General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe are pulled to the right. We are manipulated like fools.
The effect of the Ryan pick is that, after an entire election season of hearing the horrors that Ryan's budget will inflict on ordinary Americans, the public will welcome the bipartisan Grand Bargain catfood commission plan to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We will welcome it with tears and hugs as the humane and generous choice.
We are being played like suckers. The one percent have finally figured out how to get Americans to welcome the dismantling of our social safety nets.
This is the big nut, folks. For decades, the existence of the social safety nets, and the public's expectation that they will always be there, has been the single greatest obstacle the one percent has faced in truly looting this country.
They have finally figured out a way to do it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
still_one
(98,883 posts)destroyed, because that is what they would get if they voted republican
In fact the choices could not be clearer now between the two parties
What the majority vote in this election they will reap the consequences of their actions more so than at anytime in the last 60 years
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)
spearheaded by the Democrats, because the alternative is "even worse". The objective qualities of this plan will be overshadowed by the perceptions of where it sits on in entirely imaginary "spectrum" of what's "possible".
still_one
(98,883 posts)ryan define the terms
sibelian
(7,804 posts)The limiting factor on Obama's push to the humane society he probably wants to build has nothing to do with Ryan, it's corporate influence. Obama does not show any great resistance to this.
seanpencil
(168 posts)"will not just sit ideally by"
that's a brain twister!! 
There are many many misheard/spelled/typed phrases on the Innertubez but that one has got the cake!!!!! 
still_one
(98,883 posts)seanpencil
(168 posts)Thank you for not being mad. Delightful slip. Maybe you're a super-quick typist 
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)2 of which his party held majorities in both houses of Congress. So he's now going to get tough?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You asserted, now show your proof.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Which he had to do because he is black.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Have realized within 6 months that it was impossible
Second, we had Dems like blanch Lincoln,blah, Nelson, LiIEberman and others who Obama had to work with to get any sort of legislation passed, and in spite of that adversity, and it was huge, he still got the ACA, some financial reform, the saving of America's auto industry, avoided a complete collapse of out banking and financial system, along with holding the court from being taken over by the extremists, plus a lot of other things, without the full support of Congress, even when we had the majority, because it was not a true majority, blue dogs being the reason
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Obama has been forced to basically play nice for four years all the while the right wingers have controlled the narrative by making Obama and the Democrats out to be weak capitulators.
still_one
(98,883 posts)been the republicans, and this has been not only observed, but substantiated by republicans themselves whose goal was to block everything
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He had a much larger one than Smirk had for 8 years, and Stupid was able to implement everything he wanted except SS privatization. Are you telling me that Smirk was that much a superior leader to Obama?
still_one
(98,883 posts)actually be republicans it next to impossible.
A few days ago you had republicans who were no longer in congress come out and say they were given a mandate to block anything that came out of this administration
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Next year's Congress will be more hostile than the one he faced in 2009. If you claim that he can't do anything in such a situation, you've given up already. OTOH if he would actually fight for some left-of-center causes, millions would rally behind him instead of considering him the lesser of evils.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Doubt where they stand, privatizing or destroying social security and Medicare, reversing the right to privacy, putting corporations in charge of,regulation, and destroying the middle class
I am not so sure that their won't be coat tails if Obama wins, enough to regain control of congress
and if that happens, the real work will be trying to knock some sense in the blue dogs
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)regardless whether we lose Congress or not, we will not have the huge majorities we had in 2009-2010. Since the president's "grand bargain" has already put SS Medicare cuts on the table, and with fewer Dems in Congress than we had during his first two years, how can we honestly expect him to pursue a worthwhile agenda?
still_one
(98,883 posts)There will be a difference the way things will be run.
And it will be a progressive agenda
Regardless, I believe if nothing else at least if there are any supreme court justices to be appointed, a Democrat appointing someone will be vastly different from a rethug
Skittles
(175,519 posts)please
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)lolz
Do you fatalists say this stuff with a straight face?
Julie
woo me with science
(32,139 posts) 
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)Chronicles. 
What's even more amazing is that these folks who are such a big noise on internet forums, have very little real world effect. If they were half as effective, out in the hinterlands, we'd be trying to reelect Pres. Kucinich right about now. But alas, they have to equate the parties falsely, in the hope that someday, somehow we'll turn enmasse against the Democratic Party. But they forget, they tried that already, and all we got for it was 8 years of (*), which may have been their goal along.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Jakes Progress
(11,215 posts)Amazing how often people say this.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Lets follow that one down the logic chain, eh?
Jakes Progress
(11,215 posts)Or that one party does no evil?
See post 195. It will help you see what is going on.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)For a reason.
Jakes Progress
(11,215 posts)Have been for 40 years. Worked for the party and its candidates thousands of hours.
That is why I hate what is happening to the party I joined for a reason. That reason is slipping away.
What is your reason?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)What is my reason for what?
For being a registered Democrat?
Or for having little patience for the "Both Parties are equally bad hurr durr" yargle bargle shit we get every four years?
Jakes Progress
(11,215 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm happy to meet another long time Democrat. My question was about your own statement that you are a registered Democrat. It was a snarky rejoinder that questioned my party affiliations. Mine was a snarky rejoinder that questions your reasons. Is it because you believe in the liberal politics of the traditional party or is it because you like the games and the competition and the "We will win" of election cycles.
At my precinct, we always got a lot of the band wagoneers and gung ho "gonna win" types around elections. They were very handy for the grunt work - signs, stickers, manning tables. Of course, since they lacked any real convictions beyond the desire to "win", they couldn't be used to to into the living rooms and small group sessions. Their blind, team-centered rhetoric doesn't do much to help people who are on the edge of deciding. But they were handy. Of course we wouldn't see them again until another election.
So my question deals with principles. Why are you a Democrat? If it is for the principles that make me a Democrat, then you too are sick of the rightward drift of the party. You too are aware that the DLC is doing some of that evil and kowtowing to the same gods that the republicans worship. You too would be a sick about it. You too would be doing all you could to make the Democratic party a true alternative to (rather than a wimpy version of) the gop.
