Skip to main content

View Diary: The deficit commission's conservative bias (325 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's really fucking humorous... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson, JesseCW

    ... given that Number 1 on your list...

    The agenda is set by the other side - we address what they bring up, we never try to lead.

    ... describes the Deficit Commission to a T.

    Regards,
    Corporate Dog

    -----
    We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

    by Corporate Dog on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:56:18 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You are so right (0+ / 0-)

      Cutting defense dollars is at the top of the right wing agenda.

      [rolls eyes]

      •  Deficit Chicken Little-ism is the RW agenda. (0+ / 0-)

        Given that we're in a diary that points out the conservative bias of the commission, what makes you think that defense cuts are in the cards from this august body of dipshits?

        Regards,
        Corporate Dog

        -----
        We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

        by Corporate Dog on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 09:19:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The fact that they are considering it (0+ / 0-)

          http://ncronline.org/...

          http://cdi.org/...

          If we had a real "left" instead of a bunch of self-indulgent whiners, we might be pressuring the commission on this very issue. But declaring we're doomed and betrayed is apparently more fun.

          •  Putting your faith in Gregg is a fool's game. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bluefin

            Cutting federal jobs doesn't make for a particularly serious conversation on 'defense spending', when it's the defense contractors that contribute the lion's share of the bloat.

            And yet, that's actually what Gregg was proposing. Here's the same quote from the New York Times:

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

            Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire who is also on the debt commission, said that if the panel pushes for cuts in discretionary spending, "defense should be looked at," perhaps through another base-closing commission.

            Closing bases kills federal jobs, but why not, so long as Lockheed can keep developing another fighter that we don't fucking need, right?

            Amusing side note: Gregg got rich by scooping up and developing a whole bunch of real estate that was left by the closing of Pease Air Force Base.

            If we had a real "left" instead of a bunch of self-indulgent whiners, we might be pressuring the commission on this very issue. But declaring we're doomed and betrayed is apparently more fun.

            Fuck you. 'Pressuring the commission' has little chance of succeeding when the White House provides cover for them at every turn.

            Regards,
            Corporate Dog

            -----
            We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

            by Corporate Dog on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:00:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because Gregg was the only person mentioned (0+ / 0-)

              and Barney Frank does not exist. And even Coburn's plan to cut military contractors doesn't exist.

              Your agenda is to declare defeat and declare that the corporate/MIC always wins. In that, I find it hard to separate from the Republican agenda.

              •  We're talking about the deficit commission, yes? (0+ / 0-)

                Within the context of that commission, Barney Frank DOES NOT exist.

                PS: Coburn's plan is offset by Cote's plan.

                Your agenda is to declare defeat and declare that the corporate/MIC always wins.

                I got a fortune cookie that said that once.

                The sad truth of it is that I'm a willing participant in the fight, who's routinely shouted down by assholes like yourself and Bob Gibbs, who tacitly support the corporate agenda, but wrap it up in a gooey burrito of party loyalty, and hope I won't notice the foul taste.

                I'm all for an open debate on slashing defense spending. But when it's used as mere window-dressing for Social Security cuts, and I'm not willing to swallow it, I'M not the one who's acting like a Republican.

                Regards,
                Corporate Dog

                -----
                We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                by Corporate Dog on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:49:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  shouted down! (0+ / 0-)

                  It's sad that your message of "we are screwed" is shouted down by people who think we should have maybe a positive message about why progressive policies would be good.

                  tragic even.

                  •  we are screwed! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bluefin

                    What's progressive about cutting Social Security?

                    Better yet, what's progressive about creating a Deficit Commission in the first place, when deficit peacocking is nothing but a cynical political trick played by centrists and Republicans?

                    Regards,
                    Corporate Dog

                    -----
                    We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                    by Corporate Dog on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:25:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nobody has cut social security (0+ / 0-)

                      What's progressive about agreeing with the Republicans that deficit reduction has to be about cutting social security?

                      What's progressive about aiding the MSM in disappearing all progressive proposals on the budget from public discussion? If the Frank or Coburn proposals got as much blog space as Timmy's remarks on Elizabeth as reported in NipSlip Daily, then maybe more people would understand the function of the DOD budget.

                      I can understand why the NYT wants to censor all discussion of the Catholic Peace group's testimony or even of Dick Durbin's speech, but I don't get what's so fucking progressive about it.

                      •  Fuck you AND your sad pretzel logic. (0+ / 0-)

                        What's progressive about agreeing with the Republicans that deficit reduction has to be about cutting social security?

                        I'm not agreeing with Republicans. The President did, when he defended Simpson's continued status as co-chair of the commission, and (this is the important part) created the deficit commission in the first place, adding fuel to the Republican argument that government spending is the most important economic problem we face.

                        What's progressive about aiding the MSM in disappearing all progressive proposals on the budget from public discussion?

                        I have the ability to disappear proposals? Fear me, mortals, for I am Redaction Man!

                        Do you disagree with this diary's main point, that the commission has a conservative slant? If so, how much credence do you really feel will be given to these progressive proposals, when the time comes to put pen to paper?

                        And if the tradeoff for such a proposal is that Simpson gets to perform a mastectomy on Social Security's "tits", why should these two proposals even be given equal consideration?

                        The need for cuts to Social Security does not exist, if the government is honest about the fact that the only reason Social Security even contributes to our deficit, is because they decided to borrow heavily from it (for things like, oh, tax cuts for the rich), and don't want to have to pay it back.

                        The need for defense budget cuts is very real, if we further accept that the Department of Defense is a wasteful, bloated arm of our government, that hasn't had to go on a diet in quite some time, and has in fact been handed multiple plates for the all-you-can-eat fried food buffet over the last ten years.

                        Now, having said all that, answer my second question, you dishonest, word-twisting hack: what's progressive about creating a Deficit Commission in the first place, when deficit peacocking is nothing but a cynical political trick played by centrists and Republicans?

                        Regards,
                        Corporate Dog

                        -----
                        We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                        by Corporate Dog on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:15:25 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  of course you are agreeing with Republicans (0+ / 0-)

                          You let them set the terms of debate.
                          The President creates a committee and insists that it discuss DOD, tax structure, etc.

                          The pukes say "cut SS"
                          The Democrats testify in favor of increasing working class salaries

                          The Netroots ignores what the Democrats says and agrees with Republicans - deficit reduction means cut SS.

                          Is there some pleasure to be found in being obsessively naive and easily manipulated?

                          Yes, I disagree with the diary premise, it's based on drivel. I have a hard time believing that Dick Durbin, Andy Stern,  Xavier Becerra, and Jan Shakowsky can't outsmart a bunch of witless Republicans or find ways to fracture their ranks. And the dimwitted idea that one can plot liberal/conservative on a line and then deduce SS position is sad indeed. Baucus, for example, is pretty conservative, but he's been a SS hardliner. David Obey and Marcy Kaptur, progressive darlings, nearly killed health care reform in service of the Conference of Bishops. No wonder "progressives" keep complaining about "11 dimensional chess" when they insist that everything is in flatland.

                          •  I can only say this so many times... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... before I must come to the conclusion that I'm talking to furniture. And particularly stupid furniture, at that. You're like the three-legged table of the debating world.

                            The President creates a committee...

                            With a right-leaning slant.

                            To tackle a "deficit problem" which isn't particularly important right now.

                            Lending credence to the Republican argument that government spending is out of control, and must be reigned in.

                            The pukes say "cut SS"

                            We say, "The pukes' focus on SS suggests that they're not dealing fairly on the commission. Because SS doesn't really contribute to the deficit."

                            And the President says, "No. Sorry. The pukes get to keep their jobs."

                            The Netroots ignores what the Democrats says and agrees with Republicans - deficit reduction means cut SS.

                            Deficit reduction, when defined by conservative views (which make up a predominant portion of the commission), means cut SS. Simpson's words clearly illustrate that. Reporting it does not mean we agree with it.

                            The Netroots' insistence that he be taken off the commission (or that the commission be disbanded) disproves your little axe-grinding, bullshit, not-as-clever-as-you-feel-it-is game of motive-assignment.

                            Regards,
                            Corporate Dog

                            -----
                            We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                            by Corporate Dog on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:50:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it's really simple (0+ / 0-)

                            The President creates a committee.

                            .

                            With you so far.

                            With a right-leaning slant.

                            With a right leaning majority - and a structure requiring agreement of the left leaning minority in order to get a recommendation. And a commission, which the Republican leadership in the Congress desperately tried to block - why?

                            To tackle a "deficit problem" which isn't particularly important right now.

                            Of course it is important right now. Not only is the public concerned
                            http://people-press.org/...
                            but the intent of the Republicans to drive up debt so that the government is controlled by the bond markets is pretty clear. In 2000, Greenspan was in a panic that the deficit would be paid down  and the government would be able to shift money going into risk free payments mostly to the rich instead into other areas.

                            Lending credence to the Republican argument that government spending is out of control, and must be reigned in.

                            It is out of control and should be reigned in. There is, for example, no way for the US government to keep spending on the imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without continuing policies that impoverish the population.

                            The pukes say "cut SS"

                            We say, "The pukes' focus on SS suggests that they're not dealing fairly on the commission. Because SS doesn't really contribute to the deficit.

                            Ok. You appreciate the pukes are not fair! Good start.

                            And the President says, "No. Sorry. The pukes get to keep their jobs."

                            Yes, because the President knows that the Republican position on SS is enormously unpopular and a big part of his job is making sure the public does not forget this.

                            "The Netroots ignores what the Democrats says and agrees with Republicans - deficit reduction means cut SS."

                            Deficit reduction, when defined by conservative views (which make up a predominant portion of the commission), means cut SS. Simpson's words clearly illustrate that. Reporting it does not mean we agree with it.

                            But the Netroots cooperates with the MSM/Republicans by refusing to discuss or publicize the Democratic point of view as expressed by Dick Durbin and Xavier Becerra and others or even dissident Republican points of view as expressed by Coburn. The netroots agrees to limit discussion to SS cuts.

                            The Netroots' insistence that he be taken off the commission (or that the commission be disbanded) disproves your little axe-grinding, bullshit, not-as-clever-as-you-feel-it-is game of motive-assignment

                            .

                            I'm not assigning any motive, I'm just pointing out that no rational observer of American politics thinks that Simpson on TV ranting about Social Security in any way helps the Republicans.  So the Netroots are asking for the Republicans to be relieved of the burden of having their insane policies shoved into the face of the public instead of being allowed to be discretely hidden until they manage to get a majority again. However, such considerations would interfere with the victimology of the netroots.

                            Let's note that even if the netroots were correct, and the dastardly/naive/whatever Obama were in cahoots with a plan to involve Andy Stern, Jan Schakowsky and Dick Durbin in cutting SS, the approach of the netroots still makes no sense. If Obama wants to cut SS, demanding Simpson be fired is not going to do anything. Why not make a positive argument about how SS could be expanded while cutting deficit? I know, I know - because that would get in the way of playing the victim.

                          •  'Deficit spending' has become a loaded term. (0+ / 0-)

                            And a commission, which the Republican leadership in the Congress desperately tried to block - why?

                            Desperately? Not exactly:

                            http://www.politifact.com/...

                            Mostly it was "Do the opposite of whatever Obama wants." And they had plenty of assistance from Democrats who (like me) feel that concern over 'deficit spending' is a complete red herring.

                            Of course it is important right now. Not only is the public concerned...

                            Because Fox News rails on and on and ON about it.

                            How else do you explain the cognitive dissonance that's required to say, "We have no safety net, and we want jobs.... but we don't want you to spend any more money to create them!"

                            ... but the intent of the Republicans to drive up debt so that the government is controlled by the bond markets is pretty clear.

                            Yeah, because big money interests don't have ANY sway with the government right now. I don't accept your CT.

                            It is out of control and should be reigned in. There is, for example, no way for the US government to keep spending on the imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without continuing policies that impoverish the population.

                            This, I agree with.

                            Problem is, when Republicans talk incessantly about their concerns with deficit spending, it's not 'defense spending' or 'tax cuts' that they're concerned with. They're concerned with the cost of domestic programs geared towards the middle-class and poor.

                            And yet, because they couch it in the term 'deficit spending', and they rail against it with such frequency, they've come to own that term.

                            Our party should've been out in front of that. But they can't be, because they're throwing money at our "imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan" just as much as the Republicans are. And there's even a handful of them who still want the tax cuts.

                            Maybe you want to have a fight with Republicans over the meaning of the term 'deficit spending'. I think that's pretty fucking stupid. I just want good policy, that accurately reflects where our spending priorities need to be right now.

                            In crafting a 'deficit commission', and allowing it to keep Social Security on the table, the President ignored (or perhaps, fostered) the political reality that comes along with the term 'deficit'.

                            You still haven't answered the most salient of my questions, so I'm going to offer it up one more time before I lose all interest in this conversation: what's progressive about creating a Deficit Commission in the first place, when deficit peacocking is nothing but a cynical political trick played by centrists and Republicans?

                            Regards,
                            Corporate Dog

                            -----
                            We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                            by Corporate Dog on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 06:18:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site