Skip to main content

View Diary: Watching Meet The Press (539 comments)

Comment Preferences

      •  The comments are worse n/t (12+ / 0-)

        Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

        by democracy inaction on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 02:25:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They sound like Republicans (11+ / 0-)

          I've never visited that site, probably won't in the future.  But it was really interesting to see how many of its members support GOP positions and use the same arguments.  Maybe its not a coincidence.

          It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

          by Betty Pinson on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 04:44:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some of them (4+ / 0-)

            are still regulars here.

            Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

            by democracy inaction on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:37:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sure you recognize some of them. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming

            From Deaniac to others in the comments there, the Usual Suspects of apologists and OFAers who troll around here as well with donuts for those who don't cheer loud enough.

            *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

            by Rick Aucoin on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:32:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You forgot "dog and pony show" & "Kubuki theater"! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ChurchofBruce

              I personally don't care how loud you cheer.  I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mindlessly parrot pablum phrases such "cheer louder" or the phrase "Apologist".  Supporting President Obama does not require an apology.

              Furthermore, just because you're critical does not make you objective.  My enthusiasm for this President  based more on facts and knowledge than your disparagement of him- as evidenced by the fact that you speak in catch-phrases.  

              •  You wish. (0+ / 0-)

                And you don't know what you're talking about either.  Sorry, you don't get to evaluate the degree to which I base my criticisms on facts and knowledge from my comment about lackwit OFAers and Partisans around here and elsewhere.

                Well, you can, but you just look foolish doing so.

                Not that rabid supporters of the Administration aren't used to looking foolish.  God knows you have had plenty of practice at it since 2009.

                *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

                by Rick Aucoin on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:25:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, you certainly know from "looking foolish" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ChurchofBruce

                  AS someone who has went to school thanks to Obama's reforms and has health insurance now thanks to Obama's reforms i have been MORE than satisfied for my support of Obama in 2008 and 2012.  Not supporting him after taking advantage of these policies (and others) would be the foolish thing.

                  And yes, seeing as how you wrote your foolish comments on a public forum i do get to evaluate the intelligence of your criticisms.  It seems like YOU'RE the one demanding that we "clap louder" regarding any anti-Obama idiocy you wish to spout.

                  Also, anyone who uses trite phrases like "apologist" and "cheer louder" is banned from evaluating the intelligence of others (not really, you can do what you want, but if you get to make imaginary rules, so do I).

          •  That's not true. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChurchofBruce

            I defy you to name ONE member that "supports GOP positions" let alone "many".    We support President Obama and think that he is a great President.  Last i looked, he's not a member of the GOP.

            In fact the very reason Spandan created the blog is because he- like many of us- find little difference between the so called "progressive" blogosphere and right wingers.  They both engage in mindless name calling, they both refuse to look at the ACTUAL legislation and both arrive at the same place- That Obama is out to get them.  That is the "GOP position" that both sides share and it leads many  to be the rights useful idiots in opposing the PPACA, banking reform etc. etc.

      •  it's the flip side of the comments in any (0+ / 0-)

        obamasux diary.  in those you have people calling the president, and those who support any of his policies, sociopaths.

        the recs on your comment are comedy to me.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:05:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, look, it's another apologist. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots

          I can always count on seeing mallyroyal stepping up to defend the OFA types, no matter what.

          I've always wondered, mallyroyal, are you a founding member of the apologencia like Edrie was, or did you join up later?

          Eh, either way, it's the same ol' same ol'.  OFA forever!  

          *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

          by Rick Aucoin on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:34:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  see? what is this? (0+ / 0-)

            what does any of that gibberish have to do with anything I said?

            lol watch who recs it, too.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:09:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just your constant predictable rationalizing. (0+ / 0-)

              But yes, do please keep defending the Administration's choice to cut Social Security, while campaigning on NOT cutting Social Security and campaigning on raising the SS cap instead.

              There really is nothing this Administration can do that you and the Usual Suspects won't jump to justify or rationalize, no matter how many people are hurt by the policy in question.

              You people sicken me, you really do.

              *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

              by Rick Aucoin on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:31:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  how effin' DARE you speak for me! you are (0+ / 0-)

            seriously out of line with your insult here.

            AND in a diary i had never entered - do NOT bring this type of crap into diaries trying to stir up pie fights.

            reported!

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:58:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can say your name if I want. (0+ / 0-)

              Reporting someone saying your name without your permission?  Wow, friggin' authoritarianism runs deep in your side of the field.  Last time I checked, you don't get veto power on someone else saying your friggin' name.

              And I didn't "speak for you".  I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

              *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

              by Rick Aucoin on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:01:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Let's just hope Potus (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin, TheMomCat

          do have a trick up his sleeve bcuz if he does not, forget abt taking control of ANYTHING in 2014 especially when he campaigned on saving these programs, he did not say CUT.

          •  I thought folks were mad as shit 'cause (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChurchofBruce

            he kept saying stuff like "there will be pain on both sides" and how he wasn't far from romney on ss.

            that never happened?  I was reading another site?

            y'all gotta pick an argument and stick with it, that's all I'm saying.  I'm getting whiplash.

            at the time I was arguing that he was just paying lip service and that he knew repubs were never gonna play ball with him regardless.  I wasted those words, at the time?

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:11:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's not true (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChurchofBruce

            He campaigned on a balanced approach, and chained CPI is part of that approach.

            It seems like your bitch is the same as Republicans- that he won.  We got what we campaigned on.  if you don't know that it's your fault.

    •  And some of those commenters (23+ / 0-)

      are "valued" members of the Daily Kos family.

      “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.” – Abraham Lincoln

      by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 11:48:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "baaaad aaaaas" leftie wannabes? (17+ / 0-)

        a sampling of those comments......

        The self appointed "liberal", "progressive", "left" cry babies are none of these. They caused the problem by making it possible for the tea baggers to get elected, gerrymander the states, screw union workers, make the sequester the cost of saving the nation's creditworthiness, etc., etc. How does that make you liberal, progressive, or on the left?

        Well, at least here at TPV there is realistic, sensible analysis. Too bad the "baaaad aaaaas" leftie wannabes wouldn't be able to understand it.

        "That is not to be had by scaremongers more interested in their paycheck a than the truth, and their acolytes that follow them out of a sheer hatred of Barack Obama."