You could also feel free to answer both of the questions from you post. You could even address the issue of party drift and right wing influence in the party - since that was the topic of the OP.
4 t 4
(2,407 posts)but they pretty much suck and have sold out ! Obama has this election and a republican will have it in 2016 ! I will make a gentleman's bet with anyone who doesn't think so! Obama probably thought he could really make a difference and then he learned different!
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)learned how truly F'ed up the system is for "we the people." I don't have the link, but he did say once he was amazed at how many levers of power there were, something like that. I think he quickly found out big money and corporations run the country. And also, probably, how many supposed democrats are obstructionists and sometimes are more like republicans.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...from selecting Obama. Some of us felt that he was too idealist and too bipartisan. Some of us want a partisan fighter with experience with these tactics.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)YARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGLLLLLLBARRRRRRGGGGGGKKKLLLLLLL!!!!!!!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)As I rather suspect you know.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)In order to usher in their own policies with the Democrats.
It's totally stupid. I have never seen anything so ass backward and illogical in my decade of posting here.
Xipe Totec
(44,649 posts)I believe the OP is about the argument to moderation fallacy:
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
If one believes that governance requires compromise, and the compromise is between a radical right wing position and a centrist one, the compromise will always exhibit a bias to the right.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)He wasn't taken seriously when his budget was proposed and he won't be taken seriously in the future.
The OP is definitely talking about a conspiracy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1108974
edit: sorry that was incorrect, it did pass the House... party line. Still, it didn't get anywhere in the Senate and I recall most people who know a thing or two about politics cracking up.
Marr
(20,317 posts)But don't let that stop you.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)What do you think that means? They picked Ryan to usher in austerity.
He even says picking Ryan was a brilliant move elsewhere: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1108974
This is precisely what he's talking about here.
If anyone is being manipulated it is those who think that Ryan is a good fucking pick. If we get back the House then the Republican policies will be crushed.
The Blue Flower
(6,781 posts)I simply don't see the country allowing this to happen. Too many would have to go along with this for it to happen. And I don't share your cynicism about Obama/Biden.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)which would cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unacceptable to Democrats.
After this election season, that deal will seem mild in comparison to what will be proposed by Ryan and Romney.
As Democrats, we need a clear stand from our President that he will not go there again....that the Deal he offered last spring will not be considered acceptable, just because the cuts are milder than what Republicans want to do.
We have a right and a responsibility as Democrats to expect this very specific promise from a President who is campaigning as a defender of the 99 percent.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)After the election, Democrat-led austerity must be assessed on it's actual real-world qualities and consequences, not on what it "compares to".
seanpencil
(168 posts)been doing it since Reagan. "The one percent have finally figured out how to get Americans to welcome the dismantling of our social safety nets."
Although reply #2 makes your point that people don't see it even now. THAT's how they do it.
Next stop: Hitler
taterguy
(29,582 posts)seanpencil
(168 posts)....... well okay. If the poster is right, doesn't that remind you of something?
kentuck
(117,322 posts)...once they are not paying their 7 1/2% in FICA taxes, they may need to know that with a couple of years of wage freezes and a little bit of inflation, the 7 1/2% will be gone anyway. And on top of that, you will have no Social Security or Medicare. Will you be better off then?
FSogol
(47,757 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)a policy that damages the United States remains demaging whether enacted by Democratcs or Republicans. The name of the party is of no consequence, it's what they do that counts.
seanpencil
(168 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)--from putting up a weak defense of those programs. However, BOTH are unacceptable.
cali
(114,904 posts)they're both the same dogshit is just that.... a steaming pile.
seanpencil
(168 posts)i missed it
MineralMan
(152,548 posts)Beset on all sides, bereft of hope. If I felt as you do, I'd withdraw from all political commentary, I think.
Here's my comment for you:
GOTV 2012!
If you're not working on that, then you're helping the other side.
seanpencil
(168 posts)very challenging GOTV. I read one of your posts on this. How do you recommend getting involved. And what to say to people who are discouraged about voting?
MineralMan
(152,548 posts)Democratic Party organization or a local Democratic legislative candidate. They'll help you find things you can do to get out the vote. There's something to suit every type of person. I walk my precinct and talk to everyone I can. Not everyone wants to do that. But there are a million other things to be done to help. Some don't require face to face contact with voters. There truly is a job for everyone.
As for what to say to discouraged people, you have to take it one person at a time. Find out what's bothering them, and then show them why the local Democratic legislative candidate will help fix that.
seanpencil
(168 posts)I would say Citizens United, among other things.
MineralMan
(152,548 posts)Addressing those specific issues works. Not everyone even knows what Citizens United is. Truly, they do not. DU does not reflect the general public or the concerns of the average voter. To work effectively, you need a broader perspective of the issues that matter to people who don't share your particular issues.
seanpencil
(168 posts)Thank you for the lecture.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)seem to feel that "DU" is a FORCE for this coming election.
That the voices here and those trashed will determine this election.
How is that? What do you think?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Which DUers do you find so weak minded that exposure to opinions or speculation could result in depressing their votes?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)content ever post a single word of their own. Around 80% don't sign up, and they don't post. They go on to read and read only.
And those are the targets of such messages. Get them to give up and stay home. We're all doomed anyway.
Meanwhile, over on right wing sites, the attack on Obama is completely the opposite, and designed to anger those who read it and motivate them to get out and vote against Obama.
Autumn
(49,194 posts)spend so much time lecturing us Americans who are in deep shit.
Things aren't going so well down here. We need to get our Democratic Party back on track before the fucking party of loonies destroy the very fabric of our society and our lives.
There are a lot of Citizens here that are not happy with the way things are going down here. We have a party down here that wants to screw over everyone they can, and members of another party, our party at that, willing to go right along with them.
