HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So now the talking point ...

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:45 AM

So now the talking point is that Obama destroyed chained CPI with his masterful brinksmanship.

So now the talking point is that Obama destroyed chained CPI with his masterful brinksmanship. You see, he never wanted it in the first place (never mind what he's been saying publicly since at least 2007) but by putting chained CPI in the budget, he got the Republicans to do the heavy lifting for him, and toss one of their favoritest things over the cliff. And all us emo-progs were just too dim to see his brilliant strategy as the most exquisite piece of realpolitik since Otto von Bismarck walked the Earth. Which is just as well, because our shock and horror and outrage were part of Obama's plan all along. Silly emo-progs, don't you know Trix are for grownups?

It's not that the left didn't see what Obama was trying to do, it's just that we were aghast at his willingness to play with millions of people's lives, and his glee in pissing off his base, as well as handing the right a key tactic for 2014: "Obama wanted to cut Social Security!" And then there's the further distortion of reality by continued conflation of Social Security as being part of the budgetary process. The fact that all the 501(c)s were making most of the opportunity to fleece some more cash out of their supporters is beside the point -- when have they ever missed an opportunity to fearmonger up some fresh dough? If Boehner expresses a preference for oatmeal over eggs for breakfast, MoveOn will squirt out an email begging for money to defeat the demonic spawn that wants to put all the chicken farmers in the poorhouse.

You can call it a victory if you want. I'll call it a disgrace -- just another crying shame in a long line of many.

126 replies, 12350 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 126 replies Author Time Post
Reply So now the talking point is that Obama destroyed chained CPI with his masterful brinksmanship. (Original post)
unrepentant progress Apr 2013 OP
ProSense Apr 2013 #1
Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #3
unrepentant progress Apr 2013 #4
magellan Apr 2013 #15
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #55
SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #116
graham4anything Apr 2013 #74
madokie Apr 2013 #69
bowens43 Apr 2013 #77
ForgoTheConsequence Apr 2013 #2
unrepentant progress Apr 2013 #6
Recursion Apr 2013 #5
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #9
Recursion Apr 2013 #10
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #17
Recursion Apr 2013 #20
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #37
Recursion Apr 2013 #38
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #40
Recursion Apr 2013 #44
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #48
Recursion Apr 2013 #53
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #61
Recursion Apr 2013 #63
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #67
Recursion Apr 2013 #72
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #102
green for victory Apr 2013 #70
SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #119
Warpy Apr 2013 #12
unrepentant progress Apr 2013 #113
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #26
woo me with science Apr 2013 #7
Fire Walk With Me Apr 2013 #13
woo me with science Apr 2013 #16
Fire Walk With Me Apr 2013 #18
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #8
markpkessinger Apr 2013 #11
Rex Apr 2013 #24
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #31
Recursion Apr 2013 #34
Rex Apr 2013 #35
Recursion Apr 2013 #36
Rex Apr 2013 #39
Recursion Apr 2013 #42
Rex Apr 2013 #46
Recursion Apr 2013 #51
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #57
Laelth Apr 2013 #91
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #97
Laelth Apr 2013 #112
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #59
Recursion Apr 2013 #60
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #64
Recursion Apr 2013 #65
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #68
Recursion Apr 2013 #71
GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #100
Recursion Apr 2013 #115
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #125
cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #14
woo me with science Apr 2013 #23
Lil Missy Apr 2013 #19
Rex Apr 2013 #21
magellan Apr 2013 #22
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #28
magellan Apr 2013 #43
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #47
magellan Apr 2013 #56
myrna minx Apr 2013 #120
cliffordu Apr 2013 #25
napoleon_in_rags Apr 2013 #27
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #29
bowens43 Apr 2013 #79
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #83
magellan Apr 2013 #86
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #88
magellan Apr 2013 #92
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #98
magellan Apr 2013 #99
reformist2 Apr 2013 #94
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #104
reformist2 Apr 2013 #108
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #109
Cronus Protagonist Apr 2013 #30
NuttyFluffers Apr 2013 #32
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #33
Whisp Apr 2013 #41
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #45
Whisp Apr 2013 #49
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #50
cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #52
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #54
JTFrog Apr 2013 #118
progressoid Apr 2013 #122
Name removed Apr 2013 #73
Quantess Apr 2013 #84
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #89
DeSwiss Apr 2013 #58
bucolic_frolic Apr 2013 #62
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #66
graham4anything Apr 2013 #75
bowens43 Apr 2013 #80
graham4anything Apr 2013 #81
magellan Apr 2013 #90
graham4anything Apr 2013 #93
magellan Apr 2013 #103
graham4anything Apr 2013 #105
graham4anything Apr 2013 #107
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #126
bowens43 Apr 2013 #76
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #78
madokie Apr 2013 #82
sendero Apr 2013 #85
Carolina Apr 2013 #87
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #95
Locrian Apr 2013 #96
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #101
Egalitarian Thug Apr 2013 #117
liberal N proud Apr 2013 #106
alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #110
leeroysphitz Apr 2013 #111
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #114
unrepentant progress Apr 2013 #121
just1voice Apr 2013 #123
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #124

Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:49 AM

1. Yes,

"So now the talking point is that Obama destroyed chained CPI with his masterful brinksmanship."

...can you prove that he didn't? Chained CPI is even more toxic now (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2671482) than when I thought it was dead.

Besides, if Obama is credited with destroying everything, why not chained CPI?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022673836



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:53 AM

3. ...