        Not to beat a dead goat but it is racism pure & simple from both Left & Right in most cases. PBO is trying to do what he can to protect & secure the future for the most vulnerable & the haters really DO hate him for that!

        Keep the analysis coming,
        There needs to be intelligent conversation about shoring up and improving the safety net. That is not to be had by scaremongers more interested in their paycheck than the truth, and their acolytes that follow them out of a sheer hatred of Barack Obama
        I trust President Obama because he has never acted in any way to hurt the American people, so I wasn't worried about chained CPI, but it is good to read analysis like this to support that trust.
           I trust President Obama too, and I can prove that such trust is well founded
        Wait... you can't respond to ideological talking points with... actual DATA! Don't you realize that's discrimination against Hair On Fire cultural values?
         
        LMAO! They all do hate data, don't they.

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

        by allenjo on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:01:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reminds me of the Freepers and George Bush (12+ / 0-)

          even to their hatred of the left.

        •  here's another beauty (9+ / 0-)
          I have always said that the Obama Derangement Syndrome is almost as bad on the jumpy Left as it is on the crazy Right. I am writing another piece focusing on Obama's attempts and successes in expanding the social safety net and how the Left is missing the forest for the trees. As I said before, I don't mind policy disagreements. But it makes me livid when people question the motives and sincerity of this president to care for the poor and the middle class.
          (emphasis mine)

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:10:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What Obama thinks: (9+ / 0-)
            So there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. This is not a bloodless process.
            Those are Barack Obama's words. He doesn't care if it figuratively (hopefully not literally) "spills blood."  He endorses going ahead with "this work" which is strong free trade and markets, globalization, etc.

            And that includes reforming Social Security, which he mentions earlier in his speech.

            Don't believe me?  He also said this in the same speech:

            too many of us have been interested in defending programs the way they were written in 1938
            Like... Social Security?

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 10:10:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Funny" how you left out the full quote (0+ / 0-)

              Here is the full context:

              "Some of that, then, will end up manifesting itself in the sort of nativist sentiment, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment that we are debating here in Washington. So there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. This is not a bloodless process."
              Fancy that- he was actually talking about something that is REALLY happening.

              If President Obama is so bad why is out of context cherry picking of his quotes necessary?

        •  How DARE those right wing apologists name call! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChurchofBruce

          Funny how you "Forgot" to include these quotes:

          First, the 30-year math completely ignores that President Obama is proposing to boost benefits for the oldest beneficiaries, at age 85 and that he would create a minimum benefit above the poverty level.
          The thing about cumulative benefits is that they are, well, cumulative. The longer you live, the longer you accumulate the benefits. And when one calculates cumulative benefits, one must take the years into account. For example, if the average person today is expected to live just 2 years longer than let's say a couple of decade ago, then they have an increase of $30,380 in cumulative benefits, well exceeding even the 30 year cumulative loss from Chained CPI.
          According to the CDC, between 1983 (the year of the last Social Security adjustments) and 2010, a period of 27 years, life expectancy in the US at birth increased 4.1 years (going from 74.6 to 78.7). Using the average benefit that AARP provided us with, that adds a cumulative $62,279 in benefits to the average person, again, dwarfing a $20,000 loss under Chained CPI over 30 years.
          It is not a "right wing talking point" to say that people are living longer and drawing benefits for a longer period of time. The irony of the Left's prognosticators putting out these "cumulative loss" calculators is that the precise cause that Social Security needs adjustments is because over the course of longer retirement, retirees are drawing cumulatively more sums. That's other side of the coin about "cumulative benefits." It is patently dishonest to talk about cumulative benefits without this context.
          It's crucial to put the notion of "cumulative benefits" in the context of both benefits and longevity (after all, the very fact that "defenders" are screaming about how much a retiree will lose over 30 years is acknowledgment of the longevity increases). You cannot solve a math problem if you are only looking at cumulative reductions in COLA but not cumulative additions due to higher life expectancy.
          A complete solution will likely require raising the cap on Social Security taxes to the level it was at at enactment of Social Security (90% of all income), and chained CPI.
          The Trustee report is clear. Social Security will only be able to pay 75% of scheduled benefits in 2033 if nothing is done. We can wait until a crisis is months away to act, as our country did in 1983. At that time, we ended up raising the retirement age to add time to the trust fund.
          Fancy that- Spandan is actually for preventing a future crises by acting NOW to avoid something like the negotiation that happened in 1983.   He like most here is for increasing the SS cap. He's also the only one in this debate quoting the SS Trustees- but what do they know?  Obama is the enemy!
      •  And some (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, JesseCW, poligirl

        Were banned a long time ago

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:16:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why is that guy/gal wrong? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChurchofBruce

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 12:05:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They assume, for example, that a 4.4% (42+ / 0-)

        decrease in income is acceptable for everyone on Social Security. That's not a big deal if, like the President, you make $400, 000 a year (and have your own plane, free room and board, excellent health coverage, and future job prospects). It's a big deal to me, and I get more than the average SS recipient gets.

        They also drag out old discredited cliches like longevity - increase in lifespan was already largely factored in to Social Security rates and doesn't significantly impact the economics of the program.

        It's also the tip of the iceberg of a an austerity program - consider how well that's worked for Greece, Spain, or even the UK. Social Security benefits should be increased, the Medicare eligibility age should be lowered, and Medicaid enhanced, and those things would all happen in a country that had a rational policy benefiting the entire population rather than just the wealthiest few.

        The single biggest reason they're wrong, however, is that they have no interest at that site in formulating policy that actually solves problems people face. Their only metric is whether a position supports Obama or not. Everything that flows from that is rationalization, not honest analysis.

        Modern revolutions have succeeded because of solidarity, not force.

        by badger on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 12:46:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup. (32+ / 0-)

          If they were really interested in solving the putative "problem" of Social Security shortfalls, they might turn their attention to removing the current $113,000 cap on income subject to payroll taxes.

          So while they're expending all this energy explaining why the chained CPI cut is supposedly not so bad, there is no attempt to explain why President Obama would even bother to implement this policy in the first place. What actual policy goal is it set to achieve? Why go to the trouble of defending it?