Fuck "bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout". We have a right to call out our politicians, we have a right to be dissatisfied, and we have freedom of speech to fucking say so.
Sid
sibelian
(7,804 posts)He's a bit like the rolling eyes guy. It makes it look like you've said something when you haven't!
Great post, Sid!
Sid
Whisp
(24,096 posts)we meddling Canuckistanian nose pokin' lecturers can spike the punch bowl with ex-lax.
(and maybe tell them again that our universal health care didn't happen overnight like they want it to be.)
the panic and confusion, it is showing, isn't it?
Now that the contrast between Obama and his team and the Romney team is as stark as it possibly can be between good and low down filthy evil.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
sibelian
(7,804 posts)If the post you were answering to was funny, but it wasn't.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Too much text apparently taxes the brain or so I heard today.
To show intelligence, the theory now goes, you must say what you have to say in two sentences.
By that standard, that post was BRILLIANT!
I think I just failed the intelligence test, again!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)he is a Canadian who cannot vote in our elections but can lecture us?
It so, that's amazing. And, if so, thanks for the heads-up.
Autumn
(49,194 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
leftstreet
(41,630 posts)for medicinal purposes of course
Mellow him right out
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Xipe Totec
(44,649 posts)That's disappointing.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)all.
As observed by another poster at #46, "He is a Canadian who regularly mocks and belittles" DUers. That's his shtick. He has no message.
If he is a Canadian, why does he want to interject himself into American politics or into discussions about American politics? How about Canada for Canadians and America for Americans?
Xipe Totec
(44,649 posts)Clearly there is a message, and you didn't like it. Focus more on that, and less on who delivered it.
Or, are you just saying you don't like Canadians, period? Last time I checked, there was no citizenship requirement for participation in DU, and discussions were not limited to American politics either. World politics are discussed in this forum, and Americans express their opinions enthusiastically.
Rest easy; I am certain the United States will not crumble to dust because a Canadian dared to criticize it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)denigrates our desire to have the same or better. Fully informed posters are good posters. We could potentially learn a great deal from those who already have a universal health plan, that is if such people actually talked about that.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/system/default.aspx#1
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)own party is truly representing our interests.
There is a rumor that Obama will appoint Erskine Bowles to replace Geithner as Sec. of Treasury. Erskine Bowles is a Morgan Stanley employee or former employee, and he does not like Medicare or Social Security.
If Obama appoints Bowles or some other anti-Medicare, anti-Social-Security son of Wall Street, you can expect a lot of defections from the Democratic Party and Obama.
Just saying. We have to nip the Erskine Bowles idea in the bud during the election. Discuss in your local Democratic Club. This needs to filter up through the unions and to the top of the Party.
Social Security can be easily fixed if the cap on FICA taxes is lifted. That was Obama's original idea, and that is what needs to be done.
Autumn
(49,194 posts)can't believe Obama would even consider him. If he were to do that it would destroy the current Democratic party, as it should. But if it happens after the election ? What recourse do we have then ? None.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We need to be talking about this now, loudly.
The party need to understand what is flatly unacceptable.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)not be true.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)their way.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)So, that's the fix I am suggesting and that he suggests.
I don't think it needs fixing either.
And Obama actually asked for and got a "vacation" on part of the FICA taxes paid by employers, so he isn't really worried.
It's just a Wall Street grab to try to get at our retirement savings funds that we put into Social Security -- what little we have of them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from letting their elected officials know what they want.
I believe this effort to silence people is so insane that the only people to benefit from a silent electorate are the Corporations.
They are right now in DC making sure that those same Representatives know what THEY want. I can't imagine any Democrat ever believing that this 'strategy' would work for the people or the Party. So who does it work for? If you're spending millions of dollars to get the attention of Candidates, would YOU want the PEOPLE distracting them with their silly concerns?
The more I see it, and who the sources of it are which began in earnest in 2004, the more I am convinced that this is backed by Corporate America.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I am also guessing you bought into that freedom frie craziness and don't like them french too much either.
How about Liechtensteiners, are they allowed to speak to you?
oh, the desperation.
but thanks for the good laughs, wonderful stuff.
Autumn
(49,194 posts)But you have a real nice day and bless your little heart. Alert button is in the bottom left hand corner. Feel free to use it. Just to tell you and your little friend off is worth having a post hidden.
Sid
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
which country do you think we should take over next?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
that was just too easy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)through it imho.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)just as FDR spoke up in favor of Social Security and just as LBJ spoke up in favor of Medicare and Medicaid, he can speak up in favor of the importance of the social safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Any time that Democratic Senators and Representatives want to do so, they can speak up in favor of the importance of the social safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
No one is suppressing the vote when implicitly calling for the President, Democratic Senators, and Democratic Representatives, to act in a manner consistent with traditional Democratic value or behalf of the great majority of Americans and opening taking an active interest in preserving the social safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)giving him opportunities to make explicit and specific his defense of safety nets for the American people.
We need to explicitly demand this promise.
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)It is not real life, remember?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)OP on an internet forum that 99.9$ of the population never heard of.
But then it mysteriously loses all that power when someone is being bullied on the internet.
I know it's hard, but try to keep up!
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Autumn
(49,194 posts)They play the American people like a finely tuned fiddle. Both sides.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)arguments in favor of Medicare and Medicaid.
All good Democratic politicians who favor the social safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should know how to make arguments in favor of them.
All politicians who are making arguments in favor of the social safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are good Democrats.
No one is suppressing the vote when expressly or implicitly calling for the President, Democratic Senators, Democratic Representatives, or Democratic politicians at the local levels to make good arguments in favor of the social safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Presumably, some of the staff members of Democratic politicians read DU from time to time. Presumably, some of them can be favorably influenced by reminders that we need them to speak up in favor of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
No one, not a single person, is seeking to suppress the vote when implicitly asking Democratic politicians to speak up in favor of traditional Democratic values and protect social safety nets.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't think he really, really cares that much about those issues. He is more into the problems of youth and children. That is the impression he has given me as a senior. Mind you, he is a better alternative than the Republicans, but he could do a lot more to draw Republican seniors to our party if he spoke more positively and energetically to senior issues. He has NEVER really done that.
