Very well put about the one tent analogy. As far as the Obama dissing, just remember that it will be a choice next November between Obama and a far right candidate (you really think a moderate conservative is going to win the primary?). I know that people are upset with Obama for not being progressive enough, but he is being a good centrist President. Good Presidents lead from the middle, not the edges. He is very calculated and does concede too much (IMO), but he is doing a bang up job of governing - you just don't hear about it because of the volume of the dissidents.

in a sense, i think they are all under one tent...by being progressive in their own right. we all need in office, not only progressives and conservatives, but we also need centrists to bring it together and move forward in times of trouble.

in what way has president obama turned his back people for a year and a half?

I couldn't disagree with you more and don't think victimizing minorities is the answer. Minorities have a great deal of control over their situation. Many of those in poverty are single mothers especially in the black and hispanic community, pregnancy prevention would help that group. These rates are not seen in the Asian community. And, poverty rates are highest among illegal residents.

I like the WIC cut. I know that we advertise in Mexico for WIC services/resources. Why are we doing that with American tax dollars? If they have that much extra money to spend, then maybe they should take a cut.

I am in complete agreement with tax breaks for businesses. Just think what the gas prices would be if oil companies were passing on the costs they would incur without those breaks. Talk about affecting poor people!

katy...

the oil companies have had their highest revenue quarters when the gas prices were high. the oil companies have never made this much money. ever..and will continue to bust their banks full with moolah as long as the prices stay high.

the rise of gas now isn't because of shortage..it's because the market decided to get coocoo with the thought of change in foreign politics. which is lining the pockets of oil corporate dudes.

take away the tax breaks and we will pay the price at the pumps? No?

Minorities have a great deal of control over their situation.

Prime example of "the poor choose to be poor" logic.

If every black man, woman and child voted that's only 12% of the population. 18% of that 12% are looking for jobs compared to 9% of whites.

Your claims are misguided unless you accept the problems are systemic socio economic issues. There is nothing more disheartening than getting up every day and looking for a job you won't get. Meanwhile, someone like Jared Loughner get's hired and fired numerous times. Not from some white collar job but some blue collar job flipping burgers. You telling me a black high school grad can't get a job flipping burgers? I don't think you can make that claim. I will make the claim he can't get a job because of his skin color period.

And that's out of his or her control.

You seem to be missing the the point of the chart above. This has nothing to with the progressives trying to balance out anything. What I clearly get out of the chart is the Republicans proposals to balance out their wealth grab. And if I may add sir, this is not only hurting the minorities, this is cutting the heart out of the have nots. As a white male in his 50's who is on disability this balancing act the elites are pushing cuts in to my life as well as it does hundreds of millions of Americans of all walks of life. This is an attack on all Americans who are not members of the elitist groups.

Carrie-Anne: Any rational person knows full well that the oil companies do not need a penny of the tax breaks they are getting. However, those who worship wealth & power think it is only right & proper that the rich should get richer.

how would we know the difference, katy? people pay at the pump for every little bump that shakes their hold on us.

This is not an attack on all Americans. If it were, this fight would have been fought back in November 2010. It wasn't a fight until it affected them personally. Where was the fight in November of 2010? Did progressives think conservatives had their best interest in mind? Landslide shellacking I think they called it. Where was the fight then?

Health care effects all of us right? No one was fighting then were they? WHY NOT? Because they weren't apart of the 40 million uninsured. Same with the dream act. Same with minority unemployment. Same with a host of issues that only involve minorities.

Since WE (and you) did nothing in November they are now rolling back time. Abortions, social programs, civil rights, gay marriage, you name it and they are stripping it.

WHY? Because back in November it didn't affect you. It just affected those poor bastards who choose to be poor. Well, looks like we're all poor bastards now. Too bad WE did nothing back in November.

PS...just because some folks choose to forego their ethnic and racial identity just to fit in doesn't mean everyone will. Blacks and Muslims are the most hated of groups in America because they choose to hold on to their history. And for that they punished with economic, political and legal sanctions.

Oh Sam, I'm one of the uninsured and gay...actually on Medicaid now. But you know, it's all my fault because a minority of gays voted Republican. Of course I voted Democrat, but what does that matter? If I'm gay, I'm to blame.

Katy, oil companies don't pass their savings on to the consumer. They just keep it as profit for their stockholders. Also, if you like WIC cuts, it can't be for economic reasons or you'd be opposed to subsidies for beef and cornsyrup. WIC is essentially a government subsidy for healthy food as it encourages women in poverty to buy healthier food instead of HoHos and hamburgers which are cheap due to...wait for it... subsidies!

You know what I'd like instead of Medicaid? I'd like to go back to school to get a degree in something that actually has jobs where I live so I could afford insurance that would actually cover my health needs.