          This is where I'm not really sure what President Obama is doing. If the thing is an olive branch to Republicans, it's a failed one: Republicans will promptly turn it against the Dems, saying "they want to take away your Soc. Security!" Even Paul Ryan, who I don't credit with too much intelligence, was crafty enough not to do that -- in a budget that otherwise engages in a scorched-earth approach. Republicans need to round up seniors to vote, because that's the only segment left of their coalition. They're not eager to piss them off.

          But if that's the case, then, chained CPI can be understood neither as a sound policy response to some putative Soc. Security "crisis" (raising the payroll tax cap would be far more effective -- and fair), nor as a noble gesture in the direction of a Grand Bargain (which the Republicans have repeatedly, tirelessly, and unequivocally rejected for as far back into the administration as anyone can remember).

          No, I'm afraid that chained CPI looks like little more than a sop to the financial industry, which will be very pleased to see that SS is increasingly made to seem like an unattractive alternative to the private sector (no matter the problems with 401(k)s and the like).

          Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

          by Dale on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:34:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How about: 1)we don't need to lower the deficit (15+ / 0-)

          right now 2) if we did lower it right now we should not do it drastically because the "recovery" is too fragile 3)even if we wanted to lower it drastically, Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit 4)Social Security won't have any problems covering its costs for thirty years, and what other issue 30 years from now do politicians even notice much less get into a lather over? 5)What problems it will have in 30 years should not be addressed until the question of where all the extra money from the Reagan rise in payroll taxes went is addressed, and publicly, 6)What problems it will have can be easily solved by raising the income cap, 7)It's Americans' fucking money anyway, and a collective promise we've made to each other, and these politicians and billionaires can goddamned well fuck off.

          if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:10:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  More is better. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul1a, ChurchofBruce

          That is purely an ideological response. Whether you wan't to call it progressive or socialist or what not.

          There does seem to be a tendency to dismiss some relevant mitigating factors.

          Does it matter if it's actually not a decrease in purchasing power? Or if it's offset by lowering medical care costs.

          Or is it just simply more is better and that's an ideologically superior place, because others don't really care about people.

          It was my understanding that the reason chained CPI was developed is because CPI-W was over estimating actual inflation.

          In any case, that article has factual information, whether one agrees with the policy or not. I'm glad Meteor Blades linked to it.

          •  Chained CPI is a DEFICIT REDUCTION gimic (19+ / 0-)

            The one and only reason they are proposing this is to make sure that every senior has less Social Security.  Well, they may "mitigate" the draconian impact on the poorest seniors which is a total admission that it has a draconian impact.

            They brag about how much money they are going to save.  Seniors have become Obama's piggy bank.  Take from the 85 year old woman to give to the MIC or Wall Street.

            Don't try to cram that centrist crap down our throats.'

            This is the sacrifice program.  This is the middle class has it too good so we need to take something from them program.

            There is NOTHING in this but pain for the middle class. No benefit at all.  Just robbing from the middle to give to rich.

          •  If that we're true (15+ / 0-)

            Then social security beneficiaries would have a higher standard of living than in1980.  Do you see any evidence that is true?  

            Again, it is a controversial, conservative solution to a nonproblem

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 04:25:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No I don't see any evidence. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Paul1a

              Do you have any?

              •  Sure (10+ / 0-)

                one is the provenance and theory behind the chained CPI that involves substitution of cheaper goods, which implies a reduction of the standard of living in reality.

                There's also the ridiculous politics of targeting the poor elderly for cuts when there is insane amounts of pork lavished on banks and giant corporations and the rich that are essentially untouched.  Of all the priorities, it is bizarre.

                Still, it would make a good study.

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:07:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Substitution of cheaper goods: (0+ / 0-)

                  Now here's something I know something about.
                  A few years ago, Walmart faithfully carried a very good medium level thermal underwear, from Morgan Mills.
                  Then they stopped carrying it, and the only thing they routinely have is inferior cotton thermals.
                  Ditto their 4 layer "thinsulate" knit caps. Now they have a cheaper, less effective type.
                  This is just a sample of what happens across the board: Wall Street is continually lowering the quality of what they're forcing us to buy (because there's no or little competition).
                  Quality is of no concern.

                  The problem I'm having is that I can't buy the "Obama believes in neoliberalism" line.

                  I think he's offering something that seems to be painful in exchange for the other things in the budget proposal that we'd like.
                  I could be wrong.
                  The question is, is the CPI "that bad"? How does it figure into the total budget proposal.
                  I agree with your comment. I know the gop is masturbating to the scene of Richard Widmark tossing Grannie off her wheelchair down the stairs.
                  I'm not sure Obama is.

                  You can't make this stuff up.

                  by David54 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:22:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It doesn't matter if Obama is a neoliberal (10+ / 0-)

                    What matters is whether chained CPI is a good policy or not. It doesn't matter how chained CPI figures in the total budget proposal, because Social Security is not in the budget and not in the deficit.

                    If you want to debate personalities (and whether or not Obama is a neoliberal is in that category) then you want to talk to the people at the site linked. Many of them, including the proprietor, left here because they were offended that some people here were more interested in policy and it's effects than the personality of the President. That's what they care about.

                    That's what I don't give a shit about.

                    Modern revolutions have succeeded because of solidarity, not force.

                    by badger on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:35:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not just that I don't give a shit about it (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Nada Lemming, badger, poligirl

                      it's that it's unknowable.

                      We'll never know "who he is" or "what he thinks".  Billions (literally) have been spent to obscure that from us and to try to make him all things to all people.

                      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                      by JesseCW on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:06:34 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm with you. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      badger

                      I was on another thread in the day in which I more or less took the exact same position.
                      There was lots of discussion.
                      That's why I brought it up.

                      Personally, I think we have to get the House back before we're going to see much progress, but I totally agree with you

                      I agree about SS, but in the context of the political package that is the budget, and the trade-off, politically, it matters whether we're getting big ticket items we want.

                      The budget is just a guide anyway, it won't mean a thing until Congress appropriates money to make it happen.

                      You can't make this stuff up.

                      by David54 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:16:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  It is difficult to say (0+ / 0-)

                    I am always inclined to attribute things to error rather than malign intent.  So I am sympathetic to the notion that it might not be his preferred policy.  However, his instincts are not liberal ones, so he clearly doesn't recoil from the proposal the way leftist would so he offers it as bait

                    In truth he never campaigned on being a liberal. He prided hope and change, but I imagine that he thinks he is bringing it because his view is so very conventional as to never imagine what could be.  He chooses among existing menu options but does not seek new options.

