Stop with the morning after angst...this budget fight was the last six months of last year's budget.

[Skidmore]

A new one is on the horizon for this year's budget. Let us focus because we will be in the fray again and very soon. We need a plan and we need a way to get Dem pols on board.

[Skidmore]

1. Wow! I guess everyone thinks the next round is going to be smooth

sailing. So let's revel in angst about this week. Forget about what comes next. Who needs to organize when you can just wring your hands and berate the heavens.

[sendero]

2. Yeah.

.... let's keep our powder dry.

Let me make it clear and make a simple prediction based on what has happened EVERY SINGLE TIME the Dems tangle with the Repugs since Obama took office over money.

They CAPITULATE. They FOLD. They CAVE. And if you think that after capitulating, folding and caving over and over that suddenly the Repub are going to back down or the Dems are going to grow a pair, well, you are delusional.

I have no dog in this hunt. Whether they cut 40 billion or 400 billion it is not going to affect my life one bit.

But I feel sad for those to whom it does matter, and sadder still for those in that group who can still successfully delude themselves into thinking they are the remotest care of this administration.

[Skidmore]

3. I would argue that as a citizen you do have a dog in this hunt.

What affects the least of us affects us all. AND I'm not talking about Dem politicians being organized. I'm talking about coordination between the grassroots and some appropriately applied pressure.

[sendero]

4. A very small dog..

.. sure if society collapses that will affect me. But way less than you.

I'm tired of the rah rah "next time" bullshit. We got rolled over and over and when the big budget is done we'll get rolled again. Your savior has feet of clay and the sooner you come to grips with that the better.

[Skidmore]

5. That is stunningly callous.

[sendero]

13. It is outrageously ..

.... factual, and I'm sick to death of people who cannot or will not deal with the FACTS.

[Obamanaut]

6. Since there's no reelection worries for them this year, might it be possible

for them (congress) to get started on the budget for fiscal 2012 (Oct 1, 2011) BEFORE Oct 1, 2011?

They (congress) didn't do anything with this last one until the new people were sworn in, because they didn't want a budget distraction to interfere with their reelection campaigns. What excuse can they have this year?

For the life of me, I cannot understand how so many of them can be reelected time after time, especially amidst the complaining 'we the people' do concerning their lack of production. It always comes down to voting for 'the name you know.'

[DCBob]

7. No doubt the 2012 budget and debt ceiling negotiations are going be even uglier..

much uglier.. imo.

[bluestate10]

16. Democrats must attach riders to eliminate programs that democrats have

been fighting to eliminate for decades, like farm subsidies for all crops, even crops that are not needed in the volumes produced, or the oil depletion allowance, or removal of federal tax monies that are used to lure businesses to states, or a rider that legislate that no SS recipient can get more than 110% of that was paid in annually. All of the provisions will hammer states that send republicans to Congress in large numbers, while having minimal to no impact on states that send democrats to Congress. Put the shoe on the other foot, instead of being pressed to defend spending that produces social benefits, democrats must force republicans to go on record defending spending that has no social benefit, and in fact, which has a negative social benefit.

[Armstead]

8. But will the same thing happen next time? Probably. That's why the angst.

[Skidmore]

9. I don't think there has been a whole lot of organization on this side

until the beginnings of it take place only at the moment of crisis. We are not proactive because we spend so much time kneecapping each other.

[Armstead]

11. The difference between our kneecapping and theirs

They actually have a consistent set of principles. THe only real difference between the Teabaggers and the GOP Moderates is one of degree. The ideological goals of the GOP leadership and the their base are the same.

They may do their share of internal kneecapping over strategy and pace, but they are all moving in the same direction.

Democrats have no shared ideological goals We have the corporate centrists who are going in one direction, while the liberal base has a different set of goals.

And thus we pull in a self- defeating circle, which ultimately means the conservatism of the GOP wins.

The only that will change is if the Democratic Party actually becomes the liberal party...Then at least we'd agree on the same goals while we kneecap each other.

[bluestate10]

19. Why not have the democratic party become a centrist party.

You use buzzwords that belie your bias, "corporate centrists". I am a centrist democrat. I am worlds apart from centrist republicans in my societal and world views. I have neither like nor respect for conservative republicans and teabaggers. How do you conclude that liberals like you would be more effective than centrists like me at stopping republican bullshit? If you looked deeply into your perspective, maybe you would see what to me are some fallacies with ideas and strategies that you espouse.

[Armstead]

20. Depends on how you want to define centrist

Centrist on it's own is actually a meaningless term -- the current use is a form of corporate conservatism.

To me there is a big difference between what I call a corporate centrist and a moderate liberal.

A moderate liberal agrees with more leftish progressives on Basic goals and issues, although they differ in degree or extent.

But the corporate centrist (so called) Democrsts are pulling in a different direction.

For example, Repealing financial regulation in the 1990's by the Democrat Centrists in league with the GOP is not really centrist in the least. It was a gift to the Wall St. Corporate Monopoly Oligarchs. And it ruined the e economy and knocked the slats out from under the middle class and smaller businesses.

That is what I mean by the difference. Your mileage may vary.

[Armstead]

21. Depends on how you want to define centrist

Centrist on it's own is actually a meaningless term -- the current use is a form of corporate conservatism.

To me there is a big difference between what I call a corporate centrist and a moderate liberal.

A moderate liberal agrees with more leftish progressives on Basic goals and issues, although they differ in degree or extent.

But the corporate centrist (so called) Democrsts are pulling in a different direction.

For example, Repealing financial regulation in the 1990's by the Democrat Centrists in league with the GOP is not really centrist in the least. It was a gift to the Wall St. Corporate Monopoly Oligarchs. And it ruined the e economy and knocked the slats out from under the middle class and smaller businesses.

That is what I mean by the difference. Your mileage may vary.

[bluestate10]

17. Democrats have wanted to eliminate wasteful spending for decades.

What has to happen is that democrats must attach riders to bills that kills wasteful spending programs every time republicans attach riders that kill affective programs. The problem so far is that democrats in the House, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, have allowed republicans to willy nilly attach toxic riders to bills that the Senate must clean up, or if it can't, President Obama must get involved to clean up. The critics on DU rightfully hit President Obama on renewal of tax cuts for the rich and ultra rich, he should have just allowed the entire package to expire, then force republicans to fund job creation efforts and jobless worker benefits to get some of the tax cuts back. If Pelosi had not backed President Obama into a corner with an ill advised bill to maintain middle class tax cuts, maybe President Obama would have had more room during tax cut negotiations with republicans. What has to happen is that republicans in the House can't be allowed to laden bills with toxins for effective programs without a response from democrats eliminating wasteful programs that republicans cherish, in particular southern and interior west republicans.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. there seem to be 3 choices (and gray areas in between)

1) cuts cuts and more cuts to try and keep the deficit from growing as fast as it has been

2) let the deficit grow without any attempt to slow it

3) tax increases to help pay for the things we spend money on




The problem with #1 is that social programs seem to be the easiest for those in power to cut, even though these cuts do more harm than good. These cuts just make things worse, not to mention the real harm done to actual human beings.

The problems with #2 should be obvious. Weaker dollar, lower credit rating, increased interest payments and the need to inevitably pay what has been spent.

The problem with #3 is that the Bush tax cuts have already been extended until the end of 2012 and there isn't any way to get tax increases through a House with an (R) majority.



Everyone seems to be gearing up for the arguments they want to make in 2012. We are all screwed with this budget, and the next. With Tea Party support down to 22% (in a recent poll) and dropping we can hope that a strong (D) showing in 2012 can help reverse this trend and we can start to do what needs to be done early in 2013. Until then I just don't see any politically viable way to address these problems that any of us can stomach.

[Skidmore]

12. Is there a way to force the budget out there? Get it on the table.

I'm sick of decisions being tied an election cycle schedule.

[riderinthestorm]

14. Which budget? The fix they just negotiated, or the next one?

I have to admit, Pelosi and Reid did warn of just this scenario last fall but 1. FIRST EXCUSE: election fever meant that NOBODY would tackle it until the new reps were in position (and the country's "mood" established). 2. SECOND EXCUSE; once the new reps were in position and the Rethugs felt they were more powerful, they smelled blood in the water and held EVERYTHING up with filibuster threats about tax cuts for the wealthy until the year ran out. Obama just barely managed to squeak by getting the unemployment bennies retained and a few other miscellaneous items but the budget was far, far from realistically debated. 3. NOW WE COME TO THIS: Obama clearly feels as though he was a good negotiator as he swept $78 billion off the budget. Yay! he saved EPA and Planned Parenthood. Is anyone really fooled??!!


You just know that the 2012 election cycle is already in play for the next big hard decision and ALL of these jokers are going to play their kabuki theatre roles again until it becomes a crisis. I too am sick of it.

[bluestate10]

18. I do not agree with you. There is no need to wait until 2012.

Democrats in the House allow republicans to attach riders to bills that cut effective programs while those same democrats make no attempt to attach riders cutting wasteful programs that republicans fight to keep. As long as that dynamic happens, do not expect even an overwhelming majority for democrats in the House to make a difference. What must happen is that democrats must put riders into bills and remove them only when republicans remove their riders. House democrats must revamp their leadership. They must remove Pelosi, the #2 democrat, the #3 democrat and leadership people like Chris Van Hollen and replace those people with fighters like Marci Kaptur and the Congresswoman from a suburb of Chicago, both women are sharp witted and seem tough as nails. Democrats must keep Congress members like Heath Shuler out of leadership, if he wants to turn republican, let him, democrats can run a real North Carolina democrat against Shuler and try to defeat him.

[bluestate10]

15. The angst is not over what the budget was as much as it is over the

perception that democrats are allowing republicans to push them around and were only saved by occasional Boehner's bouts of sanity. The majority of republicans have more to loose if true budget cutting happens because they hail from poorly educated, poor, red states that depend heavily on federal aid to exist. Democrats must give up the urge to protect programs reflexively and examine whether a program existing helps of hurt democrats and voters that elect them. If republicans attach riders to eliminate Planned Parenthood, democrats must attach riders to the same bill that eliminates farm subsidies for certain crops. If republicans attach a rider that eliminates job training programs, democrats must attach a rider that eliminates future farmers of america funding. If republicans attach a rider that eliminates funds for mass transit, democrats must attach a rider that eliminates funds for dredging of sand from shipping channels. If republicans attach a rider that eliminates funding for EPA enforcement activity, democrats must attach a rider that eliminates the oil depletion allowance. The angst is about one party gouging out eyeballs in getting bills to a vote that are filled with toxic provisions, while the other party strategizes about what it has to trade off once the toxic laden bills come up for a vote. If republicans are loading bills up with toxic riders, democrats must use the same tactic to eliminate wasteful programs that republicans fight tooth and nail to keep funded, and in all cases, increase funding to.