It’s time to invoke the 14th Amendment. What are they going to do then? They don’t have the votes for impeachment and the financial markets will accept the rationale to save their own skins.

This whole post is full of truth. The last sentence no less so:

Especially since these kinds of things to work out really well for the rich, by dramatically expanding the difference between the haves and the have nots.

Damn right. The upper class will gladly burn this country to the ground if they believe they’ll come out the other side even more on top (even if just relatively).

What a lot of people don’t grasp about the rich is that the gratification of being rich doesn’t come from having a bunch of cars or multiple huge houses or the ability to fly to Italy for two weeks on a whim (although those are all major perks). The real gratification for those people is the power they have over “lesser” people, and the knowledge that those peons don’t have what the wealthy have.

The thing I don’t get is why the democrats are playing along with this, so much. It’s become pretty clear that they want insane cuts, too, they just actually have to have numbers that add up, and that’s the difference in positions between the two parties.

The image of the religious right is that they’re a bunch of working class folks, but the reality is that wealthy white people who run businesses are overrepresented in the religious right, not underrepresented.  The chances that any random corporation or large business is being run by someone who speaks in tongues on the weekends is pretty fucking high.  I’m not surprised The Kuh-razy is spilling over into governance.

And the income gap hasn’t helped anything.

When politicians had to cater to the masses to get elected, they supported public education and Social Security and didn’t blanch at the idea of raising taxes to shore up revenue.  But with all the money in the hands of an elite few, politicians have to fight a much bigger money game in a much smaller pool of people.  Now they’re catering to the handful of CEOs and religious zealots with all the money, and throwing bones on abortion and “teh sosalizim!” to drag along the base.  The fervor over privatization and tax cuts has grown that much more intense.

The last unions are under siege.  Minority and youth voter intimidation is on the rise.  With the game being rigged in favor of the top 1%, its no surprise to see the top 1% over-represented in government.

“The real gratification for those people is the power they have over “lesser” people, and the knowledge that those peons don’t have what the wealthy have.”

The recent ridiculous over-reaction to Obama’s suggestion that the depreciation schedule for corporate jets be slightly altered is a great glimpse into that sort of mindset.

It was comical to see all the Reichwing-teat-sucking pundits who came out crying and gnashing their teeth over the (ungrounded in reality) idea that Mr. Big Business might have to fly with the proles.  OMFG!  They might have to go through security with everyone else!  How can this brave nation go on with that sort of holocaust happening?

The thought of flying over all those proles in luxury and comfort while being served martinis is really what a lot of it comes down to.  As long as there are Americans suffering just to get something to eat, it’s all worth it to our Galtian Overlords.

In response, I think we need to start building tumbrels and guillotines…

And here I was under the impression it was about the backers of both parties making a big show in order to get the plebes to swallow massive cuts to what’s left of the social safety net.  Nope, Republicans are all religious ideologues who are trying to bring on Armageddon!  Much more realistic.

Especially since these kinds of things to work out really well for the rich, by dramatically expanding the difference between the haves and the have nots.

Yes, yes they do. 

If what you say is true, then I should hear nothing all over the news, and CSPAN, but Democrats screaming about how most of our debt problems go away instantly if we return to the oh-so-onerous tax rates of the mid-90s, about how Social Security has run a surplus every year since its enactment, how a large portion of the debt comes from the economic downturn (and then pointing angry fingers at Wall St. and demanding investigations, convictions, and restitution payments to raise some more money) and the multiple useless wars in the Middle East. ...Instead, what do we get?

A weak counterproposal of most of the cuts wanted, and a measly few hundred billion (not a big % of what we have to make up) in loophole eliminations.  No trying to change anyone’s mind.  Accepting every underlying assumption of the opposing party.  But I suppose that’s the best we’re supposed to accept now?

and throwing bones on abortion and “teh sosalizim!” to drag along the base

Seems pretty clear to me that the politicians in power are as sexist and anti-choice as their voting base. They’re not just throwing bones, they’re enacting exactly the kind of anti-woman policies they want to enact.