"Besides, if Obama is credited with destroying everything, why not chained CPI?"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:54 AM

4. As Robert Reich said

You can't triangulate when well over 80% of the country thinks your proposal is monstrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:22 AM

15. That's what the apologists miss

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 06:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Support for SS and opposition to CCPI was strong *before* Obama tried giving it away the first time. If the intent was truly to destroy the Repubs on this issue, it would have been as easy as getting in front of a camera and reading their budget proposal to Americans, emphasizing that Boehner himself was demanding CCPI. The Dems were MIA on this - oh, apart from Pelosi saying CCPI "strengthens" SS.

That's how you paint the Repubs into a corner. Not by offering a prized possession in closed door meetings and adding "protections" to make it more palatable to the public (edit). You don't destroy the other guy by making Americans breathe down your neck, but by using the goddamn media in every form and at every possible opportunity to get Americans breathing down the other guy's neck.

Recorded phone calls. Tv spots. Mailers. "Tell the GOP what you think of their plan to hurt our seniors with CCPI!"

They didn't do this, and you have to wonder why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:58 AM

55. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 09:02 AM

116. Good post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:19 AM

74. It's the other way around. 80% of the REAL PEOPLE have 100s of other more important issues

 

However, 80% of the loudest voices in the alt-media and regular media and on political debate/chat boards are using this issue to play their angle.

Seems the anti-Obama crew is missing that whole thing.

BTW, Reich is a Clintonite.
What makes you think he is not playing a good cop/bad cop game if in the 6 degree world of everything, everyone else is playing the game.

I am playing the game, everyone is playing the game. We are all players in the game.

bing Crosby-"everybody has an angle".
Yup and Ayuh, they do.

We saw what happens back in 1980, when two players let their egos get in the way and refused to merge.
We got Reagan after that.(and one of the heroes of the alt-media voted for Reagan and admitted it). Bothers me not at all in that case, because that is how it plays.

But, had Kennedy and Carter, two of the greatest people and liberals of all time not been so egotistical back then, and hugged and possibly even been on the same ticket after reconciling like Hillary and Obama did, then Reagan could have been beaten.

That is the game.

Hindsight makes history easy to see and how it will play out.

The numbers above are the opposite.

And that story with Kucinich signing with Fox, and also in a group with Ron Paul, assuming that story is true, show that indeed the 80-20 split is going to be the new meme

I trust 80 are with Obama. Not the other way around.

everything else is just beltway.

IMHO
and I am no one but do wish the silent majority in the media would start defending Barack Obama.
The one and only thing President Obama doesn't have is that Ted Kennedy voice to be in the news 24/7/365 like Teddy used to do.
The biggest thing he needed was Teddy, alive and well and in on the game.

(though lately I have been shocked that Teddy does not seem to have been loved by all.
If there was one thing I thought was a given, it was that Teddy was a 100%er)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:58 AM

69. Obama is a lot smarter than the aggregate of the republicon party

as well as many on this site. As my dad would say, that, you can take to the bank

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:35 AM

77. spoken like a true believer. Very sad.....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:53 AM

2. You aren't smart enough to understand Obama's brilliance.

Only a select few get it (see above). Who needs a straight talking President with a backbone anyhow? I prefer to second guess and wonder about everything my President does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:55 AM

5. Wait. Two separate issues there.

You see, he never wanted it in the first place (never mind what he's been saying publicly since at least 2007)

Err... no, he never wanted it in the first place, but he's been willing for a while to accept it as part of a larger deal.

What kind of troubles me is that 75% of DUers can't seem to grasp that distinction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:07 AM

9. What distinction? He said at the G20 meeting a few years ago that he intended to mess with the

'social programs'. Was he kidding, lying, catering to the Austerity crooks whose goal is to destroy the social safety net everywhere and began the process in Europe, in the Third World first of course, but now they are operating in the First World?

It's hard to keep up with who this president is.

When there is so much confusion over where someone actually stands on a principle, something is wrong, isn't it?

When someone's words are not clear, when they contradict their actions, we have a problem.

When everyone and their mother is struggling to figure out whether what he says or what he does is the real Obama, something is wrong.

Frankly I'm not really interested any more.

My rule is 'watch what they do', 'watch what they vote for'. This president told us he would never vote for the FISA Bill, then he did. Who was he trying to fool then? That NEARLY lost him my support but I put it aside since we could not withstand another four years of Republicans.

It's simple, we don't have a personal relationship with politicians. The only way we can judge them is to watch their actions.

Now it's time to move forward and start planning how to remove the Third Way Party from our OWN party and replace them with real Progressive Democrats. I am working with millions of other Democrats to start finding OUR OWN candidates for the primaries in 2014.

I'm done trying to figure out some politician's mind processes, it's not important. I am ready for action now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:08 AM

10. ACA is messing with the social programs.

Single payer would be too.

My rule is 'watch what they do', 'watch what they vote for'.

Wake me up when he signs a budget, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:27 AM

17. I thought I was supposed to wake you up when he PUT IT IN the budget?

I do feel your pain. It is difficult to keep defending someone who keeps acting against your own core beliefs. I did it for a long time, re Clinton. Wouldn't listen to a word against him from the right wingers I was arguing with back then. So blind I missed all the legislation he signed. I would have tried to defend it anyhow.

Then I saw him cavorting with the Bushes and it was like a slap in the face. It woke me up. I had been fighting with Bush supporters on his behalf for several years. I was threatened, with death even, with being turned in to Homeland Security etc etc

It was a defining moment for me, the end of political innocence. They let us fight it out on their behalf, each group standing up for their 'heroes'. I wonder how those Bush supporters who called me every name in the book on behalf of THEIR hero, told me I had a 'schoolyard crush on a commie etc. felt when they saw the commie and their hero together? When they heard Babs say that Clinton was like her own son???

