The Dems are always in a civil war.

As a dem.. most of us sane ones could give a shiat less what the move on tards do.. There's a lunatic fringe in every party.

Get over it Move On and move on.

Stop with the racism.

It's been said that getting consensus among Democrats is like herding cats.

Will Rogers often said that he wasn't a member of an organized political party.  He was a Democrat.

Political disagreement within a political party is the price you pay for having a 'big tent' mentality.  Not everyone is going to agree on every issue.  And every group has a fringe movement within that group.

What separates the two parties, the GOP and the Democrats, is how each party deals with their fringe movement and how they deal with dissent with the 'party line'.

Democrats work with each other and tend not to freak out too much if any particular Democrat doesn't follow every tenet of the party line.  They realize that all politics are local and each member has to reassure their base and represent the basics of that base that got them elected.  Remember, Lieberman was a Democrat for ages and 'he' was closer to a Republican than anything else there at the end.

Republicans expunge and expel dissenters and rebels.  At best, they are cast to the sidelines and minimized and ignored.  Most often, lately, they're primaried by a Tea Party challenger at the first opportunity.

The fringe members of the Democrats are ignored and minimized but left alone and within the party, mostly being told to stop their dumb crap and try to act like adults.

The fringe members of the GOP are often their leading candidates for President and lead the charge to the hard-right and away from the electable 'middle'.

In short, as was stated above, the Democrats are in a constant state of 'civil war'.  It's a constant tug and pull by several groups at once that somehow manages to coalesce around their core values when the chips are down.

Because, when you get down to it, none of them want to see the GOP in power again.  Ever.

Not sure what the civil war here is supposed to be. These policies stink.

Civil war?

Oh yeah, that's Republicanese for "not everyone is falling robotically into line."

tenpoundsofcheese: Isn't the common comment here "we get it, he's black" when someone disagrees?

No, I think it's more like "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH 0bammy BAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!1!  LIBRULLLLSSSSS BAAAAAAAAD!!!  WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!"

You did mean the "conservative" comment, right?

Infernalist: Because does his love of arugula justify air time on Fox?  Or his enjoyment of mustard?

OMG Michelle Obama wants kids to not get fat and die of diabeetus by age 25! WTF is her problem!?!

... so vote Republican.

The President is proposing taking a knife to the social safety net programs only weeks after saving the "temporary" Bush tax cuts from ever expiring?

How not at all surprising. Both parties are owned by the obscenely wealthy and have been for some time.

There is a small contingent of real liberals in the House, at least.

Like the Democratic Party isn't always engaged in infighting.  It isn't dominated by networks and a party administration passing out talking points every day.  People actually think for themselves.

And it doesn't take much thinking to realize this is a stupid farking proposal that should have never been made.  Cutting SS won't fix the deficit because it runs on completely separate funding sources, cutting SS won't fix it's own deficit, only removing the cap on taxes will do that, and since he was dumb enough to propose it, it's likely to end up in a "deal" with the GOP in exchange for absolutely nothing.

It is an incredibly stupid farking proposal and the President deserves to have the entire left level broadsides at him for it.

Infernalist: It's been said that getting consensus among Democrats is like herding cats.

Will Rogers often said that he wasn't a member of an organized political party.  He was a Democrat.

Political disagreement within a political party is the price you pay for having a 'big tent' mentality.  Not everyone is going to agree on every issue.  And every group has a fringe movement within that group.

What separates the two parties, the GOP and the Democrats, is how each party deals with their fringe movement and how they deal with dissent with the 'party line'.

Democrats work with each other and tend not to freak out too much if any particular Democrat doesn't follow every tenet of the party line.  They realize that all politics are local and each member has to reassure their base and represent the basics of that base that got them elected.  Remember, Lieberman was a Democrat for ages and 'he' was closer to a Republican than anything else there at the end.

Republicans expunge and expel dissenters and rebels.  At best, they are cast to the sidelines and minimized and ignored.  Most often, lately, they're primaried by a Tea Party challenger at the first opportunity.

The fringe members of the Democrats are ignored and minimized but left alone and within the party, mostly being told to stop their dumb crap and try to act like adults.

The fringe members of the GOP are often their leading candidates for President and lead the charge to the hard-right and away from the electable 'middle'.

In short, as was stated above, the Democrats are in a constant state of 'civil war'.  It's a constant tug and pull by several groups at once that somehow manages to coalesce around their core values when the chips are down.

Because, when you get down to it, none of them want to see the GOP in power again.  Ever.

TL;DR version:  Dems put their fringe members in the back of the bus.  The GOP lets their fringe members drive.

Infernalist: All they have to do to dispel those cries of racism is actually point at something worth getting furious over and say "That's why we hate him."