And here I was under the impression it was about the backers of both parties making a big show in order to get the plebes to swallow massive cuts to what’s left of the social safety net.  Nope, Republicans are all religious ideologues who are trying to bring on Armageddon!  Much more realistic.

These don’t seem mutually exclusive to me.

Or me.  Gavel, I think however your view of things doesn’t allow for the obvious reality that the Democrats are much more diverse in their views than Republicans, who really are a hive mind at this point.

One thing that’s surprised me is that there hasn’t been much of anyone saying, out loud, “Let’s just burn it all down.”

I do believe that the GOP’s embrace of nihilism and leftover millennialism has a lot of them adopting an end-of-the-world mindset where they’re looking forward to and actively working toward the end of the country/society/the planet, but at this stage, more of the hardcore fundamentalists, low-level wingnut bloggers, and even some of the big-dog pundits and politicians should be openly cheerleading the End of Everything.

Maybe there are dogwhistles going on that I’m not aware of, maybe their message discipline is stronger than I expected, maybe destroying the country is a few steps too far for even the GOP’s strongest sociopaths to stomach…

“The problem with this theory has always been the underlying assumption that being a cold-hearted businessman is mutually exclusive from being a crazy ideologue who is willing to burn the country down to the grown to score political points. “

I know you’re an atheist, but I’ve just got say, “Amen!” When you look at guys like the Koch Brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife and Donald Trump, the most significant difference between them and your average tea bagger is they have better vocabularies.

Hmmm, every executive I have worked under has had to start somewhere.

I suspect you’ll find that almost all of them started with piles of money from daddy and mommy, as well as lots of strings being pulled in their favor.  But if you know lots of wealthy executives who actually worked their way up from the ground level without those massive advantages, I’m all ears.

Hmmm, every executive I have worked under has had to start somewhere.  Executives are not just born into the job, they usually work their way up in the industry by, you guessed it, selling goods and services to customers!

I’ll meet your anecdote and raise you one.  My very own father was an executive.  He never worked hard a day in his life.  He made money through fraud in order to buy a company, and then used semi-legal means to make that company “successful”.  Being rich, I lived in a neighborhood with plenty of other rich people.  Most of my neighbors had inherited their executive status from their rich parents.  They were by far the laziest group of people I have ever met.

My point here is that anecdotes are not meaningful.  Statistics or STFU.

Business success has a lot to do with being fortunate enough to have taken out your original business loan during good economic times rather than right before a downturn. Because even when there’s a downturn, we can see that the government is unwilling to boost demand or lower the value of the dollar to help out these businesspeople, which gives a natural advantage to those who were simply fortunate enough to have started their businesses in better economic times.

As far as business executives go, as far as I can tell they got their start as am age entry consultants with McKinsey or another firm and then moved into VP positions and worked from there, not because they were selling the core goods and services of the businesses themselves.

It’s well known, in any case, that there is much more money made on the “meta” side of business—the really wealthy are not those who start businesses but those who invest in businesses, sell businesses, or sell goods rather than make/invent goods. Which is all nice—we created an economy that allowed those people to exist for our own benefit, but especially in these hard times, we don’t owe them, and even more so, their political maneuvering during these hard times and attempts to undermine the government to support republicans is nothing but an egregious moral crime, as far as I am concerned, and exposes them as societal and economic malefactors that need to have their influence cut off at the knees.

“management consultants with McKinsey or another firm…”

Damn autocorrect!

I think the logic has been that they wouldn’t have had the success they do if they were really so irrational.  This is due to liberals absorbing too much the notion that there’s a “free market” that has some kind of meritocracy to it, when in fact business success is often more about luck than skill, especially when you’re an executive who doesn’t actually do any of the day to day work of selling goods or services to customers.

There’s more to business success than just luck and skill though. We can’t let ourselves forget that many so-called luminary executives are pretty dogged in their pursuit of their goals. Some people do just fall in to their success, but there are plenty out there who have work ethics cranked to 11. On top of that, there’s the sense that the business world rewards a callous disregard of people in favour of the almighty dollar, if not out and out cruelty.