The only bright spot in that rude awakening was that THEY got a big slap in the face also.

But I will never ever fight for any politician like that again. Especially when I've had some misgivings about them.

I don't care why he did it, he did it and as far as I'm concerned, he harmed SS, he perpetuated the Republican lie that SS was responsible for the Deficit. I believe he did it because Republicans asked him to, but also because he believes it is a good thing, he said so. Well he also said he would never cut SS.

Anyhow, I woke up those who asked me to when he put it in the budget. now the goal posts have moved, they keep moving and I don't care.

We don't have to worry about him signing it, haven't you heard? The Republicans will 'never sign anything that reduces the deficit off the backs of Seniors'. See, they did what we predicted they would if he did this.

The game was boring long ago, it has always been too predictable and we get tired of being right when we'd rather be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:39 AM

20. You may be confusing me with somebody else

When Obama has gone against what I believe in, I've said so (Libya, whistleblowers, a few other things).

I personally have no emotional stake in what formula we use to calculate cost of living adjustments. Some economists say it's more accurate, others don't. It sounded like a way to get Republican buy-in, and like everything else it didn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:39 AM

37. This from the guy that thinks the SS trust fund is a fiction

because social SS checks are drawn from an account managed by the treasury dept.

The same guy that thinks FICA gave a surplus to the budget rather than a loan as an investment in interest bearing Treasury bonds.

The same guy that thinks "SS can not be funded out of General Revenue BY LAW" is a lie and that
"It takes money out of the General Fund and gives it to a recipient. The fact that some of that fund is notionally set aside for SS does not change the actual arithmetic"

Your credibility and with it your opinions may not be the gold standard you think it should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:40 AM

38. It was Bill Clinton who called it a surplus back in 99

Blame him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:44 AM

40. It was a surplus OF THE SS TRUST FUND

I don't think you can pin your bullshit on the big dawg, he can rightfully be blamed for many things, but not the Republican misinformation you are spreading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:47 AM

44. Here's Clinton's SOTU from 1999

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/19/sotu.transcript/index.html?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

For the first time in three decades, the budget is balanced. From a deficit of $290 billion in 1992, we had a surplus of $70 billion last year AND NOW We are on course for budget surpluses for the next 25 years.


So, what you said, except the opposite, right?

That surplus was entirely because of FICA levies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:50 AM

48. "That surplus was entirely because of FICA levies" - No it was not. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:55 AM

53. Yes, it was. The government would have been in deficit that year without FICA

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev1998_0.html

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev1999_0.html

The alleged "Federal surpluses" were all smaller than the SS surpluses those years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:29 AM

61. You are claiming Clinton lied about a surplus

by hiding money borrowed to pay for part of the budget?
I am not sure you are right about that but you may well be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:31 AM

63. No, I'm saying it's one way or the other

I say both FICA levies contributed to the past surplus and SS expenses will contribute to future deficits.

You're saying you can't count SS expenses as "contributing to budget deficits", so that means Clinton was wrong to have counted them as contributing to budget surpluses in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:51 AM

67. there you go again "FICA levies contributed to the past surplus" no, it

purchased treasury bonds as an investment to save IT'S surplus in a supposedly safe place, if you claim the budget surplus Clinton claimed was because he pretended the money received from a loan was income and not debt, that is really your charge, not mine.

I tire of RW bullshit and the lie that SS is not a self funded entity that invests in bonds to hold it's surplus.

Right wingers really think a creditor's loan is part of the borrowers income rather than a debt, only idiots could believe such nonsense.

Go dig yourself deeper with someone that has more patience with RW misinformation echo chambers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:06 AM

72. Look, we both agree SS is flush right now (I think?)

As I see it we both agree that SS is in great fiscal shape for a long time.

What I'm saying is that because it is in such great shape, it makes actuarial (but not moral) sense to take money from it; that's why it's so tempting to people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:36 AM

102. what she's saying is that without the money borrowed from the SS surplus the general budget

 

wouldn't have been in surplus.

borrowed money is both income and debt, but the debt doesn't show up in the *budget*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:59 AM

70. a special picture for you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 09:10 AM

119. Thick as thieves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:13 AM

12. He was but we weren't, and I think that surprised him.

I know I added my drop to the torrent of abuse pouring into the White House over it.

It was a wretched idea that only Wall Street Democrats could possibly love.

Maybe he'll listen to those in his cabinet with a little more skepticism from now on. I sincerely hope so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 08:47 AM

113. I should hope so

But I think he's so in love with the game that he doesn't care about the pawns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:19 AM

26. Thank you. That distinction is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:56 AM

7. They will keep trying talking points

until they find one that works, dammit.



It's hard to justify having offered to steal the food and rent money of the elderly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:15 AM

13. Does this stop the "sequester" which IS stealing food from the old and poor? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:22 AM

16. No.

Thank you for correcting me.

This is odious bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:29 AM

18. I honestly didn't know. But most obviously, there are shell games, smoke and mirrors going on

 

while real people are made to suffer, and corporations and wall street continue to line their pockets with our tax dollars. Weapons of mass distraction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:58 AM

8. I wonder who thinks this ridiculous stuff up and thinks we democrats are as stupid as Bush supporter

were?? Someone needs to fire those people, they are doing the opposite of what this 'brilliant' strategy, (more chess I suppose) is meant to accomplish.

Sounds like money wasted to me. Even I could come up with a better excuse than that and I'm not good at defending the indefensible.

So how many 'explanations' have we had so far?