It's also quite worth pointing out that the GOP didn't say a single peep when their Hero of the Week, Ben Carson, directly said that every single Democrat who doesn't agree with him is a straight up racist.

Calm down subby the black guy President is proposing it. It's not going anywhere.

But Boehner said he and the president were never able to reach an agreement because Obama's "offers never lived up to his rhetoric," a reality he said still exists.

brigid_fitch: TL;DR version:  Dems put their fringe members in the back of the bus.  The GOP lets their fringe members drive.

back of the bus?
I see what you did there.

Infernalist: All they have to do to dispel those cries of racism is actually point at something worth getting furious over and say "That's why we hate him."

You can disagree with someone's policies without hating them.

But I don't expect you to understand that.

GAT_00: Like the Democratic Party isn't always engaged in infighting.  It isn't dominated by networks and a party administration passing out talking points every day.  People actually think for themselves.

And it doesn't take much thinking to realize this is a stupid farking proposal that should have never been made.  Cutting SS won't fix the deficit because it runs on completely separate funding sources, cutting SS won't fix it's own deficit, only removing the cap on taxes will do that, and since he was dumb enough to propose it, it's likely to end up in a "deal" with the GOP in exchange for absolutely nothing.

It is an incredibly stupid farking proposal and the President deserves to have the entire left level broadsides at him for it.

We have this long history of both parties ramping up the amount people pay in Social Security taxes over and over and over again, and then spending the difference between what the working class pays in and the benefits paid out. They replaced the money they spent with Treasury Bonds and claimed it was an "investment". Now we can see that the whole "it's an investment" thing was a lie from the start.

Meanwhile, they give more and more extensive tax cuts and loopholes to the obscenely wealthy and corporations.

Look at how the tax burden has been shifted onto payroll taxes over time.



Right now we have a system where Corporations pay almost nothing and the major source of income for Billionaires (Capital Gains) is completely exempt from Social Security taxes.

Capital Gains for Billionaires are also taxed at a lower rate than regular income for the working poor paying only about 35K a year in the FISCAL CLIFF!!! deal to save the "temporary" Bush tax cuts for the rich worked out weeks ago and this will never expire.

Compare this with the working poor whose entire income is subject to normal income tax rates AND Social Security tax.
So, of course, the bipartisan solution to this is to fark over the poor some more.

BullBearMS: Right now we have a system where Corporations pay almost nothing and the major source of income for Billionaires (Capital Gains) is completely exempt from Social Security taxes.

Capital Gains for Billionaires are also taxed at a lower rate than regular income for the working poor paying only about 35K a year in the FISCAL CLIFF!!! deal to save the "temporary" Bush tax cuts for the rich worked out weeks ago and this will never expire.

Compare this with the working poor whose entire income is subject to normal income tax rates AND Social Security tax.
So, of course, the bipartisan solution to this is to fark over the poor some more.

But pie! Grow pie grow!

DamnYankees: BullBearMS: Right now we have a system where Corporations pay almost nothing and the major source of income for Billionaires (Capital Gains) is completely exempt from Social Security taxes.

Capital Gains for Billionaires are also taxed at a lower rate than regular income for the working poor paying only about 35K a year in the FISCAL CLIFF!!! deal to save the "temporary" Bush tax cuts for the rich worked out weeks ago and this will never expire.

Compare this with the working poor whose entire income is subject to normal income tax rates AND Social Security tax.
So, of course, the bipartisan solution to this is to fark over the poor some more.

But pie! Grow pie grow!

Did he actually say removing the cap on SS taxes is going to hurt the poor more?  That is an unprecedented level of retarded.

GAT_00: Did he actually say removing the cap on SS taxes is going to hurt the poor more?

No. No I didn't.

The working poor pay Social Security taxes and income taxes on all of their income.

The filthy rich have the vast majority of their income completely exempt from Social Security taxes.

The only way they have to pay this tax at all is if they get an actual job. Even then, all their income past roughly 115K is exempt.
The solution is obvious. Stop exempting the rich from their air share of taxes, but that's obviously not what either party is talking about.

They are both saying we should screw over the poor, instead.

If politics were academics, Barack Obama and the Democrats have written a C- term paper. The Republicans have turned in a coloring book smeared with feces. ~A Farker during the 2012 election season

tenpoundsofcheese: Stop with the racism.

Racism?

vernonFL: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop with the racism.

Racism?

*shh* he's on a roll

Hardly a Civil War on the Dem side when it's just lunatic fringe biatching.

tenpoundsofcheese: You can disagree with someone's policies without hating them.

Agreed.

But, Republicans haven't gotten that memo.

Just look at health care reform.  It was a right wing idea invented by a right wing think tank (the Heritage Foundation) and pushed for years by influential right wingers (like Newt Gingrich).  Then, President Obama says, "hey, I kinda like your idea.  Let's try it."