We need to remind ourselves of what we’re up against. These aren’t people who just lucked out on a couple of dice rolls. They’re also determined, ruthless workaholics.

There are executives that worked their way up just like there are that inherited it from mommy and daddy, but there are also hard workers that never catch that lucky break—and a lot of it or at least a good part IS luck as well as work, just being born in a developed country instead of say, North Korea for one.

I think however your view of things doesn’t allow for the obvious reality that the Democrats are much more diverse in their views than Republicans, who really are a hive mind at this point.

Yeah, their acceptable views range from A to B instead of just A.  Surely, they’ll save us all!

You’re fighting a strawman, Gavel. Unless you care to point to the section of Amanda’s post that claims that the Democrats will save us all.

Triplanetary:  Her entire post is blaming Republicans, full stop, for what’s going on here.  She is also a Democrat.  I don’t see why it’s a strawman to assume that we differ in (and are currently arguing over, in my understanding) our views on whether Democrats deserve to be or should be supported, and are to blame for the situation we find ourselves in.  The rest is a degree of flippancy, which I’m sure is obvious to Amanda, as she is by and large a sensible person.  A person, I might add, who doesn’t need you to chime in with contentless posts supporting her.

“I think the major cause of the overreaction was that the Obama stimulus actually extended the tax break on jets, so that his insinuation that business is screwing the public with this rings kind of hollow…”

...no, what rings hollow is the idea that making the depreciation schedule 7-years long instead of 5-years represents some kind of Evil Socialist Attack on America’s Businessmen! — who, of course, bring only jobs and prosperity through their pivotal-yet-undefinable, resistant-to-analysis, but-unquestionably-important, just-don’t-look-too-closely roles as America’s Leading Citizens, and never, ever, do anything wrong, or even morally ambiguous, why-would-you-even-think-that as you eat your oil-contaminated-Gulf-of-Mexico-shrimp and wash ‘em down with fracking-chemical-tainted-water while reading about how Wall Street screwed us all, was unaccountably given billions to make sure they didn’t suffer any losses, and they’re getting reading to do it to us again?

The guy at the top (and it’s almost always a guy) got there by stepping on the bodies of lesser people who were not as quick to recognize and take advantage of any circumstances that offered themselves for exploitation, no matter how immoral, or unpatriotic, or destructive to society.  Either that, or they were lucky enough to inherit their position from Dear Old Dad.  Once at the top, that guy helps the company or corporation he rules about as much as a tick helps the dog it’s attached to and draining blood from.

Are there companies that were single-mindedly created by smart and innovative people who made them from the primordial ooze of the American Economy to become success stories?  I’m sure there are, but I’d be willing to bet they are much less common than most of those Galtian assholes believe…

I think there’s a bit of a dovetail going on. One is the whole “we have money, we are special” attitude that overlaps the “a little depression and poverty is good for the soul of those shiftless plebes” that makes an economic crash seem pretty good for the high-rollers. (That’s a Dem and Repub thing.)  But Amanda’s whole apocalypse view is also in play. If I recall, she’s also someone who believes the romance of Apocalypse stories is that you get to rebuild the world/society “The Way it Should Be”. Or, if it is before the rebuilding, “Your real values come into play”, as what lets you survive is inevitably those things you always said no one respected you for. That’s a seductive pull. I think we’ve seen less “Let it all Burn” because there is still more of the former among the party leaders. They don’t think of it as an apocalypse, they think of it as a restoring of the more normal order where those people learn their lesson. The people who actually think of it as an apocalypse aren’t yet in charge of the messaging.

<em>The real gratification for those people is the power they have over “lesser” people, and the knowledge that those peons don’t have what the wealthy have.<-em>

Yep.  Orwell pegged that one for all time in 1948, but people keep ignoring that point.

I’m beginning to worry that we’re at the Schlieffen-plan stage already. Even if the ostensible leaders came to some kind of agreement in the next few days, it would take about a week to turn those broad strokes into actual text and fix all of the most obvious stupid mistakes. Then everyone in the House Republican caucus has to add their DADT and anti-abortion amendments, then take them back out again, then it has to go to the senate where Bernie Sanders gets another day to filibuster and Inhofe gets to insist on an amendment to defund climate science… and before you know it, we’ve blown by the limit anyway.

“As soon as this debt ceiling debate started, I figured the chances were incredibly high that Republicans would either take this to the wire or even refuse to raise the debt ceiling after the drop-dead date.”

Hell yes.

The budget debate a few months ago ended with a compromise that a lot of Republicans only went along with because they were promised another opportunity to get what they wanted with the debt ceiling debate. Now they’re taking that opportunity. The question is how many will refuse to raise the ceiling without getting everything they want, and whether the leadership is included in that.

Word.  I could easily have been an ECSL (Economically Conservative, Socially Liberal, ‘centrist’ type, because I’m kind of impatient with others’ foibles and certainly not a populist by disposition, but after coming from hicksville and spending some time in higher-end retail (I’m lousy at sales, but was always knowledgeable & good at finding solutions), I figured out that these people weren’t actually that brilliant or impressive, although they often had native social intelligence and were more aggressive than industrious per se.  Very impressed with themselves, of course, as conservatives always are, but I was rather disillusioned—there was no point in allying myself with the excessively self-satisfied, so I stayed in the liberal camp.

Or…

When you look at guys like the Koch Brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife and Donald Trump, the most significant difference between them and your average tea bagger is they have better vocabularies.

This.

My one glimmer of hope is that Republicans have typically cooked their gooses public-opinion wise with this sort of shit in the past: The shutdowns of ‘05 and ‘94 are going to look like an amiable gaffe compared to ruining the full faith and credit of the USA.

Hmmm, every executive I have worked under has had to start somewhere.

So the overrepresentation of white men means simply that white men are smarter than everyone else in your opinion?  Since those are the only two options: 1) some people are privileged over others or 2) some people are simply better than everyone else and win out on the level playing field.

I find it amazing how many people swallow the myth that our ruling class is smarter than we are, all while complaining about their stupid bosses.  Two plus two, people.  Most people with a lot of wealth “earned” it by being privileged into the best schools, getting the benefit of the doubt because they looked the right way, and having other people on hand to do the work they themselves believe they’re too good to do.

@29 Mighty Ponygirl:

That’s true, but the Democrats are amazingly bad at actually taking advantage of these Republican excesses, meaning the Republicans get to return in full force four (or sometimes even two!) years later. Meanwhile, even when the Republicans cross that line and end up out of power for a few years, the Overton window moves ever rightward. It’s been pointed out many times in recent weeks, but most Republicans today would, if they were being sincere, find Ronald Reagan too left-wing for them.

Reagan himself gave the Overton window a good, solid push to the right, but momentum carried it well beyond him.

I, too, I don’t disagree, but I don’t characterize political maneuvering as work in the same way that I view producing goods and services as work. They aren’t laborers in that sense.

yeah, obviously, the american voting public has proven to have no political memory.

Honestly, I’m hoping that Obama doesn’t cave on the negotiations, and goes with the Constitutional option - that it’s unconstitutional for the United States to default on it’s debts - and keeps the government running, with a big screw-you to the assholes holding the nation hostage to their insane ideology. I mean, this isn’t even a liberal vs. conservative thing, or rather, it shouldn’t be; few things in economics are certain, but one thing that is that simply cutting spending by a trillion dollars or whatever isn’t going to help the economy, it’s going to fuck it over. Unfortunately, I’m none too confident that Obama will do the right thing here, since this would be the kind of bold, decisive move that he’s proven unwilling to make in the past.

Yglesias had a good post on this the other day, where he pointed out that the real danger of deal-making here is setting the precedent of allowing ideologues to hold the livelihood of the United States and its citizens hostage in this way - the debt ceiling should NEVER be actually threatened. All the more reason to consign it to the dustbin of history and declare that the United States MUST pay its debts.

Obama go with the Constitutional option? Nah.

And not just because it’s a “bold, decisive move he’s proven unwilling to make in the past.”

Screwing the masses out of “entitlements” like Social Security and Medicare has been Obama’s path from the get-go.

And that path has been littered with major indications of his intent, including the “Deficit” commission, obama’s appointments of cut-crazy, crazeee ideologues to it, and “caving” to the continuance of the Bush tax cuts only two of those bumps on the road.

Obama also doesn’t give a crap that giving into the crazees on the Republican side is suicide for the Democratic party, another indication that wiping out the safety net is a feature, not a bug.

“Obama Administration Tries to Tempt Congressional Democrats into Political Suicide
By: Jon Walker Thursday July 7, 2011 11:40 am    

Apparently the White House is back handing out extremely bad political advice to Congressional Democrats to get their support for a big partisan austerity package that includes Medicare and Social Security benefits cuts. From New York Times:

White House officials acknowledge the unrest among Democrats. But they argue that Democrats will be in stronger shape politically heading into November 2012 if they help enact a credible deficit reduction deal, allowing them to mount the argument that they protected Medicare from a much more drastic overhaul by Republicans.

With official unemployment around 9 percent and the economy stagnant what people don’t care about is deficits they care about jobs. Recent polling showed that seven times as many Americans rank jobs/economy as the top issue over the deficit.

Poll after poll after poll has also repeatedly shown that Americans overwhelmingly don’t want Social Security or Medicare benefits cut to reduce the deficit.

It is mind boggling that the White House is actually trying to convince Congressional Democrats the voting in direct opposition to the will of the electorate to address an issue that voters don’t even think is the top problem facing the country right now, would be a political winner. If Congressional Democrats are stupid enough to actually buy this nonsense they deserve to lose.”

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2011/07/07/obama-admin-tries-to-trick-congressional-dem-into-political-suicide-with-more-bad-advice/

In fact, Obama is giving in to (going along with) the crazees in the Republican Party over the heads of Democrats in Congress:

“Senate Democrats “Fuming” at White House Over Social Security Trial Balloon
By: Blue Texan Thursday July 7, 2011 10:30 am

What the hell is going on over there?

‘Senate Democrats reacted angrily Thursday to a report that President Obama has proposed significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security in closed-door talks with GOP leaders.

Democratic lawmakers said they were dismayed to read about Obama’s offer in the press rather than hearing it from the president himself. Their frustration is exacerbated by Obama’s snub of their invitation to speak to the Senate Democratic caucus Wednesday.’

Keeping your own party in the dark while you conspire with the GOP to gut the New Deal is very hopey and changey!”

http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/07/senate-democrats-fuming-at-white-house-over-social-security-trial-balloon/

As for the Republicans “cooking their goose” for the next election by their craziness on debt ceiling: read the two comments above.

If you don’t think Republicans aren’t going to run on “Democratic President and Congress Cut Your Social Security and Medicare!” you haven’t been paying attention.

What Digby said:

“Keep one thing in mind as you mull all this over. Paul Ryan didn’t put Social security on the table. And even the Catfood Commission didn’t portray their SS recommendations as contributing to closing the deficit. And that’s because SS has nothing to do with the deficit—the trust fund is secure for more than 30 years. Sweetening the pot with Social Security in these alleged “deficit” talks is purely gratuitous…

Still, the only real change from what we knew yesterday is that the president himself is blessing the Social Security element that was already on the table and has decided to spin this deal as his Grand Bargain. Other than a few details, this looks the same as it has for quite some time.

The president wants to go to the country in 2012 as the man who wrapped up all of our supposed long term problems in one Big Deal. (No word yet on the acute short term problems—- maybe he’ll have time for that in the second term.) He said he was going to do this even before he was inaugurated and nothing, not lunatic Republicans or an epic economic crisis, has deterred him from his goal.”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-goes-to-china-grand-bargain.html

The real gratification for those people is the power they have over “lesser” people, and the knowledge that those peons don’t have what the wealthy have.

I hope I don’t have to point out that not all rich people are the same.  Yes, there are the Koch brothers, but there’s also Bill Gates Sr.

The town where I grew up was middle class and very Republican when I was a child.  Thirty years later, it’s very much upper class (you can’t buy a house there for less than a million) and extremely liberal.

Agreed, Judybrowni.  I conditionally agree with Amanda on this:

...the Democrats are much more diverse in their views than Republicans, who really are a hive mind at this point.

The devil’s in the details.  Amanda, are you referring specifically to Democratic Congressional representatives and senators?  Assuming that, then there is truth to your statement. (I don’t doubt that there is exponentially more diversity among potential Democratic voters, however that’s less relevant due to their reliable pattern of voting for sharply diminishing returns.)  However, look at the treatment that more ‘progressive’ Dems get from the leadership.  If they aren’t completely sabotaged or hung out to dry, their positions are largely ignored.  They are in the minority.  The corporatist/imperialist interests consistently win out on their side of the aisle, led lately by the Hopey Changey Peace Laureate.  Before someone brings up Ralph Nader again and rolls out the ‘they’re not the same’ Straw Man, I will be the first to assert that there are stark differences between the GOP and the Democrats.  The huge problem there is that the differences aren’t anywhere near stark enough.  Worse yet, one side is on a relentless, merciless offensive, and the other side is arguing about how best to surrender (while not pissing off their campaign donors).  No wonder the stupids and crazies are winning; the supposedly sane people don’t have the spine and good sense to elect representatives who’ll actually stand up and fight (but they’ve got ‘character!’).  I’m not looking forward to the right-wing-engineered apocalypse, but it sure as hell looks like that’s where we’re heading.  The signs are all there, and the historical precedent in undeniable.  The silver lining is that then we’ll have no choice but to give up our consumerist liberal fantasies and fight for our lives.

Fighting the corporate rape of the US

I’ve voted for Democrats for 40 years, and will continue to do so for the best Democrats on offer.

Because the Republicans have always been more crazy.

However, my disgust at the Democratic collaborators with the Republican crazees can no longer be measured.

For a history of the US safety net, both seem to be set on destroying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/the-poorhouse-aunt-winnie_n_802338.html?page=2

It’s always just a matter of time before somebody steps up to defend those poor, friendless rich people. ^_^

The town where I grew up was middle class and very Republican when I was a child.  Thirty years later, it’s very much upper class (you can’t buy a house there for less than a million) and extremely liberal.

So what? Let me use an analogy: I’m a feminist man. That does not mean I have a right to expect women I don’t know to stop assessing me as a potential threat when we’re alone on, say, an elevator. Acknowledging my male privilege doesn’t mean I suddenly don’t have it.

The same goes for liberal rich people. They’re benefiting from the ongoing class warfare against the lower classes just as much as I, whether I want to or not, benefit from patriarchy. So when people step in to defend rich people because they’re not all sociopaths, it strikes me as a sort of class equivalent of the “Not my Nigel!” fallacy.

The real gratification for those people is the power they have over “lesser” people, and the knowledge that those peons don’t have what the wealthy have.

Actually I think it’s worse than that.  It is often taken for granted that the rank and file (ie: poor) Republicans are just delusional and imagine that someday they will be rich.  I don’t think that’s actually true.

The problem is that conservatism is essentially rooted in aristocracy, in social hierarchy.  And for a lot of people that really resonates on a deep emotional level.  Obviously they’d prefer to be on top, but simply having a caste system in place is deeply satisfying to them even if it means they’re not on top.  It helps, of course, if there’s an underclass they can despise and feel superior to, but I’m not at all sure that’s really necessary.

I was discussing unions with a conservative friend and I kept asking him why he disliked them.  Eventually he said that the problem with unions is that they mess up the way things ought to be.  The boss, he said, is supposed to have all the power, the workers aren’t supposed to have any and unions screw that up by giving workers power.  He said that it wasn’t that unions produced outcomes he disliked, but simply that their existence messed with the roles people are supposed to play.

He was, nearly as I can tell, absolutely dead serious.

The conservative mindset just plain likes social hierarchy, even if they aren’t at the top.  A place for everyone and everyone in their place feels good, secure, to them even if their place is near the bottom.

Oh, but an underclass, of some sort, is vitally important to their social hierarchy.

Talk to any lower-middle class (or downright poor) “conservative”: their resentment of the benefits supposedly raining down on, and their imagined superiority, to Those People (often, if not exclusively, brown people) is part and parcel of their world view, and comes up within minutes (if not seconds) in any “political” discussion.

The Republicans have been playing that song for a half century or more, there’s a reason it’s on their hit parade.

@43 sotonohito:

You’re absolutely right. As far as this:

It helps, of course, if there’s an underclass they can despise and feel superior to, but I’m not at all sure that’s really necessary.

The thing is, in the mind of an authoritarian like that, there will always be somebody beneath them. That’s part of the point of all the racism, homophobia, and American exceptionalism. The conservatives at the bottom of the social hierarchy figure that if they stomp on the people “beneath” them enough, maybe the people above them will shower them with favors. ^_^

The conservatives at the bottom of the social hierarchy figure that if they stomp on the people “beneath” them enough, maybe the people above them will shower them with favors.

Yeah, because it worked so well in grade school…

I think it’s the otherway round: no matter their place in the scheme of things the conservative voters are given an underclass to stomp on as a favor, and as an excuse for not showering them with any other favors.

Lousy economy, shitty schools, your wages cut: it’s the fault of Those People on whom the libruls have rained bounty.

Name any societal problem the conservative voter is experiencing (or fears) all the fault of the money, time wasted, etc. on Those People by The Other Party.

Conservative voters have been given their scapegoats, and that’s all they’re getting. Their eternally satisfied with their resentments (unless they’re in the top 1%, who expect big payoffs from the government they bought.)

judybrowni:

And what the fuck are you or anyone else going to do about it? Because I’m on board if you’ve got a fucking solution.

You mean, I’m supposed to solve the problem of Democrats acting like crazy Republicans all on my lonesome?

I’m doing what I can: voting for the best Democrats on offer, campaigning for the best Democrats possible, writing, phoning Democratic politicians when the need to hear from constituents.

Petitions, facebook pages, calling voters before elections.

You know the drill. It’s called Democracy.

I’d immolate myself in front of the White House, if I thought it would do any good, but I doubt it would: for me or anyone else.

Over my lifetime, I’ve seen protests, pressure, and voting pay off in both the short and long term—and have no effect whatsoever.

I’d rather be on the side of the angels, but you can make your own path.

You know what I think would work: have seniors (and others) chain themselves to the White House fence in protest of the safety net cuts.

Obama hates to be embarressed: which is why protestors like Choi are now being prosecuted for doing so, when previous similar protestors during other administrations were simply ticketed.

It’s been speculated that DADT reform came not long after Choi et al chained themselves to the White House fence, because that was the tipping point for the Obama White House.

I’m on the other coast, but if you lie eastward, I’d recommend getting a group together to protest the safety net cuts and chain yourselves to the White House fence.

You’ll be arrested, but the White House may hate that optic enough to back off.

BrianX: And what the fuck are you or anyone else going to do about it? Because I’m on board if you’ve got a fucking solution.

MikeEss: In response, I think we need to start building tumbrels and guillotines…

And there’s your answer. Start a Guillotine Club—every few weeks go to a public space, erect a guillotine, have a few people give some quick speeches and then pack up. When the press comes by and asks why you’re building guillotines, you look straight at the camera and say “We believe in being prepared.” Multiply these clubs around the country, and you’ll be amazed at how suddenly the government becomes responsive again. The modern American Right is all about being bully, and a bully needs to know that you’ll fight back—otherwise they just keep on hitting you.

Short answer: pacifism is for chumps. Sadly, there a lot of chumps on the left.

Talk to any lower-middle class (or downright poor) “conservative”: their resentment of the benefits supposedly raining down on, and their imagined superiority, to Those People (often, if not exclusively, brown people) is part and parcel of their world view, and comes up within minutes (if not seconds) in any “political” discussion.

The Republicans have been playing that song for a half century or more, there’s a reason it’s on their hit parade.
Comment #44: judybrowni on 07/07 at 02:42 PM

Single mothers are a particularly favorite target. Especially teenaged ones. You’d think they were a disease that could only be eradicated by outlawing all forms of birth control and public assistance.

This is due to liberals absorbing too much the notion that there’s a “free market” that has some kind of meritocracy to it, when in fact business success is often more about luck than skill, especially when you’re an executive who doesn’t actually do any of the day to day work of selling goods or services to customers.

Or, as I like to say, “They probably think chicken farmers lay eggs.”

Obama’s about to “compromise with” Republicans again and cut medicare and social security.

NOW has an action alert that includes the White House phone number and a pre-written (but editable) e-mail http://action.now.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4445

Tell him to tax the rich.

How are Democrats supposed to be all over the news when they can’t even get an equal showing on the ‘serious’ Sunday shows?

I notice judybronwi is back trolling again.

When did Obama call Social Security the great pyramid scheme?  Oh wait, never.

Judy doesn’t have a solution.  She wants to tear down Democrats, so the Republicans can win, or something.  Because that’s all she ever does here.

Yeah, I’ve voted for Democrats for 40 years so the Republicans can win—what a diabolical plan!

Annnnnnnnnnnd, I follow politics closely enough to see when the Democratic politicians are both screwing us and themselves over.

Another diabolical plan: paying attention!

But by all means continue with your own diabolical plans of la la la, I can’t hear you!  and I accuse you of something you didn’t say, because you criticized my boyfriend Obama—because that worked so well for Democrats during the 2010 elections.

And there’s your answer. Start a Guillotine Club—every few weeks go to a public space, erect a guillotine, have a few people give some quick speeches and then pack up. When the press comes by and asks why you’re building guillotines, you look straight at the camera and say “We believe in being prepared.” Multiply these clubs around the country, and you’ll be amazed at how suddenly the government becomes responsive again. The modern American Right is all about being bully, and a bully needs to know that you’ll fight back—otherwise they just keep on hitting you.
Short answer: pacifism is for chumps. Sadly, there a lot of chumps on the left.

Because, as well all know, threatening political violence is never met with any sort of legal consequences, especially for people on the left half of any given spectrum. You wouldn’t get clubs multiplied all over the country, because the people who founded the first one would have had some very stern chats with a law enforcement agency.

The modern American Right wouldn’t recognize that as “standing up,” they’d see it as one more example of being persecuted for being Christian. It wouldn’t stop shit. I think that looking at them as bullies is a weak as doing the “well, it’s level-headed bankers getting one over on the rubes” thing.

Judi backed up her position, though.  Those link upthread are eye opening and beyond worrying, in my eyes. Since Obama has had a lot of WTF-style fail (again, imo), I fail to see how pointing out what is apparently his psychotically stupid position on this issue is trolling.

You wouldn’t get clubs multiplied all over the country, because the people who founded the first one would have had some very stern chats with a law enforcement agency.

And stern talk is all they could do without violating civil liberties—since building a temporary structure and giving some speeches isn’t illegal.

As for the rank-and-file having a persecution complex, they’re not the people that need to be sent a message. Insecure fundamentalists will be insecure either way. The question is whether the political elite is worried.

Upthread someone worried that Obama was too timid to go for the 14th amendment, well, it’s not quite that, he’s abdicating completely.

Another episode of What Digby Said:

“I guess the administration was getting fearful that someone might think they had the power to do anything but cut as much spending as humanly possible:

‘The General Counsel of the Treasury Department has just sent out an email to the New York Times which seems to say definitively that Secretary Geithner believes that only Congress can raise the debt limit and has full authority to force the country into default. In other words, nothing President Obama or the Treasury can do about it.’

I’m fairly sure they didn’t want those pesky congressional Democrats getting it into their heads that doing something silly like objecting to “entitlement” cuts might not result in Armageddon. Weakened the game plan substantially.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/crisis-of-authority.html