I'm going with what Carney, the WH spokesperson said when asked why he did it:

"The Republicans asked him to put it in there'. That is why he did it according to the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:10 AM

11. +1! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:08 AM

24. I am still not at all understanding how cutting SS will help the deficit.

 

The voodoo economics is strong with this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:27 AM

31. It won't. When they make this claim they are unwittingly admitting that the goal is to rob the SS

Fund. Because if cutting benefits to 'save SS' then the savings must remain in the fund. That of course will do nothing for the deficit since that fund has nothing to do with the Deficit.

The ONLY way those 'savings' will help reduce the deficit is if they go into the Fed Govt fund. That would be theft.

And if it is supposed to stay in the fund, then there is no need for the cuts at all. The fund has enough money to pay for the next several decades without any cuts.

There is just no logic to it. When you lie, you have to have all your facts in a row and you cannot forget the lies you tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:36 AM

34. You really don't understand how decreasing outlays, even notionally self-funded outlays, decreases

the deficit?

Is it the addition or the subtraction you find confusing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:38 AM

35. Neither.

 

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:39 AM

36. So, how it decreases the deficit is pretty simple

The Treasury writes less in Social Security checks, and so has to borrow less for the rest of what it spends. Pretty basic stuff.

I mean, it's the dumbest way in the world to reduce the deficit, since it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it would in fact reduce the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:41 AM

39. That is strange.

 

Thanks for that explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:46 AM

42. Of course it's strange. Wanting to reduce the deficit during a recession is strange

And especially strange given that under current law (rather than current policy) there is essentially no long-term structural deficit.

But none of that changes the fact that a significant percentage of the American public wants the deficit reduced and elects people who work for that. The fact that it's a bad idea and that the people in question don't even understand what that means is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:48 AM

46. Well it is strange considering so many polls show taxpayers

 

do not want any cuts to SS, but we shall see what is and is not cut in the final proposal once it is signed. The final final bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:53 AM

51. Most Americans think "tax", "deficit", and "debt" all mean the same thing.

I'm not kidding. It's really that bad. People don't understand policy but have strong opinions on it. And when I say they don't understand, I don't mean they come to the wrong conclusion, I mean the majority of Americans literally don't know what the basic words in question mean. They know spending, taxes, deficits, borrowing, entitlements, and welfare are bad, while investment, social security, growth, and surplus are good. They don't even see the basic contradictions there.

This is how the individual provisions of ACA poll well but the bill itself polls badly (this works both ways: the individual elements of the Contract With America polled well but as a whole it polled horribly). It's also why you can only move things a little bit at a time, and at the margins, and hope eventually it falls your way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:11 AM

57. a more significant percentage of the american public thinks jobs are the most important issue.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148589/concerns-economy-jobs-outweigh-worries-deficit.aspx

and the only reason any significant percentage thinks the deficit is important is because the ptb have been drumming that message into their ears for years.

if you spent three years monopolizing the airwaves and telling people martians were going to invade soon, they'd think *that* was important, too.

because the average person has no way of knowing 'reality' on issues like deficits and martians outside of what they're told by the media.

they can, however, see the jobs deficit with their own eyes.

the public's supposed 'concern over the deficit' is the product of an echo chamber. so don't pretend that the ptb are just responding to public demand in their obsession with the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:15 AM

91. Oddly enough, tptb only beat that drum when Democrats are in office.

Not a peep about deficits and the national debt when the R's are running the show. It's just a perpetuation of the Two Santa Claus strategy of Ronald Reagan, and I am sick to death of Democratic Presidents (Clinton & Obama) playing along with this game. It only aids Republicans.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:26 AM

97. true. i imagine the reason is that it's easier for democrats to impose austerity/cut social benefits

 

than republicans, and it's easier for republicans to create deficits than democrats.

hopefully more people are starting to notice what they actually *do* instead of what they say.

the pubs have been the party of deficit since reagan.

the dems have been the party of austerity and social cutbacks.

and they've both been the party of war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #97)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 08:25 AM

112. Quite.

Only Nixon could go to China. Only Clinton could pass NAFTA, pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996, destroy AFDC, and repeal Glass-Stegall.

I hate the fact that those of us on the left seem to be better off under Republican Presidents.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:24 AM

59. "and so has to borrow less for the rest of what it spends" still at it?

If it borrows less, it will be borrowing less of what will have to be borrowed to repay a loan it has already spent. It is an attempt to avoid paying a creditor that loaned it money it blew on wars and tax decreases, you insist that taking it out of the hide of the creditor is simple math when the creditor has nothing at all to do with it's being short on cash.

It will do nothing to reduce the deficit, it will only hide some of it by hiding from the guy that loaned it the money it spent.

Actually worse, it's daring to blame the guy it owes for having to borrow more money to pay him back, and then demanding that guy sacrifice part of HIS income because he doesn't want to borrow money to pay back what he already spent and still owes him. The guy should kick his ass and stop loaning him money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:29 AM

60. Accounting is not moralistic

Actually worse, it's daring to blame the guy it owes for having to borrow more money to pay him back

Yep. And I wish accounting were not amoral. But it's really just addition and subtraction. Remember the Government is both the creditor and the debtor here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #60)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:34 AM

64. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with pretending

A debt is not a debt because you want to avoid borrowing more money to pay one of your creditors.

It is not even accounting, it is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #64)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:35 AM

65. Congress gets to decide when SSA can redeem the bonds

Congress could say tomorrow "SSA, you can't redeem any bonds next year"

That's not a default on the bonds, that's the fact that Congress is SSA's boss and can tell them what to do.

