Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Click here for the mobile view of the site