                    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

                    by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:02:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Make no mistake. My Dad's on SS and I definitely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          think he needs</em> more,  not less.
          I also think just about all aspects of "austerity" need to be shot down.

          However, if everyone agreed tomorrow that "deficits don't matter" then I don't see us ever reining in the MIC budget or Wall Street welfare.

          I think we have a chance to do that as long as we have this idea of government frugality before us.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:39:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Remember, for the bottom 50%, Longevity (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming, Sunspots, badger, poligirl

          overall stopped rising two decades ago.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:59:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's false (0+ / 0-)

          First off, Obama's proposals increase SS payments for the very poor and for those 85 and over.  Secondly, chained CPI  along with other proposals in President Obama's budget IS the formulation of policy that solves problems for real people.

          But, like with the Public Option in the healthcare debate, you'd rather focus on the ONE policy point of chained CPI and ignore all the other progressive elements of the bill like universal pre-school, an end to 600 billion in tax loopholes an increase in benefits for the elderly poor and an increase in benefits for the elderly over 85.  

          You won't acknowledge any of that because it doesn't jive with your pre-judged talking point of Obama being the enemy.  A talking point you share with the GOP.

          If just ONCE someone would acknowledge that President Obama has increased the social safety net more than any President since Johnson, i'd appreciate it.  Or if they'd take into account the ENTIRE bill, rather than just the one aspect that most fits into the "HE BETRAYED US!" meme I'd respect that.  But basically you're nothing more  than propagandists.

          •  The issue is not President Obama (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat

            You should really go over to the linked site if that's what you want to talk about. I have no judgment about the President that I care to discuss or debate at the moment.

            What I do care about is the policy, and you obviously don't, spending 75% or more of your post telling me what I think about Obama (when did we meet, and how much time did we spend discussing my opinions of him? Oh- that's right - never and not at all).

            As to your first point, it's short-sighted bullshit that you're falling for. Maybe Obama will protect those over 85 (just like he supported the public option, I suppose), maybe he won't. But either way that's not relevant to the fact that some 20 year old kid today will start getting SS benefits at the much lower level current beneficiaries will reach in their last days. And then that now-20-year-old will continue to spiral downward from there.

            The problems for real people are that they have no jobs and no money, since pension plans are bankrupt or non-existent, 401Ks took a huge hit when the economy crashed or people had to withdraw that money to save their home or eat, and the currently unemployed over 50 are very unlikely to find employment that will allow them to save much for retirement. Those are the problems, and you believe taking $100 billion away from those people is a solution.

            That 20-year-old-kid today is saddled with much more student loan debt than I graduated with, he's likely going to face a lot more years of minimum wage or employment or unemployment than I faced, he's going to have a worse time putting his kids through college than I did, and all of that is going to make it much harder for him to save even the relatively small amount I have socked away for retirement. I'll get by, even with chained CPI (I had some big earning years and my SS benefits are above average).  That 20-year-old-kid today is fucked if this goes through.

            Ignore what the President wants for a change, and just think about what people need. Then you might actually have an opinion worth discussing. I don't really care what your opinion of my opinion of Obama is.

            Modern revolutions have succeeded because of solidarity, not force.

            by badger on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:38:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, you're making assumptions as well. (0+ / 0-)

              You're assuming that my position isn't ALSO based upon that 20 year old.  That 20 year old is far more "fucked" if this does not go through than if it does.

              1. if that 20 year old stays impoverished than that 20 year old is entitled to live out his life above the poverty range thanks to the minimum threshold called for in this bill.

              2. If that 20 year old has children then he is entitled to free pre-school care as called for in this bill.

              3. If that 20 year old wants to go to school, or apply for assistance he won't be turned away because of the far more draconian budget cuts called for in the sequestration.

              4. If that 20 year old wants to get a job he'll be far less likely to with the sequestration and with the constant chaos created by the endless budget deals.  

              5.  Furthermore, it's the SS trustees that are insisting that something be done as soon as possible on SS.  They do so because they know that in 2033 there will be an AUTOMATIC reduction of 25% for SS.  A fate FAR worse than chained CPI.  Yes, there's a possibility that they can do what they did in 1983 and wait till the last minute, but that entailed raising the retirement age and coming up with taxes on the middle class far  more draconian than the chained CPI.  

              Like it or not, the Republicans exist.  President Obama HAS to deal with them if he wants to end the sequestration and stop these endless budget fights.  

              That entails making a bargain, that entails working out a deal on entitlements.

              Also, if you're going to make arguments about President Obama hurting a nameless 20 year old you'll have more credibility if you'll at least acknowledge that President Obama has done more than any President in generations to help the youth.  That 20 year old can get health care on his parents insurance thanks to the health care bill you disparaged as a sell out above.  That 20 year old no longer has to go through a middle-man when getting a student loan.  That 20 year old is entitled to Pell grants thanks to Obama.  If that 20 year old is gay, he can now serve openly thanks to Obama.  

              Twenty year olds aren't stupid, that's why they voted for him in two elections in overwhelming numbers.

              •  And why (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheMomCat

                would any of those things, all of which currently have the same status as the public option before the health care bill was passed, require taking money away from people who rely on SS, SSDI or military pensions?

                The Republicans aren't asking for it - Obama is volunteering to do it. Pete Peterson wants it, Simpson and Bowles would like it, but nobody else is asking for it. There's absolutely zero evidence that chained CPI will put an end to endless budget deals - and in fact it's already been rejected, both by the House leadership and the Senate.

                Congress (remember them?) and the President acted together to clean up the student loan mess and enable kids to stay on their parents insurance. Please remember all those tired old arguments that Obama supporters make when things don't happen, like he isn't a dictator, or he needs 60 votes, or 11 dimensional chess. You can't have it both ways, y'know. But I have no problem acknowledging those policy accomplishments, or even having Obama share the credit.

                I'd like to see a link where the Social Security trustees "insisted" something be done. Then I'd like to see what the range of options for that something might be, other than the reverse Robin Hood exercise of chained CPI. Right now the government could effectively borrow the necessary funds at a negative interest rate to shore up SS, assuming things like lifting the FICA salary cap couldn't be done. At any rate, 2033 is 20 years away, and people need help today. They needed it yesterday, too, and didn't get it.