You know, sometimes you don't have to throw away stuff, you just have to organize it differently.

G.R.,

You don't think the Teapublicans won't roll back DADT if given the chance? If they win the Senate and White House in two years they will roll it back as H.R. 1.

Right now it's not a winnable road for them to travel. If they take over the Senate and White House then everything we worked for will be REPEALED.

Problem I have is why should I care when no one cared in November of 2010? I got mine. They can't take what I got. All I can do is do what's right for my children and your children.

Currently, I'm just not seeing why I should care about anyone else's kids but my own. Until progressives start to care about my kids then I'm really skeptical about caring for theirs.

You don't think the Teapublicans won't roll back DADT if given the chance?

I don't understand the phrasing of your question. I'm liberal. I voted a straight Democratic ticket in 2010. I do think that many in the Republican party would seek to roll back civil rights. I'm not in disagreement with you on these things. What I take issue with is that you continually place blame where it doesn't belong.

Problem is that liberals don't have enough backbone to stand behind any tax raises or elimination of tax loopholes (which the GOP will call a tax raise). Your thinking is sound, just like the thinking to make Social Security solvent by simply eliminating the payroll cap and means testing recipients.

Bolbis,
You are correct - it takes guts to play poker. I didn't say it above, but the trick to getting the Conservatives to play is to pound it home that it is not a tax raise, it is a revenue increase. To have any meaningful reform we need to apply cuts and revenue increases.

No, your problem is that there is barely an elected liberal left in the House, Senate, or Presidency.

The idea is sound. The Reality is, by the time the GOP hits the mic stands. All you will here is "The Democrats want to raise YOUR TAXES in this Economic Crises." Not realizing that The GOP is talking to the rich. The middle class becomes outraged. Sound bite will be replayed all over Fox News for weeks. And any justifications for the closing of tax loopholes or revenue increases. Will be lost in a wave of "their back peddling and flip flopping on the issue".

Ironically the one way to not get caught into that. Is to say they actually got the idea from a Republican. Which will be true, because in the 80's Reagan did exactly that.He cut some social programs and raised the wealthy taxes. So instead of the Dems getting painted into a corner of unending sound bites. They put the GOP and the Tea Party in it. Because after all. No member of the Republican Party is going to say that Reagan was wrong. Speaking out against what Reagan did is Rep. Career Suicide.

So you would rather see us hand out billions of dollars to oil companies than help keep someones heat on during the winter because they don't make enough money to pay the bill themselves? It is not about cutting welfare, it is about what welfare you want to cut. The GOP wants to cut anything that affects poor minorities (they don't vote Republican anyways). The Democrats want to cut corporate welfare. Whose side are you on?

As far as the selective democracy, that is just a joke. Governor Walker is ramming his proposal without any discussion or concession. The unions already said they would take all of the cuts in salary, additional pension and health care contributions, but they aren't willing to fork over their collective bargaining rights. The Democrats are doing the only thing they can - leave the state so that a flashlight is shown on the dictatorship that Mr. Walker is trying to run in WI. We are a country split down the middle, and legislation should have both sides input on it (regardless of who the legislation is from).

Just two years ago the right wing was yelling about health care reform being shoved down everyones throat, even though it was being debated and deliberated for over a year (and watered down with GOP ideas in order to garner zero Repub votes - it was not an ideologically partisan bill, unlike the legislation Walker is proposing). This bill IS BEING SHOVED DOWN WISCONSIN'S THROAT, and I don't hear a peep about the hypocrisy of the tea party stance on this from them.

i think the more interesting point here is we live in a time when a huge amount of people aren't in a position to finance a home because, well, all the corporate rich sailed our jobs to another country...and yet they want tax breaks and get a subsidy program....and expect us to buy their @!$%# with a smile.

Well we can dream cant we?

Revisionism of history but a few months old? I don't recall liberal analysts describing the tax cuts as a good compromise, but rather as a necessary compromise to keep the tax cuts for the bottom 98%.

According to the RayGunites, we don't pay taxes. We live under the good graces of the top 2%.

Personally, I don't think anyone is actually paying taxes. For a billionaire to pay a few million in taxes is like me paying a few pennies in taxes.

Good point! I think it was Reagan who claimed "the poor are poor by choice". I believe its along the same lines as "slaves choose to be slaves."

Last time I checked, no one is guaranteed to get a government check. However, the rich are guaranteed to get huge tax breaks for the next 2 years.

Probably forever if the Teapublicans have their way. I think they are trying to get back to economic Darwinism. Return of monopolies and such.

i think regan was sort of right..but not quite right. most don't choose to be poor...just like most don't choose to fall.

the choice is whether to lay there or get back up.

but some don't even see the choice...

wait - democrats do do their part.

i also have to beg to differ on stealing money. i mean, don't you think that jacking prices up in times of, say a storm, is like stealing candy from a baby?

do i need to remind that republicans spend just as much money while in office? ...just not on those in need.

ps, why don't you tell someone, face to face, sorry that they can't be helped because they didn't deserve it.

