broken link to krugman

Thanks -- now fixed.

Paul rocks.

But that still doesn't explain why Obama chose raising the cap as the way to address his imaginary "crisis." How's adding even more regressivity to the tax code be part of a progressive agenda?

How's adding even more regressivity to the tax code be part of a progressive agenda?

Through the magic of ... bipartisanship!

Or is it ... bibrodership?

See, here's the problem with trying to approach conservatives/reactionaries with good faith gestures. Think of them as the proverbial schoolyard bullies. They're not at ALL interested in arriving at a best-for-all-concerned consensus; they play zero-sum games. They don't give a flying fuck about doing what's beneficial for other people. In fact, to do so would be for them a sign of weakness. Because, just like that playground bully, once they get you backing up, they just keep poking you in the chest to KEEP you backing up. They demand your submission so that they can scoop up all of the chips on the table. That's why those triangulating strategies, and all of those nicey-nice "if I give some ground, they'll appreciate that and feel duty-bound to reciprocate" kind of behaviors get you nothing but screwed, time after time after time... Friends, the Democratic "leadership" does not get it. They get played by the bullies every time. I suppose that they think that by making nice and playing the part of "reasonable actors" that they will appeal to everybody. Well, tell me, if instead of letting the bullies keep you backpedaling, one time you just hauled off and punched their lights out, do you think that that might affect the schoolyard's opinion about you? That it might be taken as a sign of SELF-RESPECT and a belief in what you value? If you continued to be true to those values after cold-cocking Bluto, and didn't become a bully yourself, I would bet that people would be willing to repose more confidence in you and actually trust in your leadership. If you won't stand up for yourself, no one will trust you to stand up for them. Doesn't happen. Ever. You see, I think people generally like to see thugs being taken down a peg, and that's just what these conservative/reactionaries truly are. The majority of the citizenry knows this. So when the Democratic candidates and legislative "leadership" won't take an aggressive stance, everybody sizes them up for spineless, simpering non-entities, and certainly not the sort of people you can rely upon to unfailingly advocate for their interests. And maybe they're right.

The problem with Mr. Krugman's analysis is that it frames up the social security debate as a two choice situation:
1) Do nothing because everything is fine
2) Privatize it and kill it

There's a third door, folks.

Marco, are you perhaps talking about the approach Hillary Clinton favors? The one that Obama attacked as too slow and reasoned?

JerseyJeffersonian: IF THAT'S ALL TRUE, then WE need 'bully' only one Democratic leader, Pelosi. Call Madam Speaker @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. Then spread it around.

pensions, homes, quality of life, reliable health care and income in unstable times, hello hello hello

Friends, the Democratic "leadership" does not get it. They get played by the bullies every time.

I don't buy it. You're assuming that Democratic leaders want to do the right thing, but they're just too "scared" to do it. But maybe they don't want to do the right thing at all?

For example, Iraq. Do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi really want to end the war, but they're just too scared of those bullying Republicans to do it? Isn't it possible that they actually want the war to continue, for at least a while longer, because they think they can reap some political benefit? Or maybe they, like the Republicans, see some "national interest" in a long-term occupation of Iraq? Both of these explanations are at least as likely to be true as your "cowardice" theory.

Or take Caps Lock Mike's issue, impeachment. Pelosi isn't afraid to impeach, she wants Cheney in office, because she thinks it improves the Dems prospects next November. If a few thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iranain civilians die in a Cheney-sponsored attack on Iran, hey, you can't increase your majority in Congress without breaking a few eggs.

I've been around on this one with Todd Gitlin on another blog. Are Dems (1) fearful or (2) evil?
Gitlin (and he's not alone) goes for (1) and I think it's (2).

BUT WHAT ABOUT YOU ,SteveB? Do YOU want the war to continue in the hopes of a Dem advantage of some sort? Fearful? Evil? What's YOUR omlette and will YOU fight for it?

i firmly believe the future demographic crisis raised my health insurance costs 300% faster than my income last year

Do YOU want the war to continue in the hopes of a Dem advantage of some sort?

Absolutely! I'm all about the Dems gaining an advantage, and I don't care how many people we have to kill to get it. Vote Hillary in '08!

SteveB: But the war is a detriment to OUR nation. Why continue it? (6.8 BILLION per week, X number of lives, while the Dems PISS on their constiuancy, YOU included. Think Hillary will give YOU a piece of the pie?)

In what sense is the continued occupation of Iraq in "the national interest"?

a)"Boots on the ground" help ensure that the war objective of "dollars in the bank" will be met when that US-owned Iraqi oil gets "into the pipeline" - if oil prices keep going up, that's not really a disadvantage, is it?

b)The Likud Lobby believes that US occupation of Iraq is in Israel's interests

c)More war and fear of war keeps enriching the MICFiC (military-industrial-congressional-financial complex)

For all these reasons, it seems very unlikely that the occupation of Iraq will be voluntarily ended - it will end, if ever, only if the Iraqis themselves make the process too painful and expensive to those who really make the decisions [sure, it's already painful and expensive for ordinary Iraqis, and ordinary Americans - but they are not in charge, are they?]

"There's a third door, folks."

No, there is not, Marco. Attempts to find that door inevitably lead to speculating reasonably as to "why not go all the way?" and thus to (2). This is because the "other doors" implicitly (or worse, explicitly) accept the premise that there is a "crisis".

Since there is no crisis, there is no need to invoke ludicrous game show analogies.