                There's no reason at all to cut Social Security benefits in real dollar terms, and no one is asking for it to be done except the President and the usual suspects who want to either end Social Security altogether or turn the trust fund over to Wall Street.

                And, in fact, in terms of solving real problems that people face, like declining 401K values, disappearing pension plans, and the inability of people to save significantly for retirement due to long periods of unemployment or stagnant real wages (none of which the President or Congress are addressing in any serious or direct fashion), Social Security, disability and military benefits should be increased.

                Moreover, that, and not chained CPI is what polls above 60% most of the time, and if you'd like a Democratic House or Senate, and probably a lot of Democratic state legislatures and state offices, then you probably don't want people to view the Democratic Party as the party that cut Social Security.

                Considering the unemployment rate, declining labor force participation, stagnant wages, college costs, the failure of two legs of the retirement economics stool, the huge tax preferences and bonuses that still accrue to those who created the financial mess were in, and the lack of progressivity in tax rates, it's time for someone else to make a few sacrifices besides the people who will once again be hurt, this time by benefit cuts proposed by Democrats.

                Modern revolutions have succeeded because of solidarity, not force.

                by badger on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:31:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks, banger (0+ / 0-)

                  The peopklw who are defending cuts to social security are spouting talking points straight out of the Pete Peterson "Third Way" and "Fix the Debt" school. They have their "people" all over the media, including the so-called left leaning MSNBC. I lost count of the number off times a day I see Ed Rendell spouting this bull.

                  There is no amount of revenue or programs that are acceptable to cuts to the social safety net  that our most vulnerable citizens rely on.

                  I live in a very "red" district and there are a  lot of Republican and hard core Tea Party members who are up in arms over this.


                  "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
                  TheStarsHollowGazette.com

                  by TheMomCat on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:19:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Medicare drug prices - the litmus test (13+ / 0-)

        When discussing Medicare costs, they NEVER discuss the biggest cost driver - Medicare is legally prevented from negotiating drug prices with pharma companies.

        When the GoP pushed through that change as part of the prescription drug plan, everyone knew it would drive up the cost of Medicare.   But now, boneheaded ConservaDems in DC refuse to even mention the need to change that law and allow

        Failure to mention or advocate for allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices is a huge red flag.  Anyone who fails to mention it is lying about everything else with regard to the Cat Food Commission plan.

        Yeah, GOP-lite folks refuse to acknowledge that elephant in the room.  I suppose it means they would prefer seniors pay more for health care than allow Medicare to bargain drug prices.

        It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

        by Betty Pinson on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 04:51:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we need to start thinking about the fact (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, poligirl

          that Joe Manchin and Mary Landrieu, etc. have someone telling them what to vote for and where to stand, etc.
          The advisor/consultant/ staff member class in DC need to be put under more scrutiny.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:25:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Funny how the Repubs enacted a law that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots

          ensures that our money is sucked out of our bank accounts into those of pharmaceutical companies and the one thing we might do to control the flow, to tamp it down a bit, i.e. negotiating drug prices, was left out.  Good luck to us in trying to fix that.

          The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

          by helfenburg on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:34:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why is it that after reading only half of that (36+ / 0-)

      I now feel like I just spent three hours talking to Scientology recruiters outside of the Pasadena Org?

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 12:12:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They sure don't sound like Democrats (22+ / 0-)

        The right wing wants to decrease the life span of ordinary people at both ends. Keep the young unemployed or send them to foreign wars; then cut benefits to the aged so they won't live so long. Maybe they won't even reach the proposed retirement age of 72.

      •  democrats, hey? I feel like I need a shower (19+ / 0-)

        It's like visiting red state as to revulsion factor - just from reading a few of those "informed democrats" comments.

        Is this what is left of the democratic party?

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

        by allenjo on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 01:05:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  now you know how I feel when perusing a (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChurchofBruce

            bobswern or priceman diary's comments.

            I'm dead serious.  now I await you explaining to me how I'm not actually feeling that.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:10:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sure you are feeling that, the question is... (12+ / 0-)

              why? Because people are criticizing a millionaire president whose policies favor Wall street over Main street? A guy who has made it abundantly clear that he intends to cut our Social Security? A man who campaigned for that job, not once, but twice and knew that his actions would have consequences and that would include criticism?

              You slay me, mally, you really do. Everybody must be doing this because they're just haters. And the president, well, he needs defending from the likes of us! Hell, we have the exact same standing as him. We should be taken to task for anything we say on a blog just the same as if we were the president making a statement to a room full of press.

              So, you go on and be as disgusted as you please with all the comments in all the land, no skin off any of our asses. Our comments are not what's gonna kill the Democrats. Shit policies are. That's not hate for a man, that's the reality of a situation of his own making.

              I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

              by triv33 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:38:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was going to respond but there is (9+ / 0-)

                nothing else left to say.  You said it all.  Thanks.

              •  no. it's the stuff you say about those of us who (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ChurchofBruce

                support him, in any way shape or form.

                I thought we were talking about what's said about other commenters, in comments.

                and where, in my comment, do you see me say your comments are going to "kill the Democrats?"  

                I was simply relating how those comments (the ones about obama supporters) make me feel.  because thats what I thought we were doing in this particular thread.  saying how comments make us feel.

                This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:01:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I really can't say too much (11+ / 0-)

                  about that, mally, as I don't understand it.  I will never understand how hurting the least amongst us garners praise. The things I do say are in direct reply to people who "got theirs" or are displaying complete denial.

                  I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

                  by triv33 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:08:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I was only trying to stem the tide of disgust (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ChurchofBruce

                    gasping:

                    how oh how could people say those mean things ABOUT OTHER DEMS and consider themselves democrats?
                    it gets mean on both sides of the rox/sux divide, lets not act like it doesn't.  people in here gasping that rec up comments shitting on me and those like me.  I see them.  I decline to reply to most of them, these days.  once upon a time, I engaged with all that I saw.

                    I keep seeing folks say "it's about the policy"

                    yeah sure right up till you start talking about the personalities and the motivations.

                    suxers do it, roxers do it. at about the same rate, I've found.

                    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                    by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:16:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I've had people insist to me (11+ / 0-)

                      that the President has made things better for poor people, the facts don't bear that out. Now, maybe they've had it go better for them or a few folks they know, but no, things have not gotten better for the majority of the poor or those riding the poverty line. And when I dare to point this out? I'm a hater, I have an agenda, I'm frustrati!

                      Now, what about me pointing that out is about personality? Is it shitting on somebody to point out the truth that they don't care to hear? I'm not generally a mean person, but my patience with denialism has its limits.

                      I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

                      by triv33 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:30:19 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He has made things better for poor people (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ChurchofBruce

                        Increasing S-chip has made things better for poor people.

                        Allowing them to stay on unemployment while going to school has made things better for poor people.

                        Increasing Pell grants has made things better for poor people.

                        Reforming debit card fees has made things better for poor people.

                        Student loan reform has made things better for poor people.

                        Obamacare has made things better for poor people

                        But when I point these things out, i'm an "Apologist".  

                        The "denialisms" is in your camp, not mine.  And my patience for it has reached its limits as well.

                        •  So telling (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          poligirl

                          that you refer to them as "poor people".

                          Crawl back in that tower it suits you

                          There are no sacred cows.

                          by LaEscapee on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:01:13 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  still can't figure out how the chained CPI (8+ / 0-)

                            is going to be good for old poor people and disabled poor people.

                          •  Depends on which elderly (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama's proposals entail INCREASING benefit payments for the very poor establishing that ALL senior our above the poverty line.  His policy also calls for increasing benefits for those over 85- those most likely to be disabled.

                          •  Links please (5+ / 0-)

                            What will they do for this 49 year old that has paid in for decades? How about those that have walked the line and have no choice but to depend on "the safety net"?

                            The "I got mine" crowd is the problem look around you that's them.

                            There are no sacred cows.

                            by LaEscapee on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:26:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know the odds of a poor person making it (7+ / 0-)

                            to 85?

                            You just described a massively pro-rich redistribution as if it were help for my people - who are mostly dropping dead before 70.

                          •  Well, they'll be living (0+ / 0-)

                            A lot longer with the provisions provided for in Obamacare, subsidies for health care for those who can't afford it, minimum services provided by insurance companies and free preventive care.

                            But I forget the rules- when he accomplishes something it is a meaningless trifle, when he proposes something or fails to do something (PUBLIC OPTION) it is the end of the world and a sell out.

                          •  Subsidies? Seriously? (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            triv33, gooderservice, TheMomCat, poligirl

                            You know what he accomplished? He made it law that those that couldn't afford "Healthcare" now must pay insurance companies the money they don't have for "Healthcare" they will never receive..

                            Wake up look around

                            There are no sacred cows.

                            by LaEscapee on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:12:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i think you **vastly** underestimate what (0+ / 0-)

                            health care costs as well as overestimate what those subsidies will be, especially for someone like me...

                            that's why i always chuckle sadly when i hear defenders talk about the "Afffordable" Care Act... health care is still unaffordable to most.

                            but carry on... far be it from a peon like me to disturb your grandiose chain of thought about how great Obama's programs have been for me - a real poor person.

                            The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                            by poligirl on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:52:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So another twisted in logistics policy that people (4+ / 0-)

                            won't even know exists or can't even understand when presented with the 30 page .pdf on a computer they can't afford or a computer that was handed down to them from 10 years ago but they can't get online because they can't afford to pay the ISP fees?

                            Obama's proposals entail INCREASING benefit payments for the very poor establishing that ALL senior our above the poverty line.  His policy also calls for increasing benefits for those over 85- those most likely to be disabled.
                            The very poor?  Wow, that's special.  Let me say it again:  The very poor.  How about the very close to poor, or how about those who still have to make choices about food or medication?  Where do they fit in?

                            How about the ones that paid into SS all their lives, and now some Democratic president wants to cut their benefits?  How about that?

                            You mean if they're still alive, of course:

                            increasing benefits for those over 85
                            Isn't that nice of him?  
                            those most likely to be disabled
                            What happens to those get disabled before they're 85?  Tough luck, apparently.

                            People are people.  We work, we pay our taxes all our lives, some people are better off than others, for sure, in the 99%, but damn it, we've earned those benefits, period.

                            As far as increasing payments to the very poor and disabled, sure, we being the richest nation on earth, we can do that, should do that, in addition to keeping their grubby hands off what we've been earning our entire lives.

                          •  People understand it (0+ / 0-)

                            It exists already in Massachusetts and people get it just fine.  

                            But thanks for making the assumption that the poor and middle class are just too stupid to understand something like health exchanges.  A talking point taken right from the GOP.

                            The rest of your post all boils down to- forget all the good that he has done already and all the good that he is proposing because.... OBAMA EVIL!!

                            And yet you're the one who claims to be objective.  Whatever.

                          •  I was replying to (0+ / 0-)

                            Triv33 who referred to them as "poor people".  

                          •  In my state all adults (7+ / 0-)

                            who are not seniors or disabled were thrown off medicaid. The poverty rate has gone up. The median wage has gone down. The amount of people on food stamps has increased. Is unemployment down? Is that because we've gotten some crap service jobs or people have just fallen of the rolls or a little of both? Reforming debit card fees? Yeah, that's swell, I also love that big print they have to use now, boy howdy, that's dandy! Obamacare? You mean the great Insurance Bonanza of '09? If my Husband doesn't die before then he may get him some of that junk insurance next year. woot.

                            I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

                            by triv33 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:29:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  One of my friends was saying, just the other day, (7+ / 0-)

                            that the costs of actually using her great health insurance were making it impossible for her to bother to go to the doctors. She has insurance but the co-pays are too much of a cost for her to bear. So it is effectively useless to her.

                            Golly? Who could've predicted that?

                            In as far as this?

                            Is that because we've gotten some crap service jobs or people have just fallen of the rolls or a little of both?
                            Both. Everyone knows it. Crappy jobs and gaping cracks in social safety nets and government reforms designed to direct even money more efficiently to the top of the Pyramid scheme that this nation has become.

                            ePluribus Media
                            Collaboration is contagious!

                            by m16eib on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:41:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  err... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            triv33, poligirl, gooderservice, TheMomCat

                            "and government reforms designed to direct even MORE money more efficiently to the top of the Pyramid scheme"

                            But... yeah. Fuck them if they don't like that we are sick and tired of being fucked by them.

