And CW does have an obligation to back up criticism of what he writes if he is going to claim to be a reality based blog.

Wrong. Peddling your lies about a "Big Money Party" would be lying. Trolling the author to repeat your lying rhetoric in order to prove he has a "reality based blog" borders on insanity.

He has no obligation to write about it...

Ding, ding, ding. :)

You First.
-Your detailed resume
-Detailed Game Theory Math Analysis of OD
-Detailed business plan
-Up to date website containing all the above

^^ Yes, exactly this. ^^

Lot of work? Yes...but You Selling A Product in a highly competitive market. Seems to me the consensus around CW.com is that you are selling an empty box.

Okay now, TS, I do take issue with this empty box characterization. ;) Wouldn't an empty box be a useful thing one could use to transport items from place to place? A box full of bullshit is much more indicative of what he's peddling.

Nobody has any obligation to buy it...or provide free advertising for it.

Exactly right. There's a plethora of bullshit out there already... add his box to "Bullshit Mountain." :)

Once again, for those of you that like to believe what you want to believe rather than accept basic facts

The lying solicitor who keeps trolling this blog insisting that his fabricated "Big Money Party" is real is the very definition of someone who believes what he wants to believe rather than accept basic facts. You don't get to lecture anyone about reality when you make up shit in order to peddle your self-serving BS.

Saying the Democrats and Republicans are both addicted to Big Money does not mean I am claiming they are the same in every way.

More of this "in every way" straw man bullshit? Who on this blog has ever accused you of claiming the parties were alike "in every way" when that is obviously utterly nonsensical bullshit? That, however, does not absolve you from your fabricated and completely made up "Big Money Party" that doesn't exist and your continuing to spew this lie.

If it's okay for citizens to vote for all those other parties, then why isn't it okay for citizens to participate in One Demand?

Another straw man argument, Don. Who on this blog said it wasn't "okay" for citizens to participate in One Demand? Who is stopping them? No one. But that doesn't make it okay for you to continue the lying rhetoric that people only have a choice between the "Big Money Party" candidates when that Party is a lie fabricated by you. You are free to peddle your lying rhetoric somewhere else... as you always have been and always will be.

And why do Democrats complain when they lose elections that the people that voted for one of these other parties are responsible for the Republican winning because those citizens could have voted for the Democrat?

Ask a Democrat. It's actually not relevant to the topic of your repeating lying rhetoric.

Why aren't the Democrats responsible for not running a better campaign or a better candidate?

Again, this is not relevant to your lies regarding the "Big Money Party" that only exists in your imagination.

Yes, it is the job (or responsibility) of journalists to inform citizens about all options.

Wrong. It is no one's responsibility to repeat your lying rhetoric and self-serving bullshit.

Especially when they claim to be presenting the information that is not being covered by other media or when they claim to be a reality based blog and then refuse to address the feasibility of One Demand.

Wrong. Your repetitive rhetoric claiming there is a "Big Money Party" is utter nonsensical bullshit. No one... repeat no one... is required to lie and peddle this bullshit for you.

A modest proposal, indeed!

Heh.

Powderhound522 [20] -

Now there's an idea!

The whole "maverick" label is completely overrated, especially among Republicans... but the media seems to keep falling for it...

:-)

-CW

Congratulations, US Citizen with an idea among 300 million other US Citizens with an idea. Was the Battle Hymn of the Republic gently playing in your head while you wrote that self righteous, evasive nonsense?

But wait - there's more! You can recycle your resume as your epitaph.

In the immortal words of Bob & Ray:

"Write if you get work."

You First.

-Your detailed resume
-Detailed Game Theory Math Analysis of OD
-Detailed business plan
-Up to date website containing all the above

Lot of work? Yes...but You Selling A Product in a highly competitive market. Seems to me the consensus around CW.com is that you are selling an empty box. Nobody has any obligation to buy it...or provide free advertising for it.

but most of the time the poor are viewed as an inexpensive source of protein. :)

Yeah, but wasn't that true in the 00s, when the Bush tax cut got passed? Seemed like the snake oil worked back then better than now, but that's just from memory.

Paula [2] -

All good points. This is why if I were the Dems (I say this just about every election, though) I would make a minimum wage hike the central issue. It's true "rising tide lifts all boats" -- the peons get a raise (to $15, hopefully), their supervisors demand more than the peons are making, the managers of the supervisors have to be making more than the people they're supervising, and it works its way up the chain. Only possible drawback, if I remember basic economics, is the risk of inflation. But it's been so long since that's been a problem, it'd probably be manageable (again, hopefully).

C. R. Stucki [4] -

An excellent point. CA might be about to get a shock -- the legislature passed a $0.12/gal increase in the gas tax, and a repeal measure is now qualified for the ballot. We'll see what's going to happen with that....

Kick [7] -

I agree too. And you're right -- bizarrely, we all seem to be agreeing for once...

TheStig [10] -

Seems like about once a decade, one or two brave Republicans actually feel an ounce of compassion for the poor. Remember Jack Kemp? Or George W. Bush supposedly being a "compassionate conservative"? Trump sold snake oil by the barrel when he tried to pass himself off as the champion of the little guy, but he's not intellectually consistent (and that's the nicest way I can put it) to stand firm for targeting tax cuts to the little guys instead of the fatcats like himself. Paul Ryan sold him a bill of goods, and he agreed just because he wanted to sign ANY bill they could agree to.