We have created a model of dependency. There are ways to help people that don't require expensive and efficiently ran government programs. Why do you think only the government can help people? Why can't families help each others, private charities, etc. Why can't all the Michael Moore types actually DO something for people instead of wasting their money on films to promote government sponsored social programs and civil unrest?

Carrie-Anne: I know the type...I have no doubt that she has told more than one person just that sort of thing and derived a great deal of pleasure in doing so.

so, katy, will corporations give up the $88 BILLION above that they receive and are DEPENDENT on government to provide? 88 vs 44 - a safety net for whom?

Yes, why is big oil so dependent upon government handouts? Are they intimating that they are just "lazy slobs" who can't support themselves?

Why can't families help each others, private charities, etc.

Because of discrimination. People tend to only help their own. And who "their own" is might be a particular race or religion. That leads to privileged classes based on birthright.

Conservatives are always worried about communism, but really oligarchy can be just as bad.

I don't want to be governed by a privileged class. I don't want to be governed by corporations. I don't want to be governed by whoever has the most money. I don't want to be governed by people who choose who they help based on whims and biases.

People who are so worried about the government in their life pay no attention to the corporations who are monitoring our every move and part of every aspect of our lives. Government isn't the problem. The problem is unchecked power, which the wealthy class certainly have. And no, no one should be able to earn unchecked power. No one deserves unchecked power. No one.

(And no, I'm not actually paranoid of corporations. I just recognize that they collect information on us all for marketing purposes. I seemed to be less affected by consumerism though. That's just me.)

katy..

not everyone has a family..and not everyone has access to private charities.

i still have a problem with the concept that it's ok to subsidize exxon, mobile, nascar, and a whole bunch of other corporate companies that pay their top' execs millions a year...and yet it's not ok to subsidize health care into a system in an efficient manner so martha don't have to rely on only going to the ER for every little cough..or never going until it is the ER and will cost outrageously and maybe put her out of work.

i am one of the millions who are uninsured. and thank goodness i'm pretty healthy and my biggest thing is allergies and if i keep that in check, then infections are a rarity as is getting a virus that puts me under.

though i'm turning 40 and should start getting mammograms and paps (i don't have money for a gyno checks).

i only go to the doctors or dentist if i have a persistent problem.

why must we waste money where money isn't needed.

ps, hospitals are big business. they make huge profits, even if it's a right-off with someone not paying. hospitals are owned by huge corporates that make a lotta money.

We should be prepared to get it back by whatever means are necessary to do so.

Jerry...: I have learned that when those on the right talk about "thinking for your self" they mean being Ideologically Sound, i.e., rigidly right-wing.

Ahhhhh. Hmmmmm. :-)

Whew! I wasn't going to invest anywhere near that much time in a response to Joyce. But bravo! Very well written, very well done.

IMO the only reason we don't have Medicare for everyone is because one side can't allow the other side to have that victory. Whichever side managed to get that done would win 70% of the vote two years after it was implemented because the debt would start to nosedive and there would be so many jobs employers would be recruiting from the inner cities.

We'd need all those jobs, too, because thousands more would survive each year, hundreds of thousands over a decade.

Of course, 250,000 health insurance workers would be looking for jobs while 100 health insurance CEOs retired to Morocco or Bavaria or Switzerland.....

Thanks. :)

I think in regards to Medicare-for-all it's easy to underestimate precisely how much money is going into lobbying against it. My boss fought me tooth-and-nail in political conversations against the Public Option, which was supposed to allow people to buy in to Medicare rather than pay for it through taxes. A few months after everything blows over, some marketing snafu with her health insurance company has somehow put her ailing mother in a position of not having healthcare. Maybe it's fixed now, since I haven't heard anything about it -- but there was a lot of tears and emotion because it's so easy to get lost in this complicated private insurance system.

She could never believe it would be easy to be on government healthcare, but I have never seen a senior on Medicare be so ready to give it up, deficit or no deficit. When my boyfriend was laid off, we were able to qualify for Medicaid (his employer didn't have any health coverage). It was such a difference from any employer-sponsored healthcare I ever had. I would have paid a lot per month to have that plan. Seriously would have.

The problem with Medicaid, of course, is that it pays providers a pittance of what other programs pay, including Medicare. When I ran the ambulance service, Medicare paid 80% of what we billed (we billed exactly according to Medicare's fee schedule) and Medicaid paid about 40%. But for the recipients it is a Godsend, because providers are prohibited from billing balances back to the recipient, and there are no co-pays.

Somewhere in the middle is the answer......