                            ePluribus Media
                            Collaboration is contagious!

                            by m16eib on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:00:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  say this to triv33 too, then. (0+ / 0-)

                            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                            by mallyroyal on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 06:50:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no, mally--see, I wasn't referring to a "them" (4+ / 0-)

                            I was talking about the us that I belong to. And if insipid47 belonged to that same class of us, well, they might know that while that list sure looks pretty, it doesn't do us a whole lot of good in our day to day lives. But, hell--sure, go ahead and say whatever ya want to me, words don't hurt. That shit rolls right off my back. Cuts hurt, no jobs hurt, no insurance hurts (and you KNOW Corbett made it impossible for my husband to get adult basic) having no voice hurts, not counting hurts. So--say or believe whatever you choose to.

                            I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

                            by triv33 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:22:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  ummm, you have to have a child to benefit... (4+ / 0-)

                          from Schip and even then there are other qualifiers.

                          you have to have been on a certain type of unemployment  to benefit from the extension.

                          Pell Grants and student loan reform only help those in college.

                          debit card fees? are you talking about no overdraft fees now? that only benefits people trying to buy over their balance, and has not ever affected me - an actual poor person who has just a pay and load debit with no bank account, which is actually a growing segment of the poor.

                          Obamacare has made it possible that i can buy health insurance, for the totally unaffordable fees they want to charge preexisters, and being roughly 120% of poverty level, which is a joke anyway, i won't get enough subsidies to pay for health insurance, so i will now get charged a penalty. Gee thanks Obamacare!

                          i know how much Obama has helped poor people - actual poor people - cuz i am one. and i don't mean one who has a 24 year old kid they can now add to health insurance cuz they can afford health insurance, and i'm not talking about college is now slightly more affordable cuz most of the actual poor can't really afford college, and if they can, it's only part time and the enfits are limited due to that, and i don't mean those who were lucky enough to be 99ers and not those of us who were unemployed on the regular end and therefore did not get to partake, and i don't mean those who have kids, cuz not all of us can or do.

                          if you don't fall into that limited description of the poor, Obama really hasn't helped much...

                          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                          by poligirl on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:49:59 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll stipulate, Mally, that SOME of the criticism (9+ / 0-)

                      of the President originates at least in part from personal animus. I won't speculate on the reasons for that visceral dislike. Do you truly think though that animus is the reason for most of the criticism of Mr. Obama here, rather than deep disagreements on policy and tactics? I actually am interested in your answer.

                      Speaking for myself... I met Mr. Obama in 2004, at the very beginning of his campaign for the Democratic Senate nomination, shook his hand and exchanged pleasantries. I told him, truthfully, that I hadn't been as enthused about a "mainstream" Dem politician since the death of the late great Harold Washington. He replied that those were big shoes to fill, but he'd do his best.

                      I worked my butt off in that campaign. Why would my admiration morph into distrust and disapproval, other than policy disagreement? What possible reason--other than policy disagreement--would I have to "turn on him" now?

                      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                      by PhilJD on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:54:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Rox/Sux is over (8+ / 0-)

                      now it is right/wrong people need to accept the fact. The preznit is a lame duck and doing everything he wanted to do in the first place.

                      Trust ne nobody cares about anyones "feelings" but understand many care about the affects the policies have on their lives.

                      There are no sacred cows.

                      by LaEscapee on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:03:57 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  If you feel insulted, it's only because you're (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LaEscapee

                  being insulted.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:12:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I do appreciate you not telling me how I feel. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                triv33, ChurchofBruce

                it's the usual reply to me mentioning it, so your comment was a refreshing change.

                This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:03:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It is hate for the man (0+ / 0-)

                If it wasn't based on hate, you wouldn't lie about his position.  His position is that chained CPI is NOT  a cut to SS.  If you want to argue that it is, that's fine.  But you're arguing that "he intends to cut our Social Security".  That's NOT his intention.  His intention is to put it on a better foundation- Exactly as suggested by the trustee report.  

                What makes you hateful is your making up motivations in order to paint President Obama as the bad guy.  It's no "skin off my ass" if you disagree with his position.  But making up false motivations and attributing to the President is a right-wing propaganda tool worthy of Rush.

        •  Nope, they arent (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, allenjo, JesseCW, poligirl

          Like dead people who don't realize they're dead, they are republicans who haven't realized it yet

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:20:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are a hell of a lot of Republicans who are (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming, poligirl

            put off by the racism, sexism, and homophobia of that Party, and who assume that by default they must be Democrats.

            income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

            by JesseCW on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:13:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  So much distortion (15+ / 0-)

      Let's just go back 8 years when Bush had the same goals and recycle all the talking points and debunking.

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      To list just a few...

      The increase in life expectancy is unlikely to be repeated. Let's not design a future that depends on miracles.

      Benefits are tied to wages. Wages are in decline and have been for 30 years. I see no indication that rising wages will offset the cuts.

      Using today's conditions to find new justifications for a plan that has been in the works for decades is deceptive at best.

      The talk of fewer workers supporting more people ignores the fact that the birth rate is declining. Future workers will be supporting fewer children and elderly combined.

      Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

      by Just Bob on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 02:55:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not only not going to repeated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sunspots, poligirl

        It never happened.   Life expectancy has increased almost solely for rich people.   For the socioeconomic classes that depend on SS, there has been no increase, which means the analysis there is bunk.

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:31:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not progressives, apologists. (14+ / 0-)

      It's all about personality and party for them, not about ideology nor about real policy knowledge. They use language that looks like policy knowledge to conjure up the flavor of being some kind of expert political insider to cover up the stench of betrayal and the total lack of policy justification for this behavior.

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:05:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So that's where (10+ / 0-)

      the 3rd way & DLC brain trust hang out. I think I see some familiar names there.

      Severely Socialist

      by ichibon on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:06:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There a lot of kossacks who defend it (9+ / 0-)

      You don't need to go to another site for that

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:45:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  mercy, summed up in a comment in the link (7+ / 0-)
      Call me a "BLIND FOLLOWER" all you want. I have never been so proud to hold that title in my life. I'll keep working for the CHANGE this President so graciously inspired me to take part in and watch the positive results keep rolling in. KEEP HOPE ALIVE!!! Dem House in 2014!!!!