Remember, when a politician speaks to seniors, he/she has to do it in a loud voice using clear language -- because a lot of seniors do not hear well, and when your hearing starts to go, you listen less. You close off to generalities. Seniors need really forceful speech on Social Security and Medicare.
Obama keeps saying he wants to save it or something, but he never explains what he means by that. Those vague generalities will not work with seniors.
That is one reason why Fox News goes over with seniors. They are loud, confrontational and don't have any sense of humor. A lot of older people just don't hear well enough and are too tired to deal with subtlety. Now, that is not always true. There are lots and lots of wonderful exceptions, but it is true in a hefty percentage of us especially those of us over 75. You have to repeat things. You have to be clear and explicit. Otherwise many of us fog over. That is not so much the case with the written word, but rather with sound.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)your conclusion "He is more into the problems of youth and children."
You must have seen something that I have not.
From my perspective and knowing his absence of a track record while acting as an Illinois politician who voted "present" and while doing very little else, I think that he is a careerist who was selected by other politicians because he does nothing to seriously upset lobbyists for the super-rich.
As an example, his selection of Arne Duncan as the U.S. Secretary of Education who has an agenda to dismantle and privatize the public school systems seems, at least to me, to show a greater concern for the privateers than the children.
IMO, Obama is a get-along-to-go-along politician. He always has been. The only way to genuinely get him to focus upon the safety net issues is to first motivate senior Democratic politicians, such as Democratic Senators, to recognize the attack upon Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as a serious problem so that they will focus upon it themselves. Obama will do what they want. If they want to do nothing except occasionally pay lip service to the problem during the campaign seasons, that's what he will do.
Also in my opinion, to the extent that other Democratic politicians focus upon the problems of the youth, he will do that as well.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)would be high unemployment, the foreclosure crisis and mass financial fraud threatening to destroy any hope of security in their lifetimes.
Sadly, Obama's record on these key youth issues is extremely weak.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)used the Ryan budget as a foil to frame the Catfood Commission and the various gangs as "moderate" and argue that "something" must be done about spending.
Complain all you want loyalists but credibility on the issue has been damaged by continuous efforts to come up with an austerity plan despite TeaPubliKlans dropping off as co-sponsors and repeatedly walking away from the table.
The effort dies and each time the President pro-actively brings it back with more offers to forge a "Grand Bargain" and tells Democrats to "eat our peas".
What the hell are the indications that the President does not intend to continue to push efforts to execute austerity?
The Ryan plan has always been a frame job to present the other efforts as less draconian and "reasonable" so what really is different for now?
The hope is that the Administration can be pushed to do a 180 rather than the apparently intended 60ish degree turn and if the real intent is a 180 then logic dictates that all efforts be forcefully rejected and no new ones pursued. No "Grand Bargain" required and accept the obstructionist walking away as the final answer.
You wouldn't have heard another fucking peep from me on the subject after the TeaPubliKlans co-sponsors bounced on the original binding plan for a commission rather than putting together Simpson-Bowles or any of the subsequent gangs.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The big nut??
Is that one of them thar additives you can get on a Pappy John's pizza or a Chuck-Fil-a??
TahitiNut
(71,611 posts)The attacks on earned entitlements are so obscenely extreme under a (hopefully) failed campaign, that virtually anything proposed that guts and decimates such programs under some future administration will sound "oh hum" to the vast majority of voters.
"Hey, no big deal! You should've heard what they tried back in '012!" It'll be almost impossible to rouse the electorate.
More frightening, even, is the possibility that they're actually successful with this audacious excess.
Citizen Worker
(1,785 posts)Security, Medicare and Medicaid? So far, I've heard just one, Jay Rockefeller. There may be others but I haven't heard any say so publicly. Another simple candidate test: ask each and every democratic party office seeker during public appearances if they support Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and will they fight to improve each of those programs. If the candidate equivocates or doesn't answer you will know.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is what we need to do, at every campaign stop and in the media.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)of the cat-food commission.
In 2011 he specifically said that Social Security cuts should not be ruled out.
...
Durbin criticized a resolution put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent from Vermont, that says Social Security should not be cut under a deficit reduction plan. Durbin said he would not vote for such a resolution.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-dick-durbin-social-security-cuts-ruled/story?id=13400977
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Commission chiefs, Erskine Bowles, as Secretary of the Treasury.
While Simpson has seized the spotlight, it may prove to be the case that Erskine Bowles, his co-chairman, poses the greater threat to Social Security. The reason is simple: Bowles is the living embodiment of the rewards available to politicians who would support substantial cutbacks or privatization of the program.
. . . .
Why would members of Congress be prepared to take a vote that is both bad on policy grounds and also could hurt their own political survival? Erskine Bowles is a large part of the answer. Bowles is an unsuccessful politician, having twice lost in runs for the Senate in North Carolina.
Yet, he is very successful financially. He pockets $335,000 a year as a director of Morgan Stanley, one of the huge Wall Street banks that was rescued by taxpayer dollars in the fall of 2008. He likely pockets a similar sum from sitting as a director of GM, another company rescued by the government.
This means that Bowles pockets close to $700,000 annually (@600 monthly Social Security checks) from attending eight to twelve meetings a year. This must look like a pretty attractive deal to current members of Congress. In other words, the message Bowles is sending members of Congress is that if you betray your constituents and vote to undermine Social Security, you will be amply rewarded even if the voters give you the boot.
http://my.firedoglake.com/deanbaker/2010/11/01/erskine-bowles-social-securitys-enemy-no-1erskine-bowles-social-securitys-enemy-no-1/
In particular, people should have cause for concern about his track record as a director of Morgan Stanley, the huge Wall Street investment bank. Morgan Stanley is one of the major investment banks that played a central role in propelling the housing bubble. In the years 2002-2006, as house prices were soaring into the stratosphere and mortgage standards were falling through the fall, Morgan Stanley was buying up tens of billions of dollars of junk loans and packaging them into mortgage backed securities to be sold across the globe.