That's the step I think you're missing: you're viewing the SSA as something autonomous rather than another government agency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:57 AM

68. All that proves is congress can renege on SS debts when convenient, not that reassuring to me.

That's if it's really true, those bonds are supposed to be backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. If they aren't, our credit is in a lot of trouble with other debtors that trust bonds that make the same claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #68)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:04 AM

71. Congress gets to tell SSA when to redeem the bonds or not

You're missing when the decision is made. If the SSA (or anyone) presents a bond, Treasury will honor it, period. But it's Congress who gets to decide when SSA will present those bonds for redemption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:35 AM

100. Welshing is generally considered immoral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #100)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 08:58 AM

115. Yes. It also decreases your annual deficit

I don't get what is gained by pretending otherwise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #100)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:11 PM

125. Please use a term or phrase other than "Welshing."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:15 AM

14. It's so delusional I'm not even entirely comfortable making fun of it.

It has reached the point of disturbing pathology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:08 AM

23. It's disturbing as hell.

We are living in very creepy times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:35 AM

19. I think you need a new hobby. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:54 AM

21. The goal post will always be moved.

 

And you will always be told that you should be ashamed for wanting a pony!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:04 AM

22. Why include "protections" if it wasn't a sincere offer?

Just another sign that it was sincere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:21 AM

28. Because the fact that it needed protections..

.. helped make it clear how utterly ridiculous Chained CPI was from a moral and economic standpoint.

With Chained CPI now off the table, we might even be able to keep those "protections" which would them become enhancements.

Would fit right in with Obama's already hefty legacy on protecting and increasing protections for the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the unemployed, and the veterans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:46 AM

43. Right over your head.

There was no need to add "protections" if, as you and others insist, Obama was sure the Repubs would reject his offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:49 AM

47. I don't think you read what I wrote, but carry on.

I don't mean to interrupt a good old-fashioned pout-rage while the rest of us are celebrating that Chained CPI has finally been killed as a viable platform for SS reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:01 AM

56. Oh, I read you loud and clear, friend

And I don't need to resort to condescension to prove you're short on reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 09:16 AM

120. So, did you sign up to cast insults?

For one who just joined the board, you seem to feel rather comfortable calling long term posters of this message board trolls and speaking for "the rest of us".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:17 AM

25. Blah de blah blah.

More of the same.

Fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:19 AM

27. Okay dude, here's the horrible truth:

How to even start this reply. Okay, how about this thought experiment: To give more life to a much used metaphor around here, let's imagine Obama is actually playing chess. Eventually he comes to a place in the game where he moves a pawn into jeopardy from an opposing knight. Informed people watching the game scratch their chins for a moment, then say:

"Ah, I see what he's up to. But the opposition is a good player, he sees as well. So that pawn won't get taken."

And they wait to see what happens next. But DU? Well, a post saying "I'm sorry I'm just a useless pawn" shoots the top of the greatest page, with 375 recs. The post, by a pawn, describes how they have always stood in front protecting the king, taking the risk, and how disgraced they are to see themselves sacrificed. It would be moving, if Obama were sacrificing a pawn. But in this case he's not even doing that.

Now, lets snap out of that cold chess metaphor, back to reality. People aren't pawns. This is human lives we're talking about. People are scared, upset. We can see that, we can feel that. Yet the realities of the game persist. You can talk about how each human life is precious and anything should be done to save it, but when you put that in to action as policy, you will become a slave to the first group of terrorists who takes a hostage and makes demands of you. So the game must be played to make the world better, despite it all.

How? That's a good question. I mean, what does it take psychologically, to be a great leader? To make the world a better place? The hard truth is that in a way, you have to be a bit of a psycho. FDR sent so many good innocent men to die on V-Day while sipping whiskey. Gandhi saw children mowed down with machine guns at the Jallianwala Bagh massacre as a result of his actions, and kept doing what he was doing. MLK knew the bomb threats for him went for all his loved ones, and they would be safe if he just backed down, but kept walking forward.

I don't know if there's a word for this state of being, but I think of it as a spiritual thing. Regardless, the key undeniable fact is that NO ONE in this political scene can save us from suffering and death, its the human lot in life. So meaning must come from a deeper place. I think of the Indian story of the Gita: Arjuna is a peaceful hippy, who doesn't want to fight. But God has come to him in the form of Krishna, and told him its his destiny, his duty, his dharma to be a killer on the battlefield, a knight in the great game of chess. Arjuna protests, but Krishna reveals how all the things in life have no substance, and the eternal nature of the human spirit. Arjuna finds timeless greatness in embracing his dharma, disposing of his foes with great presence of mind and love for them. Krishna elevates Arjuna to be a king, who is greater than the temporal states of life and death. He was able to kill his enemies in the end, not because he hates them, but because he realised that underneath it all, they were exactly the same as him - kings and queens in disguise, greater than life or death. This is the mental state of a great leader: He risks our lives because he knows that ultimately, he risks nothing at all. What is undying cannot be killed.

And this should be the mental state of anyone who would support a great leader: acceptance of Dharma. Maybe we had big plans about avoiding suffering and death, being hailed as worldly kings and queens, fame fortune and the rest. But when it becomes clear to us that our dharma, the hand we've been dealt is to be pawns, our greatness lies in fearlessly accepting that. Our greatness lies in offering up ourselves for sacrifice, while understanding that underneath, nothing being offered up at all.


Peace!
Nir.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:26 AM

29. Fact is, Obama did more damage to Chained CPI in 48 hours...

... than all the moralizing by Bernie Sanders, economic theory by Paul Krugman, or (pardon my french) circle-jerking by those of us who discuss policy in primarily progressive environments, have managed to do in months and years.

He did what we could not.

He put Chained CPI on center stage and made it the center-point for discussion.

He made it clear (as even a cursory examination of the White House page's proposal would show) that it was a COMPROMISE and one that the President was not happy about making, but that if Republicans demanded it before they sat down at the table, then he would oblige them.

The result is that Chained CPI is dead and Americans, except for the belligerent right and the belligerent left, understand that it was a Republican demand.

My only wish is that he had handled the Individual Mandate so adroitly. Had he brought it up at the symbolic stage of negotiations we might have been able to leverage this same public outrage to kill it like we've killed Chained CPI.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:36 AM

79. Fact is Obama did more damage to the Democratic party then Carl Rove could have done in 50 years

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 06:05 AM

83. That says more about the Democratic Party than it does Obama...

We're infamous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and this is yet another example.

Chained CPI has been dragged out into the spotlight and slain, the American public is overwhelmingly supportive of taxing the rich and ending the loopholes, and we're ready to strengthen the entitlements we have.

Despite that, many Democrats are working double overtime to ensure that everyone knows Obama is a really, really bad guy and that you should probably stay home in 2014 to send him the message Democrats are famous for sending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #83)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 06:41 AM

86. Bunk

People are rightfully outraged, notwithstanding your depiction of them as "Democrats...working double overtime to ensure that everyone knows Obama is a really, really bad guy". It's this kind of sweeping dismissal of genuine concern and anger that loses support. Or maybe these guys are just "Obama-haters" too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022675120

It's also bunk that the Dems you describe above convinced people to stay home in 2010. A simple search would clue you in to the fact that it was young voters who didn't turn out. For certain it was Dems who convinced them to stay home in 2010...but it wasn't the Dems you're trying to pin it on who did the convincing. And if the Dems in DC don't start doing some soul-searching pretty snappish, they may well see the same apathy from young voters next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #86)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:04 AM

88. Young voters didn't turn out because they suffered from false equivalency...

.. the same bullshit false equivalency I see being peddled here on double overtime.

Obama is NOT championing cuts to Social Security. His entire career in office has been expanding benefits to seniors, veterans, the sick and elderly, and the unemployed.

He put Chained CPI in his budget as a clearly labeled compromise that was demanded by John Boehner in order to get Republicans to the table. That budget is nothing but a conversation piece. If you thought there was even a .001% chance that it was going to get passed before negotiations began, you're fooling yourself.

By putting it in his budget he is FORCING the country to talk about it and, in so doing, has ensured it's political suicide for the Republicans to insist on.

The ONLY two groups I see pushing this narrative that Obama is for cutting Social Security are the extreme ignorant right (led by Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bauchman) and the extreme gullible left.

No one in their right minds thinks Obama is for Chained CPI, and this whole last week should be all the proof you need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #88)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:17 AM

92. Have it your way

Just like the cons, you either ignore the ridiculously obvious or find a way to reframe and blame it on others when it falls to disaster. Good luck to us all, because with that mindset on both sides we'll need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:26 AM

98. "Ignore the ridiculously obvious"

Says the guy who thinks Obama is championing Chained CPI after 5 years of fighting to defend and reinforce entitlements just because he called Republican's bluff in a symbolic budget.

Good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #98)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:32 AM

99. First of all, I'm a woman

Second, I merely provided evidence that Obama was considering tinkering with CPI back in Aug 2011.

Third, there was a much more effective way to deny the Repubs CCPI than by putting it on the table, as I laid out to you. And that way would have ensured no damage to the Democratic Party or criticism of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:23 AM

94. I think Obama only hurt himself - Dems seem pretty united against this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:39 AM

104. There's two parts to the opposition. People who oppose Chained CPI and people who oppose Obama...

Those of us who oppose Chained CPI are grateful to finally, after months and years, get the debate onto the national stage. We tried so hard in the past and we never succeeded.

In 48 hours Obama did more damage to Chained CPI than we did for months and years gnashing our teeth among ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #104)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:47 AM

108. True. So the question people are really debating is whether this was Obama's intention all along.

The whole hyper-dimensional chess argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:52 AM

109. It's faux outrage for one very simple reason:

If Obama wanted to cut Social Security he would NOT have put it in his symbollic budget. He would NOT have gone to the public, pointed it out, and said it was a compromise demanded by John Boehner. He would NOT have gone through the effort stressing that Democrats have crafted protections for low income seniors to spare them the cuts and, in fact, increase their benefits. He would NOT have then sat back and let the public rip it apart without making a single effort to defend it.

If he had actually wanted cuts to SS he would have called Boehner on the phone and arranged for them to be put in during backroom budget negotiations.

People who believe that first paragraph is reality are playing hyper dimensional chess to justify their temper tantrums. They intended all along to play the disenfranchisement game as we got closer to 2014, and this is the first of many opportunities for them to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:27 AM

30. I notice that I seem to be celebrating Obama's failures

What a legacy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:28 AM

32. it's not geometric, it's transdimentional!

you couldn't possibly understand, you're not from DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:36 AM

33. The one point that the outraged conveniently overlook...

... is that if Obama actually did want Chained CPI he would have shut his mouth, left it out of his budget, and let the Republicans slip it in during backroom negotiations.

You guys act like Obama putting it into his completely symbolic and heavily publicized budget, proclaiming it a "compromise demanded by John Boehner", and letting slip his dogs of war (Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders, etc) - was some 4th dimensional chess strategy.

It wasn't 4th dimensional chess. It was tic-tac-toe and it worked brilliantly. I'm sorry you guys got left in the dust of current events while the rest of us were celebrating.

Personally, I popped my champagne the moment the budget came out. The death of Chained CPI was as inevitable at that stage as it was predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:45 AM

41. There is something I don't understand...

 

If Obama wanted seniors to be eating catfood (by what the screamers are saying here on DU) and if the Republicants also want seniors to be eating catfood as their hate for 'entitlements' has been made clear for years now...

You would think this thing would be done deal, no?

Isn't that strange?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:48 AM

45. Yep, and you'd think his legacy would be opposite what it really is...

Instead of eliminating the doughnut hole he's be expanding it, right?
Instead of fighting for extended unemployment insurance he'd be cutting it short, right?
Instead of expanding VA funding he'd be cutting it, right?

And instead of using his purely symbolic budget to thrust Chained CPI onto center-stage (clearly labeled as a compromise for Republicans who demand it) where it could be destroyed he'd have simply let Republicans slip it in during negotiations, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:52 AM

49. and don't forget how he 'cut medicare'...

 

I still hear that Paul Ryan bullshit here to this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:53 AM

50. Haven't seen that one yet, but it seems like it'd be par for the course for some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:54 AM

52. What were some of your previous DU names?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:58 AM

54. I've been a lurker for years and years...

... and DU has had a huge influence on my understanding of current events and politics.

I've sat out every other panic-fest without much of an urge to join in one way or another (ACA reform was a close call), but this one hit home for me because protecting SS is an important issue for me and I'm proud of Obama's handling of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #52)


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:30 PM

122. Heh heh heh.

I was wondering the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #41)


Response to Name removed (Reply #73)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 06:11 AM

84. Thanks for the graph!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #73)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:06 AM

89. Thank you for the spot-on satire, Prose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:18 AM

58. K&R

 

“Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.” ~Albert Einstein

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:30 AM

62. He's like the other Presidents from Illinois

Lincoln bound us to railroad industrialism (he was a railroad attorney
who commanded high fees) and the Northern Manufacturer tariff system
with high sounding platitudes of freedom, equality, and opportunity.

Reagan used common sense Christian values, individualism, and
opposition to government to turn us over to Wall Street Financiers
in ways unseen since the Robber Baron era.

Obama, no mean student of the Presidency or Presidents, seems
to be walking the same tightrope.

He's no FDR. But with GOP obstructionism in Congress, he couldn't
use the government to create jobs, he could barely pass infrastructure
spending. As a leader, he's a compromiser, perhaps because his hands
are, if not tied, tethered.

Or maybe he spent too much political capital on too much healthcare,
catastrophic coverage and universal outpatient being almost sufficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:42 AM

66. As I said before, the term "Chained CPI" is the product of a focus group.

 

If you tell people the future increases in Social Security are going to be based on the Consumer Price Index it doesn't sound so bad.

Tell them Social Security is going to be CUT based on something called "Chained CPI" and it sounds like someone is tying a Senior down in chains and pissing in their eye. (Chained See Pee Eye)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:22 AM

75. BTW- I bet 80% of the public has no idea if you asked them, what is CPI

 

do one of those Jaywalking bits Jay Leno does.
I bet if he asked(and I would hope he wouldn't), most would think its the newest crime drama with Ice-T or a new show from JJ Abrams or replacing Fringe or something like it.

James Carvelle was correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:37 AM

80. You can bet they'll know in 2014 when our party is beat to death it..24 7

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #80)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:55 AM

81. Will you be happy if that occurs?as FDR said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

 

This protest movment here is starting to sound like a negative 2014 will be a good thing.

If, and I have no idea as I don't speak for those players, but if that is true,
then it just validifies what ihave been saying all along.

That is very, very sad.

In effect you know, the issues matter not at all.

One day someone is on the NY Yankees. The next day the Boston Red Sox.
Red Sox fans cheer for the Red Sox. Yankees cheer for Yankees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #81)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:14 AM

90. What a shameful, insulting question

The poster is issuing a warning. They by no means represented a "negative 2014" as a preferred outcome, and that you would even ask is vile.

The ongoing attempts by you and others to paint any criticism, concern or anger as "anti-Obama" just goes to show once again that it isn't only cons who fall for blind lockstep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #90)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:22 AM

93. It's asking an honest question.

 

Again, there are actions for all consequences.

Ralph Nader defiantly continues his bullcrap even after he himself admits he tossed the election.

People can have opposing viewpoints, and I will continue to have an opposing viewpoint against Nader and against the both sides are the same crap.

And I would vote for nader if he were a democratic person on my ballot.
It doesn't matter to me my thoughts about Nader the 3rd party man.
If he were the democratic candidate on the democratic ticket, he got my vote.
Anyone would.

It's nothing personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #93)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:37 AM

103. No, it's asking an intentionally divisive question

And those who vote for someone just because they have a D after their name are no better than those who do the same for Rs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #103)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:41 AM

105. That is the angle you are playing. I have my own. We all do.

 

Have you ever known any business, big, small, self, that did not have a plan?

When someone opens a new business, do they not envision what the biz will be 10 years, 20 years, 50 years down the road?

No one I know does not have a long term plan in their personal or biz life.

And then striving to make it happen.

But to get there, one has to know where it is they are going, and what happens the day after tomorrow, when Plan D is enacted, what will plan G be?

Everything is a power point presentation even if one is only thinking to oneself

I mean, today is tax day.
People just can't write in 0 to 9 in all the boxes and send it in.
The numbers have to fit in the correct boxes. (and don't forget to sign it.)
When I took my courses in tax, amazingly 75% of the letters/followups from IRS were people who forgot the mundane signing the form, dating the form and other info of that type.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #103)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:45 AM

107. 2nd answer- it takes a village is actually a true statement.

 

The village is the democratic party here.
The opposing village is the republican party there

No president is an island with zero villages on it

Even the Professor had to work with the tools at hand on Gilligan's Island.
And they made their village.
And everything they had known was taken away from them by that 3 hour cruise, when the weather started getting rough.
And they survived it seems forever, as they are still there on my TV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #90)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:16 PM

126. x2. Well said.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:34 AM

76. yes, and that is just stupidity. What Obama did was destroy pour chances in 2014. Hr has always want

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:36 AM

78. Don't worry. Obama and Pete Peterson are a duo.

The chained CPI will not be dead until Obama buries it, and he hasn't yet, not by any means.

Read this article by Michael Hudson which explains so much. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but there is certainly a lot of truth in it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/

Obama would not have appointed Pete Peterson's protege, the man Pete Peterson's committee chose to head the NY Fed -- Timothy Geithner for Treasury in his first administration if he did not want to please Pete Peterson and begin to destroy Social Security.

Further, he would not have appointed Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson and a majority of anti-Social Security people to his Cat Food Commission if he were all that pro-Social Security.

Obama has done nothing to protect Social Security.

The right thing to do is to tax capital gains at the levels at which it used to be taxed and use the additional revenue to repay the Social Security Trust Fund which was plundered by the Congress and various administrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:59 AM

82. That he did

Obama destroyed chained CPI with his masterful brinksmanship. No amount of hand wringing will change that. No matter how hard you or others try to change that it will remain as fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 06:20 AM

85. Govern like the right..

... spin like the right. The two go hand in hand.

The right wing learned 30 years ago that you can frame ANY ISSUE or ACTION in multiple ways and there are plenty of idiots that will fall for it. The Dems just took a bit longer.

This "miracle" budget also restored 80% of the sequestration cuts to the military budget, arguably the only good feature OF the sequestration. Some master stroke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 06:53 AM

87. The apologist will

twist themselves in pretzels justifying anything this POTUS does, all the while forgetting (ignoring) that some of BHO's proposals have come form repukes (ACA was MA Romneycare from the Heritage Foundation; chained CPI was 1st a Bush proposal) and they were against them then.

Putting SS or Medicare on the table was shameful and shameless. Playing with people's lives is despicable. Abandoning core D/democratic principles and legacies is beyond descriptives.

In this case of the chained CPI, we should thank goodness, the repukes are so intransigent. This was no fucking game and Obama is not some masterful player. He's weak and stands for nothing... aside from his puppetmasters on Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carolina (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:23 AM

95. Takes very little apologising to celebrate the fact that...

... Obama has done more to hurt Chained CPI by dragging it into the public spotlight through a symbolic budget than all of our teeth gnashing in the left-wing bubble did for years.

What it does take a lot of, however, is brass balls to have the gall to accuse Obama, who has championed entitlements and welfare programs since coming into office, of somehow being a champion for Chained CPI.

The boisterous attempts to disenfranchise Democratic party voters with false equivalency fantasies by painting Obama as some entitlement slashing monster is disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:25 AM

96. eat your ovaltine

Remember "Christmas Story"? The part where Ralph gets the "secret decoder ring"? Obama true believers are like that... except they've decoded the hidden message and think it's a brilliant game of 3d chess. Not just another marketing / corporate message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locrian (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:36 AM

101. Read this and tell me which one of these sounds more convuluted:

Obama wants to pass Chained CPI cuts to Social Security. He puts the cuts into his initial budget and makes special effort to point them out publicly as a compromise to John Boehner who demanded them. He then stresses, again publicly, that these cuts would be disastrous, but Democrats have ideas to protect low income Seniors. He then sits back and does nothing to defend Chained CPI beyond stating that Republicans demand a compromise and that Democrats are looking at ways to mitigate the damage.

OR

Obama wants to pass Chained CPI cuts to Social Security. He shuts his mouth and waits until negotiations go behind closed doors and lets Republicans slip them in.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locrian (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 09:03 AM

117. But watching them twist their brains day in and day out to come up with this shit

 

is pretty damned entertaining at times. Sometimes it's just funny, but at times like this it becomes absolutely surreal.

Love the Christmas Story metaphor, so apt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:44 AM

106. I recall wondering if this wasn't the end game when it was announced more than a week ago

But was damned here for even thinking such.

I am still pissed that he even mentioned changes to Social Security, but at the time thought he was playing chicken with the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:57 AM

110. +100000000000

 

Team Awesome ain't buying this new C.R.A.P.!!!!

You're sooooooo right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 08:01 AM

111. Ha ha.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 08:54 AM

114. If flows from the same logic that caused Kerry to intentionally lose the 2004 election

Doesn't the Republican Party look terrible now having to defend what W did to the U.S. and the world in two terms in office?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #114)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 09:36 AM

121. Hell, you'd think the Republicans...

Hell, you'd think the Republicans trying to control women's vaginas and keep black and brown people from voting would be enough to go on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:55 PM

123. Propaganda is the preferred mode of communication among the corrupt

 

They are full of their memorized talking points that are created to emotionally entrap people rather than to promote rational thinking. The propaganda mode they are stuck in also happens to be where about 50% of our population is stuck as well as many people don't even know they're being suckered into some false paradigm of emotional hatred that doesn't even exist in reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to just1voice (Reply #123)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:17 PM

124. that's one of the things that is so terribly sad about politics. the anti-democratic aspect of it

 

all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread