A question to anti-compromise Democrats....

[Joe the Revelator]

What is your plan?

And I'm not talking some pie in the sky bullshit plan that has no chance of getting through congress, because we should all be able to agree that there is no alternative to not raising the debt ceiling. We should also agree that the other party at the negotiating table is crazy but powerful. Powerful because they hold a house of congress,and have a contingent of crazy, stupid people who elected them.

What would be your compromise? Because at the end of the day, that's how politics work. You can't just stand on ideals and hope everyone eventually agrees with you.

[muntrv]

1. It's "pie in the sky." Not "ski."

[Joe the Revelator]

2. Sorry about that....touch screen....

I'm going to go back to posting on a laptop.

[creeksneakers2]

3. Some pie in the sky in exchange for some of theirs

I could understand some cuts in entitlements if there were some tax increases and defense was drastically cut too.

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Doesn't the gang of six plan contain a trillion in tax increases? (serious question....

...I've been on the road since yesterday morning,and while I've listened to a lot of NPR during that time, I could be wrong).

[BumRushDaShow]

5. It was supposedly 75% cuts vs 25% revenue... n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

7. That seems like a sensible place to start...again, i think they key component here is....

...we're being forced to negotiate with powerful idiots.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Exactly. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

28. NPR is way off

The proponents are calling it a $1.5 trillion tax cut. That's calculated using a guideline that assumes the Bush tax cuts would expire. Taken from current taxes, they claim its a $1 trillion increase. But it slashes taxes for the rich and cuts most of the deductions ordinary people get. And it hasn't been scored by the CBO. It looks at face value like a bigger tax cut than advertised. It cuts the top rate by 35%. It exempts all income multinationals earn abroad and slashes the corporate tax rate. Unless they are planning to get a big chunk of money from the bottom of the pyramid, it looks like a big tax cut overall.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. False premise.

"You can't just stand on ideals and hope everyone eventually agrees with you."

I can stand on ideals and I don't give a rip if everyone agrees with me.

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Ok, maybe i should have titled this thread "Question for anti-compromise Democrats who...

...would still like to get things done."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Get what things done? Cut benefits for the old and ill?

"Compromise" sounds nice if your neck isn't on the chopping block under the politicians' axe. It's like the military saying, "Sacrifice few to save many." Sounds great...unless you're part of the few.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. This is the congress we have. These are the problems we're facing. What the fuck are we going to do?

Nobody wants to raise the COLA level on SS.....but what would you rather we tinker with? What's your idea of a good plan?

[Doctor_J]

26. No one wants to cut SS benefits, but the president put it on the

table before your beloved negotiations began

[TheKentuckian]

30. Probably nothing would be the wise course at the moment unless something

that is actually constructive can be done.

What is the obsession with "doing something"? You fight to do things that will help rather than harm.

The bitter compromise is that the age is not be lowered. The answer is fuck no, no plan required, not votes needed.

Give em a Hank Paulson one page bill and tell them the world is going to end and they killed America. You know, the usual hustle when they really want something and call the debt ceiling a day.

Since we all know they have to raise the damn thing, stop fucking placating them.

[Joe the Revelator]

33. Because the harm from default is larger then the harm from a COLA adjustment to S/S

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. The US Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street oppose default

Those are the mainstream and Conservative Republican puppetmasters. The Tea Party fringe might balk but between Dems and the other Repubs we can avoid default. However the non Tea Party Repubs are trying to placate the Tea Party Reps, and so they play brinksmanship to see how much they can get the Dems to cave. And Obama is giving them lots of reasons to push for an unequal deal. The first person to start seriously pushing for a 4 Trillion $$$ deal with Medicare & Social Security and Medicaid on the table was Obama. Before thta a deal half that size was the focus of talks.

I seriously believe Obama wants credit for being the President who "put entitilement programs on a sound fiscal funding" by cutting back on what people were previously promised, calling that a victory for the American people. If he would back off this could be solved.

[TheKentuckian]

53. What default? Fake emergency that we all know the TeaPubliKlans

won't be allowed to go through with?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Stop the wars. Cut, make that slash, "defense" spending, raise taxes on the wealthy

and corporations.

And, teach Obama that he has the power to "make things happen" through the use of the veto pen.

What "we" can do is hold their feet to the fire by threatening not to vote for the bastards and mean it.

As it is, we have a handful of people holding the populace hostage and demanding that we pay protection money to preserve a failed system of government of the poor supporting the rich.

[Joe the Revelator]

49. How is cutting defense going to get the bill through the house?

That's the issue. Its not, "what would you cut", its "what dear to you would you sacrifice to save the country from the Republican's stupidity."

[Pholus]

60. You know, Joe, the problem is that we aren't HEARING our ideals, even as a starting point.

We started with the ball 30 yards towards our own goal and now we're negotiating away the last 20 yards. You want this to sound like we're being unrealistic. We're not.

We WANTED a starting position of: 100% tax increases (actually we wanted the Bush tax cuts expired too, but that got "held hostage" as well in exactly the same manner, complete with last minute deadline).

Unreasonable? Hell yes! Unrealistic? Absolutely. But then again the other side stuck to their 100% unreasonable demands and guess what, they're going to get them too. Basically because we started with 80% cuts and 20% taxes and the compromise will be higher than 80% cuts and lower than 20% taxes. And we'll sit around and pathetically talk about the "art of the possible" and pat ourselves on the back with a deal that simply institutionalizes the ongoing creation of a mega-elite.

But you know how you would get around that? The President has a bully pulpit. Get out there, make your case, sell the American people. Make the money guys squirm a bit. Call them on their BS. Roosevelt did fireside chats. Why can't the President get his word out there a few minutes a week? I hear he's a bang-up speaker when he needs to be.

Instead, we fall into this crisis. For crying out loud we were predicting this very event back in January at the State of the Union. Are we really that much smarter at predicting crises than the White House?

Or is it easier to give away the store when your back is against the wall?

So my PLAN Joe, is about a year to eighteen months ago OUR PEOPLE (who should have been smart enough to see this coming) start crying about taxes being too low compared to historical trends. We repeat it every chance we get. Every Sunday Gasbag show, every question gets used as a way to segue off onto how taxes are too low. Once in a while we highlight some Cayman-island based company, especially ones who wave the flag a lot and show how we're paying higher taxes or going into debt for their bottom line. We pass some "made by USA taxpayer" bonuses or back a law that gives preferential awarding of contracts based on taxes paid TO THE US TREASURY last year. Call anyone who questions it the enemy of Joe Sixpack or a member of the GLOBAL FINANCIAL ELITE bent on destroying the citizens' ownership of the US through debt. Schmaltzy? Yup, but it would grab the media's attention.

For too long we've let the right wing meme stand that Government is the problem. The counter message is that this government is, and always has been, owned by the people. Yes, we're rugged individualists -- but we're rugged individualists who built a country together. Those words are also best said with a flag flapping in the background and a group humming God Bless America but as cheesy as that sounds that is also the way I feel about it and honestly the way most people feel. Our country is great because we own it. Our country is great BECAUSE we don't let the social Darwinists have their way! In America, our less fortunate are cared for. That's WHY we're number one.

Every failure gets explained away by saying -- look there would have been this reserve of money if the tax rates were fair but now we're paying the price for it. Warren Buffett's words are a great counter to cries of "Class Warfare."

In other words, Joe, my plan would have been to do EXACTLY what the Republicans did to us. And guess what? They won so my plan is a good one.

Edit: Any evil plan needs refinement. Added some details.

[leftstreet]

10. Guess the Dems should have gone balls out when they had the majority

Passed Single Payer
Doubled Minimum wage
Lowered the retirement age to 50
Doubled SS pymts .....

Then when the evil GOPers took the House the Dems would be negotiating from a stronger Left position

OH WAIT...the GOP wouldn't have gotten back in

[Joe the Revelator]

12. I agree with this, whats frustrating is some many who seem to think that a...

Dem majority is still a reality.

[BulletproofLandshark]

13. But don't you remember the DU Centrist battle cry from back then?

"Waaahh! We don't have the votes!"

[Joe the Revelator]

20. Even our majority was weak.

[Kaleva]

16. I doubt that would have made it thru the Senate.

[leftstreet]

22. But Wall Street bailouts did? I'm shocked n/t

[riderinthestorm]

15. Obama has the ultimate ace card. He can drop the atom bomb, invoke the 14th Amendment

So he COULD start there in his negotiations - just tell the shitheads that won't negotiate that he's STARTING from the premise that he needs a clean vote on the debt ceiling or he'll drop the bomb and take away any Congressional input on the debt ceiling by decreeing it's unconstitutional.

It's not that people are "anti-compromise" Dems. It's that it's really bad negotiating to start the process by giving up 50% of what you want right off the bat. It smells, badly. Obama's initial cave that the Big 3 are open to cuts indicated to me that he wasn't even starting at the point of fair compromise.

Many DUers are interpreting that anger as 'anti-compromise" but what it really is is a betrayal of core Dem values. That's very, very different and not at all "pie in the sky" pony bullshit.

[Joe the Revelator]

18. The 14th amendment is not viable, and even if it was, you go nuclear as a last resort...

...not at the beginning of negotiations.

He invokes that, the next 5 years will either have a republican president at the helm, or we'll spend that time dealing with a completely deadlocked congress debating impeachment. The 14th amendment is way too open for interpretation to be a sure thing. Especially with the current SCOTUS.

[riderinthestorm]

24. Sure it's viable. Even DLCer Bill Clinton recommends it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1526080

And I would stipulate we already have a Republican-lite president at the helm, and that we already have a completely deadlocked congress that threatens Obama with impeachment for no reason at all even now.

[Joe the Revelator]

31. Bill Clinton hasn't been sane since his heart surgery....

True story.

[riderinthestorm]

35. Oh, oh yeah, I'll take some anonymous internet poster's word for that.

:eyes:

Here's Chuck Grassley saying the same thing, a Republican.

Better?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/frank-dismisses-14th-amendment-option_n_892492.html

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. Sixth.

[girl gone mad]

17. There is no need to compromise.

The President holds all of the cards.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. Well, that statement just isn't true at all.

[girl gone mad]

25. It's the unadulterated truth.

They can send him a one page bill to sign or he can go the coin seigniorage route.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1531957

[Joe the Revelator]

29. That is probably the worst idea.....ever.

Inflation, doesn't address the purpose of the debt ceiling at all among other things.

[FreakinDJ]

41. Question being IS the Debt Ceiling Constitutional

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4927754&mesg_id=4927754

[girl gone mad]

48. It's an asset swap, not at all inflationary.

You'll have to try harder to come up with an excuse for why Obama would refuse to play this ace card.

We're the only sovereign currency country on the planet that even has a debt ceiling. It's a ridiculous political constraint for which there is no reasonable purpose.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

21. Just raise it

No strings attached

[Joe the Revelator]

23. Well, yeah, that would be awesome. But,how do you get that through the house?

[Hand_With_Eyes]

63. You dont make deals with the republicans at all

You tell them flatly and loudly, 'America will not give in to blackmailers and economic terrorists' and let the republicans do it. Either that or you invoke the 14th amendment. If the GOP controlled supreme court wants to collapse the economy it is on their shoulders.

You simply do NOT do business with blackmailers. Period.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. let them blink first.

Although as your assumptions is that we have to give the slash and burners what they want, you will reject all alternatives out of hand.

1. There is no debt crisis.
2. There will be an economic disaster of unknown scope if we default.

The Democratic Party should take EVERYTHING off the table until the debt ceiling is raised, no strings attached.

[The Big Vetolski]

32. Rely on the 14th Amendment and arrest anyone who questions the

full faith and credit of the United States Government on charges of treason. That is my opening bargaining position. You see, the debt ceiling has always been just a political ploy to reassure the ignoramuses who think that a government budget can be run like a household one. Call for eliminating the debt ceiling entirely and be done with it.

It would even have bipartisan support:
"Deficits don't matter."
--Dick Cheney

Then call the Republicans' bluff. Refuse to raise the ceiling at all if they don't cave to my demands. NO cutting Social Security or Medicare, but cut defense in half. Insist on raising taxes on billionaires, say, a 100% tax on anything more than a billion dollars in income because billionaires serve no useful purpose and should not have the right to exist. Then be willing to compromise at 90%. See how reasonable I am?

If they don't cave, and they will, because the investor class will order them to, but if they don't, let the stock and bond markets collapse. It won't hurt most Americans in the short term as the initial effect will be a rise in interest rates and most Americans don't get monthly money from stock and bond returns. Blame the Republicans. Nationalize the Wall Street banks if you have to. It won't come to that; they'll totally surrender first.

If they don't, well, I still have that treason charge. Shoot a few of them, and the rest will cave.

Think about it, this is a very moderate, centrist proposal. Harry Truman would have had no problem with it.

[Joe the Revelator]

34. I enjoyed the post.

:toast:

[mmonk]

36. A question for New Democrats. Why do you dishonestly call yourselves

progressives? Real progressives do not work to weaken and remove the only remaining legacies of progressivism.

[Common Sense Party]

61. Why don't you post that as a thread? n/t

[Bonobo]

38. I don't seem to remember the Dems being this powerful when they had 1 of the houses.

So what is our plan for what?

The crisis is self-made. It is classic "Shock Doctrine" tactics.

So what is our plan for compromising to solve a fake crisis? Is that what you mean?

[Joe the Revelator]

44. I don't understand the 'fake crisis" meme...

do those who subscribe to it really think there is no negative consequence to default?

[Bonobo]

51. Oh no, we understand that.

But the fact is that there are 2 better ways to solve that threat than by giving away the store:

1. Let them carry out the threat and take ALL the heat that comes with it -and it would be CONSIDERABLE.

2. Do what Clinton said. Raise the debt-limit through a presidential decree (or whatever its called) and let the courts try to challenge it.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Well Joe, if they are powerful due to holding one house

then it follows that we are more powerful, due to holding the Upper House and the House of Veto, the Executive. So what about that? Hmmmmmmm?

[Joe the Revelator]

46. We're looking at it differently....Dems are the ones who want the bill...

which means dems have to find a way to get it from through the lower house so that it can get to the senate and then the executive. The system is set up for compromise.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Joe, most everything is about compromise

You are the one that claimed they are very powerful because they hold one house. So, we hold one too, Joe. No 'different way to look at it'. We also hold the one and only Veto Pen on the Planet, muy powerful fucker it is too. We hold more cards than they do. The compromise should favor us to a huge extent. Because they have less power.
Your other problems is 'the bill'. Which bill is that? You claim 'Dems' want it. Show it to me. Do you mean the 4 page, number free outline that is the 'Gang of 6' tap dance? That is not a bill it is a idea about how to write a bill. Democrats do not even know what the President wants, and many should not be presumed to support cuts for the people and handouts to the rich for the sake of saying they passed something.
If you have more power, the will of the people as well, and you still get the short end of the deal, you are a hapless loser or complicit with the other side. Those are the choices.

[Joe the Revelator]

56. Again, you seem to think that the veto pen could somehow magic a bill into being....

The President can't decree things. As Bush said, 'it would be easier if he could'.

and by 'bill', I mean anything that raises the DC.

[kentuck]

43. If you were a poker player...?

Would you fold every time someone bet everything you had on the table? Sometimes you have to call a bet.

[Joe the Revelator]

47. Not if i had to throw my house in to stay in the game...just because republicans are treating ...

default like a game, doesn't mean that we should as well.

[Enrique]

45. "we have a plan. It's called Medicare."

Nancy Pelosi's line, though she'll probably go along with whatever Obama does.

[madfloridian]

52. They will never "compromise" in our favor. They don't need to do so.

They think they have effectively made us unnecessary.

Let them think that. They are in for a surprise.

Yes, I stand on ideals where some things are concerned. Do you have no ideals? If Obama says something is right do you go along with it even if it screws the elderly?

[Joe the Revelator]

58. If by giving up a little bit on my ideals, I could save the country from default...

...then i would understand the sacrifice

[rug]

54. Capitulation is not compromise.

[H2O Man]

55. You couldn't understand.

[Joe the Revelator]

57. ?

[bullwinkle428]

59. "Compromise" is one thing; giving them nearly every fucking thing they want

is another thing entirely.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. So Neville Chamberlain was pro-compromise and Churchill was anti-compromise

Well, we'd have to go with Chamberlain since he's the Reasonable, Serious, Adult.

Holy crap. Brilliant argument, Joe,

[Zorra]

64. You'd have a good point if Democrats had not worked so hard

at giving away their huge congressional majorities during the 2 years prior to the 2010 election.

Why were so many of us here screaming at Democrats and Democratic legislators that the country would go to hell and that they would lose their majority if they did not aggressively promote genuine progressive policy in the 2 years prior to the 2010 election?

1) Because it was the obvious best thing for the country, and there were no alternatives to progressive policy that could have been significantly beneficial to the country.

2) Because they would lose their majority if they did not aggressively promote genuine progressive policy.

Dems should have, and could have, ended the filibuster on Jan 22 2009 or relatively soon thereafter. I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking here, because I and many others believed this back then too. They could not possibly have been stupid enough to not know that the radical right was going to use the filibuster to block all beneficial progressive legislation.

Every Democrat needs to get it through their heads that the primary goal of the RW is to end democracy completely, privatize everything or almost everything, and have wealthy private RW interests enslave the majority of the American people.

Otherwise known as fascism.

Democrats need to take a stand against fascism.

But they won't, it's too late. They've already sold the farm.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt