off necessary to resuscitate the Democrats, I'd make that trade in a heartbeat.
If Reid(NV), Murray(WA), Bennett(C0), Blumenthal(CT),Giannoulias(IL) lose, then Republicans like McConnell will have more than the appearance of power. Angle will become an issue at that point.
Second: You argue nothing changes with Reid in power-- and thus, indicate the vote to put Obama and Democratic Party into power yielded absolutely no change. And yet the argument for change was the purpose behind voting for Obama and the Democratic Party. Therefore, it is highly dubious, and perhaps fantastical --according to your view--- to think voting Reid out of power would have an influence on future politics: voting them into power had no impact, why would voting them out have an impact? Again, I enter in the Daschle effect. What happened?
Voting Reid out of power is amplified when/if the above Senate seats are lost to Republicans. I obviously disagree with the tactics because GOP clearly state what they intend to do once given power. There is little evidence to indicate an _absence_ of (Democratic) power will result in a stronger _presence_ of (progressive) power.
Out of curiosity, have you ever voted out of protest, monkeywrenching etc? Did you entertain the idea of voting for McCain in 2008? Bush in 2004?
I wasn't advocating throwing all of them out.
I'm talking only about the Nevada seat. Reid's seat. Because he's ineffective.
Sure there is risk involved. My objective is stronger Democratic Senate leadership because if Reid is re-elected he's not about to give up his position, and nobody's about to tell him the emperor has no clothes.
This doesn't have anything to do with the White House. Obama has two more years to get his act together.
No. I haven't -- and would not -- vote for a Bush or McCain. With a choice between the evil of two lessers, I'd vote for the change guy who so far has failed at changing much of anything.
I understand your points, you've made them very clear. What I disagree with is your conclusions. I thought the chess analogy would make sense to you; it did not.
Your objective for a stronger senator will fail because your single-minded goal to take out Reid will be met with other single-mindedness in several other states, "teaching all those establishment Democrats a lesson", all under the belief they are operating independently.
Your objective is to create an absence of power under the false belief a presence of power will manifest a priori.
The end result will be tossing the senate into the hands of the Republicans and directly impacting Obama's ability to govern effectively because the House is going to be lost to the Republicans. You say such strategy doesn't have anything to do with the WH-- you are flatly wrongheaded.
You do not see the cause and effect and yet proclaim you wouldn't vote for McCain. I obviously do not have the talent to illustrate the paradox.
Best of luck trying to persuade people to your objective. I will do otherwise.
My objective is not to create an absence of power. It is precisely the opposite. You seem to think that if Reid goes down all other Democrats will go down, too. I don't agree with that scenario.
Let's do it your way: Let's re-elect Reid. Reid returns as the majority leader. Mitch McConnell continues to call the shots because Harry Reid has capitulated on every major issue before the Senate. What makes you think he will act any differently after November? How does that help Obama's ability to govern effectively? Upon what track record would you like to defend that claim?
Unless you can persuade the Democrats to replace Reid as majority leader, nothing will change. The party of No will continue to impede the President's ability to get anything meaningful done.
They are all a bunch of SOBs, the limosine democrats worse of all.
Next time you vote, vote Green Party. There is no confusion or whining about what needs to get done.
"There is no confusion or whining about what needs to get done."
But neither is there the leadership of the funding to do anything about what needs to be done. Get real.
You say "neither is there the leadership of the funding to do anything about what needs to be done." In other words, we have no power or money. Right. That is what is wrong. That is why we fight.
Of course all of the power and money are held by the people with all of the power and money, and they act to protect the interests of the people with all of the power and money. That is the problem.
You may as well say "you have no power because you have no power, and those with no power are therefore wrong. I side with those who have power, because they have power, so I am right."
That is not a very intelligent line of argumentation you are using there.
The next time you vote, consider who are the Democrat Party's chief funders: the labor unions and the plaintiffs' trial lawyers. Any surprise that the teachers' unions oppose any real reform in education, such as charter schools and vouchers to allow inner-city parents to do what's best for their children? Any surprise that the "reform" legislation such as Dodd-Frank does more to create fodder for plaintiffs' lawsuits than to address the real issues, such as stopping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from once again fostering the growth of a subprime mortgage market, which led to foreclosures and helped to fuel the economic collapse? Any surprise that in the automobile bailout the UAW workers got 100% coverage while the othe, non-union automobile company workers, not to mention the taxpayers, got short shrift?
"The next time you vote, consider who are the Democrat Party's chief funders: the labor unions and the plaintiffs' trial lawyers."
Which proves the point, eh? Labor unions--workers of all kinds, really--and plaintiffs' lawyers have been absolutely screwed by the Dems in most jurisdictions, state and fed.
As to the rest of your comment, you spew nonsense. Teachers' unions oppose charter schools because they use public money to fund private schools that siphon the "better" (usually meaning "most compliant") students, whilst placing all special ed and other more expensive students on a now-decimated, underfunded public school system. You need to rail against the corporations, man. Leave the humans out of it.
Cause, see, they share real, human interests with you.
They're ON YOUR SIDE.
Peace.
Maybe Horace is wealthy. Then organized Labor would not be on his side, and he is arguing for his interests and at least that is consistent and logical. That is more than we can say for a lot of people among Dems, liberals, and progressives who are not in the least bit clear as to which side they are on.
The rich need more money, then I'll get some. This troll has opened my eyes.
OK, so you are a right winger. Why not calmly debate your side?
Or are you going to tell us that you are a Democrat, or a liberal, or a progressive? I guess anyone can "be" those, and it doesn't matter where you stand or what you say. Then we can spend the next 20 years arguing what those words "really" mean, and who gets to use them.
You cannot possibly argue - with a straight face - that the opinions you just expressed in your post are not right wing opinions, can you?
The "whiner" comments from Obama, Biden, Gibbs, Emmanuel, et. al. are having their desired effect.
I will not vote for any of them in the coming election.
We will see about the future. But as it stands now I really never want to vote for a Democrat again.
I guess they don't care about me or my vote.
We'll see how they feel about that after the November results.
If Obama and Biden were in front of me right now, I'd spit on them.
Mordechai, if I'm there, you'd better get out of the way as soon as you spit, because I'm next!