I regret that the true effects of the tax cut won't be seen until months after the 2018 election -- when everyone sits down to do their taxes in early 2019. There will be winners, but the losers (among the middle class) are going to be howling. Too late to influence the election, however.

Kick [12] -

Don't forget the "Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party" up in Wisconsin! A vestigial remnant of the last Populist/Progressive era...

-CW

Speaking of selling "snake oil" and the "bullshit machine," your repetitive rhetoric certainly qualifies and sounds like a story for Fox News Entertainment.

I swear that I could actually hear a microphone being dropped to the floor as I finished reading that post!

So what is a citizen that has caught on to BOTH divisions on the Big Money Party to do?

More of this asinine bullshit where Don lumps the parties together and then claims he never does that.

Maybe someone should come up with a way that citizens can vote against the Big Money snake oil candidates of both divisions of the Big Money Party and build support to create an alternative to the choice that is really not a choice at all.

Republicans and Democrats are two different parties, and there's no such thing as the "Big Money Party," and anyone claiming otherwise is lying. Additionally, any moron with two brain cells to rub together already knows there are several parties with candidates for which one can vote, depending on the state they live in, of course... listed below but not limited to:

Democratic
Republican
Libertarian
Green
Constitution
Peace and Freedom
Independent candidates

And if someone does, maybe someone in the media will actually do their job and inform citizens about that opportunity instead of feeding the bullshit machine that has brought us to the point of having to choose the candidate that will hurt us the least or just minimize the damage instead of candidates that will actually make things better.

You think it's the "job" of the media to inform people about your utter asinine and nonsensical bullshit claim that there is a "Big Money Party" with two divisions and no other choices they can make and that candidates who follow your arbitrary rules are going to "actually make things better"?

Speaking of selling "snake oil" and the "bullshit machine," your repetitive rhetoric certainly qualifies and sounds like a story for Fox News Entertainment.

marx has always been right about the flaws inherent in capitalism. where he was tragically wrong was in overestimating the ability of a socialist state to account for the power of human greed. i don't think anyone can really blame him, since socialism didn't exist yet in mid-nineteenth century europe. however, we now know a lot more about why all successful economies need elements of individual choice available to producers and consumers.

JL

I hasten to add that virtually all the aforementioned top ten page contributors agree that Marx correctly identified fundamental flaws of Capitalism, but seriously whiffed on workable solutions. (Sorry if anybody got the vapors or palpitations).

Rubio is just reprising the role of TV's Captain Obvious, without the beard and red uniform. I guess it beats looking like "Captain Ridiculous."

Not much motivation for the people who pay little or no income tax to cheer over income tax cuts. What they would cheer over is cuts in payroll taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, etc., and that never seems to happen.

True, and a whole lot of people who are middle class and do pay income taxes could have quite easily had tax cuts tailored toward them if that was the object of the exercise and BLOTUS hadn't conned them with the populism "bait and switch" BS that his tax cuts benefit them and not himself and his wealthy friends.

I have now agreed with 3 posts in a row... including Stucki's... so I've officially just crossed over to the Twilight Zone.

So when you produce a "tax cut" that provides non-existent or laughably low income improvements to the majority of working Americans, they AREN'T impressed.

Yes, totally right. The so-called "middle class" tax cuts for corporations are the catalyst for record stock buybacks and additional means with which companies can accomplish the purchase of machines and/or technology that allows them to displace American workers and/or move offshore in search of cheaper human labor and/or tax havens they routinely use to accomplish tax avoidance... as they have been doing now for decades.

John Oliver had an interesting segment regarding corporate tax avoidance if anyone is interested. WARNING: Do NOT watch this if foul language or lying offends you... lots of F-bombs being dropped and BLOTUS fake populism con:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKjk0ECXjiQ

Exactly right. :)

But I disagree that the economy is "doing well". Or, more accurately, I think that statement needs context. The reality is wages have been flat for the majority of Americans since the 1970's. What the economy is doing that registers as "well" is producing enough low-paying, few-no benefits, can't get ahead, no-security jobs to employ enough people to create "low unemployment" figures, etc. Last month new job creation was low, previously, new job creation numbers were "good" except - how much did they pay? Plenty of people earn a lot above minimum wage and still earn less compared to the peak in 1973 - when you compared income to outgo. If wages had the same ratio to expenses, inflation etc. that they did in 1973 minimum wage would be over $20/hour. But in today's economy (per this handy page: http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/us-jobs-wages/) that produces roughly 130 million jobs, 18 million earn less than $10/hour and 63 million earn between $10-$20/hour. 81 million jobs play less than what would have been minimum wage in 1973. Some 49 million pay more than $20/hour.

So when you produce a "tax cut" that provides non-existent or laughably low income improvements to the majority of working Americans, they AREN'T impressed.

i don't think the myth of the tax cut is any less compelling now than it was in the past, it's just that the household economy has not improved for 99.9% of the public. when we talk about "the economy" we're talking in macro terms, overall production and consumer demand, but everyone except the ULTRA-rich has seen an increase in the cost of living, without a corresponding increase in income, irrespective of a few tax pennies here or there. even the moderately wealthy aren't really benefiting much, and the working poor are working even harder and getting even poorer.

JL