And, the Republicans responded by claiming it was socialism and a government takeover of health care.

Hell, most rank and file Republicans don't seem to have any idea what the president's policies actually are.  They just seem to hate the man.  And, his wife.  And, his kids.  And, his dog.  It's bizarre.

Altair: Hardly a Civil War on the Dem side when it's just lunatic fringe biatching.

What lunatic fringe? The people who want to protect SS are a lunatic fringe?

My feelings written better, from Digby:

I should once again make clear just how ridiculous it is to do this on the merits. Social Security contributes nothing to the deficit. It has no business being in this discussion at all. In fact, even Paul Ryan had the brains not to go after it his dystopian hellscape budget. Whatever problems the system has can be solved outside this obscene obsession with spending cuts. And certainly cutting the program now because the program might fall short of revenue in the future --- and then patting yourself on the back for "saving it" --- is just perverse.

As for medicare, we have just instituted a bunch of very large cuts, the costs are coming down, we have a big change in the health care system on the way. There's no good reason to do more cuts right now. Let the health care reforms settle a little bit and then see where we are.

Finally, the deficit "crisis" itself is a big pile of nonsense. We shouldn't even be talking about it while the economy is under such stress. It's political malpractice on such a gigantic scale that I only wish I could be alive long enough to read the incredulous histories of this era. We've already seen massive amounts of middle class wealth lost through the crash of both the equity and housing markets, cut state and Federal budgetsby the trillions watched as poverty rates have risen and unemployment has stayed stuck at historically high levels, delayed and possibly destroyed an entire generation's hopes and dreams over the past five years.Enough.

So the Democrats decry certain factions of the Republican Party for their unwillingness to compromise under any circumstances, and then factions of the Democratic Party publicly say things like this? Pot, kettle, etc.

In spite of what the aforementioned Republican factions might have you believe, Obama is not an exceptionally left-wing President, and the fact that every extreme faction is angry at him is the ultimate proof of that.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: So the Democrats decry certain factions of the Republican Party for their unwillingness to compromise under any circumstances, and then factions of the Democratic Party publicly say things like this? Pot, kettle, etc.

Say things like what? No cutting social security?

eraser8: tenpoundsofcheese: You can disagree with someone's policies without hating them.

Agreed.

But, Republicans haven't gotten that memo.

Just look at health care reform.  It was a right wing idea invented by a right wing think tank (the Heritage Foundation) and pushed for years by influential right wingers (like Newt Gingrich).  Then, President Obama says, "hey, I kinda like your idea.  Let's try it."

And, the Republicans responded by claiming it was socialism and a government takeover of health care.

Hell, most rank and file Republicans don't seem to have any idea what the president's policies actually are.  They just seem to hate the man.   And, his wife.  And, his kids.   And, his dog.  It's bizarre.

(hyperbole alert....level 11!)

It is so cute how you assume that all Republicans are like this.
Really, you are very, very special.

DamnYankees: My feelings written better, from Digby:

I should once again make clear just how ridiculous it is to do this on the merits. Social Security contributes nothing to the deficit.

No Real American is going to believe that libtard.  Let's try this:



Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or growing the deficit. ~ R. Reagan

Of course, many will - as usual - disregard what Reagan actually said or did and imagine that some mythical teabagger Reagan was hell-bent on getting rid of Social Security.

The projection is strong with this one.

tenpoundsofcheese: It is so cute how you assume that all Republicans are like this.
Really, you are very, very special.

That's hilarious coming from you.  I guess you believe that only liberals are - as a group - exactly the same as each other.

Biological Ali: Damn, this might really hurt Obama's re-election chances.

No, it will just hurt actual people who need SS benefits.

Biological Ali: Damn, this might really hurt Obama's re-election chances.

Forget it, Jake. It's CNN.

Biological Ali: The Republicans in the House aren't actually going to pass anything put forward by Obama (even if it gives them everything they claim to want), so there's not really much point in discussing the merits of proposals like this.

It shifts the Overton window, which matters. As much as we mock the GOP, they've been great at controlling that window.

Lionel Mandrake: Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or growing the deficit. ~ R. Reagan

What Regan ignored was that Congress continually spent the difference between what the working class' Social Security taxes paid in and the amount the program paid out in benefits.

Now, both parties are worried that the goose might stop laying golden eggs.

Of course, the Military can spend as much as it wants, because that money is going into their contractor friend's pockets.

However if there is a chance that Social Security might cash in some of those Treasury Bonds they replaced the money with, then off with the poor people's heads.

part of the problem: I don't hate Obama. I disagree with him on virtually every issue, but that's not hate.

What are these disagreements, in particular?