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:05:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow (4+ / 0-)

      I looked through that site.  It is almost as vicious toward liberals as Rush Limbaugh.  Kind of a false flag operation.  I see some pretty disputable characters setting up shop there yikes.  I need a shower

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:15:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's people who think like me but haven't gotten (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChurchofBruce

        past the stage where they constantly think about people like you.

        I used to rack my brain with "how can they think this stuff" but don't anymore.  I also have stopped considering constant complainers "false flag kossacks."  I used to think most of the people in this comments section were totally full of shit.  I don't anymore.  I still think the things I always did.  I'm not stupid and I'm not corrupt.  I'm just tired of arguing the same damn points.

        now:  are you calling me a false flag kossack?  I think not.

        you, like those in the comments of the TPV link, and like those in the comments around me in this diary, are going WAY overboard when talking about other Dems.

        and none of you realize how much you sound like the others.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:13:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I might well be (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin, gooderservice, poligirl

          I have a hard time believing that people who are far more interested in attacking liberals have anything resembling a passing association with the Democratic Party and in fact have a far more natural home elsewhere.  I can't say the hat tip to adept helps your case

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:55:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as I said, I stopped letting my personal biases (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChurchofBruce

            tell me who is and isn't a Dem.

            very few commenters in this thread would pass that muster.  I take people at their words when they say they vote Dem.  you should too.

            I know a lot of Af-Ams, that echo everything you read on TPV.  Democrats, to a person.  you ignore them at your own peril. (which, funnily enough, is what people calling themselves progressives on here say to me regarding their viewpoints.)

            long story short, neither you nor me nor anyone has the right to tell someone their political affiliations.  votes do that.

            this is a separate point from the one I make about how too many are completely over the moon deluded when it comes to the "Democratic Brand."  that brand excluded blacks and interred a certain group Americans, right along with building the safety net.  folks need to get a grip, and quit forgetting the past.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:03:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  oh and Adept2U is a Democrat. period. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChurchofBruce

            because he votes Democratic.

            I'd wager he has more claim to the title than you, under that rubric.  just based on your commentary.

            so it's weird to me that you think that doesn't "help my case" to have a Democrat's words in my sig.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:06:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have once (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin, gooderservice, poligirl

              Not voted democratic.  In 1996 I voted for Nader in Massachusetts knowing that Clinton had the state locked up.  Otherwise a 100% record on my end

              Well, I hope African Americans and others  end up happy with the results of the campaign to make the Democratic Party more like the Republican Party.  I suppose it hasn't occurred to folks that alienating the left is also aterrible idea.  I do not understand why attacking what is a significant part of the coalition is smart.   It is the left that provides the policy ideas and analysis and then pushes for those policies.  Without policies, all you have left is a sports team:  fun to root for, but ultimately meaningless.  Let me ask the question:  if Democrats adopted the GOP platform in its entirety, would it still make sense?   If you answer is know, then you understand d the principle that there is a limit to how rightward the party can go and maintain uniform support.   Some people have less tolerance for it than you.  Is that a reason to alienate them since they don't pass you loyalty test?

              As for adept, we will just have to disagree.  I know he's a buddy of yours so I will say nothing more there

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:20:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  my whole point was I don't apply my loyalty (0+ / 0-)

                test anymore.  I was wrong to ever do it.

                your rationalizations aside, so are you.

                This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:27:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  As is so often true (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mallyroyal

                  You are totally right. As you know perfectly well it is hard not to get frustrated with attacks and give into that.  Yes that goes both ways.  

                  Thanks!

                  As an aside, I think people should recognize that the white liberal community has done a lot of the work of standing up for minority rights (that is standing up for other people's rights) and did a lot of the bankrolling of the Obama campaign.   I think it sounds like there are those in the African American community who have some thinking to do when they launch accusations of racism at people for advocating the same positions we did under Bush. Why wasn't that racist then?  The accusation is so obviously specious that it does a disservice to everyone

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:38:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think many Americans need to do more work (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mindful Nature

                    around combating their own, UNEXAMINED, racial and social biases.

                    that's across the board, and liberals are by no means exempt.

                    I think it sounds like those in the progressive community need to listen more to those in the Af-Am community when we level these charges, and not react in a knee-jerk "i'm not in the KKK" way.

                    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                    by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:53:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Unfortunately (0+ / 0-)

                      So many such accusations are patently obvious efforts to score political points, it generates a lot of noise that obscure more reasoned objections.  But as you say, no one is exempt and the Af Am community needs also to look at its unexamined biases that give rise to some of these statements.   After all, as a community, white progressives have examines their own biases far more than most.  Few other groups have had any similar impetus to turn the microscope on themselves.  In fact, many of these observations and criticisms originally arose out of white liberal traditions.  

                      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

                      by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:16:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  on this topic, I won't concede that there is (0+ / 0-)

                        equal responsibility.  not the way this society was set up and run for centuries.  not even close.

                        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                        by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:18:32 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  and I take major issue with the words "patently (0+ / 0-)

                        obvious efforts to score political points" in your comment.  that's a weak assumption at best, a complete shirking of personal responsibility at worst.

                        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                        by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:19:52 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So sorry (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          mallyroyal, poligirl

                          But I don't know how better to express it.  Maybe completely unfounded is better.  Nevertheless, some accusations just carry no water at all.  Maybe it's not about scoring political points, but some cases are off base and do damage for that reason.

                          And no, I didn't say equal responsibility, but that doesn't imply zero responsibility.  However, as I noted, there is also little acceptance of this notion.  

                          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescindibles.

                          by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:37:58 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  problem is, that's self labeling... (0+ / 0-)

              there are a lot of folks on the right who self label as humanitarian, Christian, etc...

              self applied labels do not make anyone's case really...

              The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

              by poligirl on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:16:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  the article is about the math. (0+ / 0-)

      what of that?

      (mallyroyal is no mathematician so that's a serious question)

      I'm really hoping you didn't just post that to start a piefight.  not YOU.

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:07:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh damn that would be hilarious (0+ / 0-)

      if it weren't so wrong. Straight out of the Pete Peterson "Third Way" and "Fix the Debt" play book.

      Oh and this is priceless. You now have a new title:

      No response from St. Blades


      "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
      TheStarsHollowGazette.com

      by TheMomCat on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:53:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site