Bowles joined the party in December of 2005, when the frenzy was approaching a peak. Mr. Bowles was well-compensated for his work. In 2008 he pocketed $335,000 for his duties. This sum is more than 270 times the average monthly Social Security check of $1,200. In other words, Mr. Bowles was paid more money from Morgan Stanley in 2008 than most Social Security beneficiaries will collect throughout their entire retirement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-dirt-on-erskine-bowle_b_1659347.html
Erskine Bowles badmouths Medicare and Social Security for his personal gain. He is not to be trusted.
If one iota of the rumor that Obama might appoint Erskine Bowles as Sec. of Treasury is true, then Obama is one of the cleverest betrayers and hoodwinkers in the history of our country.
Don't do it Obama. Don't you dare do it.
And, if you get to ask Obama a question at any point in this campaign, ask him what he thinks about Erskine Bowles. Please. Please.
This is a life or death matter for many Americans. We do not want Erskine Bowles or any other Wall Street sunny boy as Secretary of Treasury.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Obama is campaigning as a defender of the 99 percent. We need to demand public answers. Does he mean it or not?
We have a right to expect and a responsibility to demand a clear, specific promise from our President that he will not allow these programs to be cut.
I had not seen this rumor. It is extremely disturbing. Democrats need to be all over this, now.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)We went to a fundraiser for Erskine in 2004 when he ran for Senate in NC. He did a "Q&A" with the people who were invited and when asked how he stood on reforming SS and Medicare he said "their have to be changes made in both of those programs for there survival." The questioner said that he thought they'd been made secure by Clinton and Bowles replied that the costs of both would be a problem in the future and the programs would need to be revisited."
I remember that distinctly because I have never forgotten how disgusted I was. So disgusted that I walked out of the fundraiser before he finished the rest of the Q&A.
That wasn't all he said that disturbed me because one of his first questions was about Iraq Invasion where a questioner asked why we had to go into there since there weren't any WMD. Erskine replied, "Oh but our evidence suggested there were." Then he cut the questioner off.
I'm a liberal Democrat. When I left that fundraiser I knew that if Erskine became Senator he would be bad news. I voted for him anyway because the alternative Repug was your typical crazy. The Repug won....so it didn't matter how I voted, in the end.
Bowles is bad news if you are a Liberal Dem. The rest of Dems will be contented with him as Sec of Treasury.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)If true, Obama plans to double down on the broad economic malfeasance of his first term.
We are truly screwed.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Most of us are working hard on the Obama campaign, so our word should count.
This is a bit of gossip that I read somewhere on DU earlier today.
Less money going into Wall Street and more going to government social safety net programs is what I would like to see.
Wall Street has demonstrated that it is dishonest, takes too many outrageous risks and cannot be trusted with the money we need for our retirement. Sorry. But that is simply true. It was Wall Street combined with tax cuts for the rich while fighting two expensive wars and funding the development of all kinds of complex military equipment that nearly bankrupted the US and other parts of the world.
I want the larger part of my social safety net and my retirement savings to be in the hands of a trustworthy government that responds to the will of voters -- people like me.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Looks like it's either death or death by bughwa.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)While the Republicans want to slash - not cut - them?
Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?
The Overton Window's heading right at full throttle, and FDR is spinning in his grave with sufficient energy to light the eastern seaboard.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)this time for sure.
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)or at any other time. Otherwise, I expect an apology.
Remember... "announce" is not the same as "call for", and Obama absolutely did call for cuts in the SOTU as I predicted.
I'm tired of people making stuff up in order to discredit me. Link or slink.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)You've been predicting cuts to Social Security for almost 2 years now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1519141
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8729025
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8941332#8941496
etc.
Have you ever considered that you just might be wrong, Manny?
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"announce" and "call for" are two different things.
Either link to support your claim or apologize. Changing the subject doesn't count.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)what claim did I make that now I need to apologize for?
Sid
Robb
(39,665 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)SS recipients were denied their annual raises for inflation. That hurt many of the elderly who lost about $50 a month as a result. A total of over $1,200 and if you think there was no reaction to those cuts here in the US, it can only be because you are not here talking to the average voter.
The program itself has been jeopardized by the so-called 'tax holiday' which is also of huge concern to most Americans.
SS is basically untouchable in this country and anyone who supports the president, something I am beginning to seriously doubt, would right now be advising him to come out strongly on this most important issue, opposing any further such cuts and ending the tax holiday. Otoh, if you want him to lose, keep trying to prevent him from doing that.
To those depending on SS, and I know many of them, that cut was devastating to them and they are very concerned that it could happen again. These are the people who vote. You may try to silence the insignificant number of people who post on DU, but here in RL it is impossible to do so other than hearing a promise from Democrats that their SS checks will not see any more such cuts so long as they vote for them.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)COLA for SS is tied to CPI-W. The 5.8% COLA in 2008, followed by low CPI-W numbers in 2009 and 2010 meant that there was no COLA for 2009 and 2010.
Here's the relevant data:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/avgcpi.html
Note that the 2008 3rd quarter CPI-W was 215.495, and that it didn't reach that level again until the 1st quarter of 2011. That's why there was no COLA in 2009 and 2010. But that's not a cut.
There was a 3.6% COLA for 2011.
Edit: depending on the 2012 3rd quarter number, the COLA looks like it's going to be pretty small for 2012. Using 2nd quarter numbers, it would be about 1.5%, but we need 3rd quarter numbers.
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to be dependent on SS. For them there certainly was inflation. Food prices eg, were higher and rather than receive the adjustment to protect them from inflation, their benefits were cut based on the fallacy that there was no inflation.
Just talk to actual people here and ask them whether or not during those two years, inflation affected those on SS. Not only did they have their benefits cut, they had to spend more on their needs because prices were higher.
All these calculations are not done with actual human beings in mind and where they spend their money. That was glaringly obvious when those cuts were made.
I saw all the calculations, and I also saw the food and gas prices inflate despite the 'experts' claims of no inflation.
This should never have happened and it adversely affected millions of the most vulnerable Americans. But then they always take from the poor. There was outrage here across party lines over those cuts at such a bad time in the economy for so many people. It is one of the first questions asked by voters when trying to GOTV here, 'what about my benefits, will there be more cuts?' I don't like to lie to people, but at this point, will they do this again next year? I can't answer that honestly. The fact is they did do it and it hurt a lot of people.
dflprincess
(29,573 posts)that would limit Congressional pay raises to no more than what Social Security recipients gets. Better yet they should be limited to what the average SS raise is. So, if the average SS raise is $50/month - that's all Congress could get as well.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)SS recitients would be rich if that was the way it worked. Bet they'd find the money somewhere! Lol!
Imagine if we the people could vote on their pay raises right now?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)it's getting cut all the time.
*phew. what's that smell.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The kind that pollutes a thread with no content whatsoever, but just snark and insults and nasty one-liners?
Good grief, Whisp.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)seriously.
you come up with the same anti-Obama claptrap and you expect to what, get applause from me?
you are the baiter here, if you didn't notice we are deep into election season and anyone who tries to diminish the democratic Presdent and tries to equate him with the scum of the Right is the one who needs the fucking lecture.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last April, our President put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on the table.
Election season is the time to make sure that never happens again. Democrats deserve that promise, and we should demand it.
That's not baiting. That's being a responsible Democrat.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)is what it is.
responsible Democrat, my hairy dog's ass.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And this, my friends, is what we were all talking about.
Right on schedule.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)not always right on schedule, but I try my best.
This evil 1%er Obama you and your friends have in your minds must really excite you. But the real excitement will come if your wishes come true and he is defeated by a few votes because of naysaying made up shit that people actually believe. You will be so excited if the two Rs-holes get into power, I'm sure.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 10:44 PM - Edit history (2)
Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOPWe then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president
Whisp
(24,096 posts)there are so many OK corrals, I lose track.
What were the Republicans holding as hostage at the time? What was it Obama was bargaining for? Are you sure he would willingly put SS at risk if he wasn't certain the deal would be turned down?
because I know you like the simple answers that paint Obama in a bad light, and I also know things are never really as portrayed when it comes to attempts to tear down the President.
I came across this Obama quote:
you keep forgetting about that little itty bitty part, eh?
and about Conyers, I have no idea. Maybe it is related to what he said to Michael Moore in Farenheit 911, he said something like:
'Son, I don't read half the shit that comes across my desk, I don't have time'. Maybe this was one of those times?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I don't think I forgot that part. Is there some other part you're suggesting I forgot?
I take it that you, like our President, are in favor of cutting Social Security? Why?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)show me
and don't give me this guessing game you have about what he REALLY meant by using other words that are not 'cut'.
show me the cut
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."
Am I misunderstanding that sentence?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and not including the rest of this statement to put it into context:
We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.
these are cuts to expenditures, not cuts from grandpa's paycheque. Just like health expenditures are being reduced by co-ordinating patients information digitally instead of the old way. It's cutting expenditures. But enjoy your fantasy, I wouldn't want to disturb your dark dreams.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Ain't nothing to cut.
But here's what he likely *did* mean: http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/08/19/obama-lets-slip-plans-for-chained-cpi/
Whisp
(24,096 posts)sure thing, you just won me over.
do I really need that eye rolling thing?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)....It requires its messengers to perform the impossible task of convincing voters that what they have been seeing, hearing, and living...never really happened.
War is Peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
The chocolate ration has been increased.
The sky is green.
And Obama never put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts on the table.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Obama is Evol (it's worser than Evil)
He is all of the 1%, he himself
Under his nice smile and congeniality is a lizard waiting to pop out
He is such a caver he shared a cave with Osama (that's why his name is Obama)
He wasn't born in this solar system
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)fiscally run programs, with approx. 3% overhead for Medicaid eg, as compared to private HC insurance which has at least a (now reduced to) 20% or more overhead, which is pure profit for the middlemen.
What this clearly says is that anyone who singles out the 'entitlement' programs as 'needing expenditures cut' is lying. Where expenditures need to be cut are in the privately run programs. Why are we not hearing this shouted out loud by every Democrat in the country? I do hear Bernie Sanders, eg, and Kucinich, and a few others, but I do not hear it from a majority of Democrats.
Can you explain that?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)there is always room for being more efficient with money and still have the same benefits.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Even if costs in the Social Programs need stream-lining, the savings there would be so minor compared to the waste in so many other areas that it boggles the mind as to why this minor problem is always 'on the table'.
Why do we hear so often about the 'entitlement programs' but so rarely about where there is some real, disastrous waste, the Military Budget eg. Look a chart eg, and see how little is spent on Social programs compared to the humongous amount that is spent and wasted and lost on the Military.
And that is just one example. But all we ever hear is how the 'entitlement' programs need fixing. We know the reason for that and that is why Democrats must fight back hard against this faux 'concern'. And it's a winning issue, even Republicans like their Medicare and SS.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Lots of attempts at diversion and insults and drowning of the point going on, so I will repost this. Thanks for underscoring why it is SO important to extract this promise from our President now, that he will never try to touch safety nets again:
Rep. Conyers: Obama demanded Social Security Cuts - Not GOP
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)cough.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts) ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The Overton Window's heading right at full throttle, and FDR is spinning in his grave with sufficient energy to light the eastern seaboard."
...at least Romney will "lose with dignity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021108458
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Not mine.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Not mine.
...how nice of you to offfer a positive talking point for Republicans. Did you send it to the RNC?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'm thinking it'll start with Drudge and the Weekly Standard picking it up, then Fox, then the NY Times.
My God, I really screwed the pooch this time. Have to remember to be more careful next time. Being Manny is a big responsibility.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)That comment would never cross the mind of most Democrats.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)with that funny little roly smiley guy.
So there's that, at least. Too cute!!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)discredit other Democrats? For one thing, it's not working. The Republican talking points are here, but they are not coming from Manny or the OP. Since when did standing up for Democratic Principles become 'Republican Talking points'? Since when did fighting for SS become a Republican Talking Point?
Do you see how ridiculous it is to try to twist people trying to save these DEMOCRATIC programs into Republican Talking Points and why, being that it is so ridiculous, it fails so miserably?
Uncle Joe
(66,566 posts)Thanks for the thread, woo me with science.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)....Machiavelli defined this strategy well.
If you want a conquered town to embrace a new dictator,
first send in an extreme Sadist for a few weeks,
and let him run wild.
Then, ride into town and replace THAT dictator
with one a little less extreme,
and the Townsfolk will embrace the New, slightly less extreme dictator as their savior.
It works,
but only on frightened people
who are afraid to think outside the Binary Box.
They will ALWAYS choose the Lesser of Two Presented Evils,
and walk away thinking they got a good deal.
I believe we saw this one played out during the Great Wall Street Bailout.
Paulson delivered a note to our government that demanded a $TRILLION DOLLARS,
or America would collapse and planes would fall out of the skies.
We know what happened.
All over America cries of "Thank GOD it Passed" could be heard.
Politicians congratulated each other for their heroism in front of the TV Cameras.
America was happy to turn over TRILLIONS to Billionaires,
who are still laughing.
"Thank GAWD it passed!!!"
Binary Choice,
the preferred tool of Magicians, Scam Artists, and bad parents
DURec.
...about that "Temporary" Payroll Tax Holiday
(the reduction in FICA contributions that FUND Social Security & Medicare)
...does ANYBODY expect to see the Democratic Party Leadership stand up and say,
"OK. The Holiday is over.
Its time to Raise taxes on the Working Class?"
.
.
.
.
....anyone?
Payroll Tax Holiday Connects Social Security to the Deficit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1538388
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"Thank GAWD it passed!!!!!!"
And no,....the "holiday" continues...doing its job to justify these assaults.
The patterns matter. Noticing them and documenting them matters. Reminding us of what Democrats have traditionally stood for, and how that is being systematically dismantled, matters.
Waking up matters.
I love you, bvar22. 
Robb
(39,665 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Anything looked good after that. Many of us still suffer PTSD.
Nice analogy, btw.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)but no matter how often we watch this "technique" play out, people refuse to believe it. Thus, it works every time, and the Machiavellians are never out of business.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)then impose policies for a traumatized people that they would never accept under ordinary circumstances.
The solution is simple however, and it would be a winning strategy for Democrats to come out strongly now making it clear that they well NEVER consider any cuts to any social programs and attack the Republicans as the Party that wants to take away their SS benefits.
All polls show that a majority of the people would support candidates who put their minds at rest regarding this issue.
The other thing Democrats need to do is make it very clear that Republicans are LYING when they try to link SS to the Deficit. That is a flat out lie and needs to be stated loudly and clearly.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Don't hold your breath :/
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Thanks to the "Temporary Payroll Tax Holiday"
Social Security is now directly linked to The Deficit.
Payroll Tax Holiday Connects Social Security to the Deficit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1538388
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for the 'let's privatize SS' gang .... not so much for the people. Why do I feel like we are being check-mated?
Trying to undo that is going to be unbelievably difficult and would have to happen in January before we are being told once again, 'Shhhhh, be patient, we can't do it now, there's an election coming up'.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)campaign issue as all the polls show.
I guess we need our own media to start interviewing and asking them that question. It can't be that Democrats do not want to do it, so I'm thinking they are more afraid of Wall Street than they are of the people.
If that is the case, then we have turned a nasty corner in this Democracy.
What was the saying? 'When the people fear the government, that is a dictatorship, when the government fears the people, that is a democracy'
And when elected officials fear Wall St. more than the people, that is, what?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)population wants to keep them.
Yes, it would be very easy to counter the republicans by explaining the facts & explaining why the republican plan is a death sentence.
have you seen this? Bill Clinton & Paul Ryan at Pete Peterson's catfood summit this May:
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)feels that Bill will understand how hard it was for the Teabaggers to 'get out there'.
When I think of how I defended Clinton so fiercely against all those Right wingers, people like Ryan and then see Clinton so close to all of them, the Bushes eg, it makes me so angry. It sure was a slap in the face to all of us who endured fierce attacks even death threats, for defending him. I wonder how the other side feels? And not even a comment from them to explain.
All of it has made me wonder if it was not all just a game and we, both sides actually, were pawns being manipulated, while they were busy taking apart the structures, the laws, that were protecting us from what just happened, in order to enrich themselves.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We have one party promising outright to gut our safety nets. We should not have to worry that proclaimed support of the 99 percent in our own party obscures motives like this.
This is why we need specific promises now, before the election. We need to make it clear that we will judge the commitment of our candidates to our welfare not in comparison to what Republicans would do, but based on their actual effects on human beings. Cuts or slowing of benefits are unacceptable, as are raises in the age of eligibility.
Real Democrats don't attack these programs. AT ALL.
DonCoquixote
(14,000 posts)True, but where is the third choice?
There is none that can win in November, perhaps if a third actualy built a powerbase instead of running for president, like nader did.
It's very easy to slam Binary choice, when there is no third.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)When Wall Street was finally confronted with the consequences of their own rampant fraud and corruption, Congress, Treasury, the white House and the Fed wasted no time in handing over $$trillions to bail out the global financial elite. No cuts, slashes or sacrifices were demanded in return for the piles of money they were given to save our banking oligarchs from their own reckless incompetence.
Now our government wants to pretend that there is no money to bail out the American workers who spent decades paying into the system. Whereas the banks were gifted trillions in bailouts, the people are met with cries for austerity and an insistence that There Is No Alternative. Our political leadership would like to pretend that we're still on some fantasy gold standard. They want you to forget about all of the money they just gave to the banks and squandered on wars. Austerity for thee, but not for me.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)If you are so certain he will protect these programs, why has he not promised to do so?
And if you agree that Democrats do not cut Social Security and Medicare, why are you so upset that our President would be asked to make that promise explicit?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)If you are so certain he will protect these programs, why has he not promised to do so?
And if you agree that Democrats do not cut Social Security and Medicare, why are you so upset that our President would be asked to make that promise explicit?
...you're not interested in what the President says. Whatever he says, you're going to find the negative in it to support your theory that "we" (speak for yourself) are "manipulated like fools" and that there is some sinister plot involving the President to cut Social Security. Oh, and anyone who didn't see him wink when he said what he said is complicit.
The President makes a lot of speeches, sometimes he simply mentions the program and sometimes he's specific.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/17/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-alpha-illinois
Iisn't that part of his statement? He has made reference to that often. Yet people seem to take a vague reference to what's being debated and speculation about it as an actual proposal.
No, look, what it means is basically for 95 percent of Americans, they pay -- every dollar you earn, you pay into the payroll tax. But think about that other 5 percent that's making more than $109,000 a year. Warren Buffett, he pays the payroll tax on the first $109,000 he makes, and then for the other $10 billion -- (laughter) -- he doesn't pay payroll tax.
So -- yes, somebody said, "What?" (Laughter.) Yes, that's right. That's the way it works.
So what we've said is, well, don't we -- doesn't it make sense to maybe have that payroll tax cut off at a higher level, or have people -- maybe you hold people harmless till they make $250,000 a year, but between $250,000 and a million or something, they start paying payroll tax again -- just to make sure that the fund overall is solvent.
So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine. All right? (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-henderson-nevada
These OP's are a hoot!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)This should be repeated by every Democrat running for office over and over again.
I am glad to see that he understands that there is no need for cuts.
This should be a center piece of the election. And when Paul Ryan is challenged on it, what is he going to say? This one issue is among the most important to Americans. Nearly everyone has a relative who relies on SS and it is the one thing they understand and expect, that this program will be protected.
Let's hear Ryan's views on SS and Romney's and then repeat them over and over again.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 06:43 PM - Edit history (2)
because it gives us insight into what he is likely to propose in the future:
"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."
-President Obama, July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president
Lifting the cap wasn't in his own proposal to the debt committee, which is why we need to make him be specific about what he will and will not accept. The proposal he made included a raise in the Medicare age of eligibility, a chained CPI to reduce Social Security benefits, and 650 billion in cuts to the programs overall. No cap raise. And that was at the START of the negotiations.
I agree with you that raising the cap would be a good idea. We should hold him to that and get a specific promise.
Most importantly, we need a vow from him that he will not go to back to any plan similar to the one he proposed in April. Democrats don't cut SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Period.
We should be hearing the following promises:
1. not to reduce or slow benefits for SS, Medicare, or Medicaid
2. end the tying of SS to the deficit with payroll tax holidays
3. Reject any raise in eligibility ages
4. Raise the cap
I think we can agree as Democrats that we deserve a vow not to cut these programs whatsoever. It is the LEAST we should expect from a Defender of the 99 Percent.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)because it gives us insight into what he is likely to propose in the future:
"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president
...you're not interested because you keep posting this and framing it like a RW talking point when it has been pointed out over and over again that these are not cuts to benefits.
I mean, everyone knows that the RW talking point that the President cut Medicare benefits is bullshit.
Under Obama’s approach, for instance, higher-income seniors would pay more for doctors visits and prescription coverage beginning in 2017 and all new enrollees will pay a $25 deductible as part of their Part B premiums. But for the most part, the budget is similar to the administration’s September 2011 deficit reduction plan and recoups the greatest savings from drug rebates and modernizing provider payments to achieve greater efficiency. Here is a chart showing where all the savings come from:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/13/424136/obama-budget-health-care-savings-in-one-chart/
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It sounds like you are trying to argue that the Grand Bargain he proposed last year doesn't hurt seniors. I'm sorry, but that is a position that doesn't even belong on these boards, IMO, because it does not square with reality.
A chained CPI definitely hurts seniors. So does an increase in the Medicare age.
I thought we were agreeing that Democrats don't attack these programs.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Are you defending the Grand Bargain?"
...red herring attempt.
My comment was pretty damn clear: You need to stop pushing RW talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1113334
bvar22
(39,909 posts)So far, only "mentions" in a few speeches and implied promises to do so.
One of the reasons I supported him in the Democratic Primaries was THIS:
He pushed HARD to win the "Temporary" reductions in FICA Contributions (Payroll Tax Holiday in the Conservative vernacular, liken the "Death Tax"
,
and had a bill presented to reduce FICA Contributions, and cover the shortfall from the General Fund.
He used the Bully Pulpit to fight for THAT.
THEN, he fought HARD to have them extended.
He Got THAT Done!
Where is the fight to Raise the Cap?
If he had promised to CUT FICA Contributions
instead of RAISING the Cap in 2008,
would he have won the Democratic Primary?
I don't know, because by then we were faced with another Binary Choice.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
"Then WHERE is his campaign to Raise the Cap?"
So because he hasn't outlined a proposal to raise the cap, he's has a sinister plan to cut Social Security?
What the hell kind of Rovian argument is that?
There are those who strongly defend Social Security who argue that it should be left alone. That it's not in trouble.
Raising the cap is a great idea, but just because the President hasn't put forward an official proposal is not a negative.
Robb
(39,665 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Certainly not from me.
That's quite an angry response to the idea that a Democratic President should promise not to cut Medicare and Social Security.
Response to woo me with science (Original post)
Post removed
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Obama is an evil-doer too!
chirp... peep
Ruby the Liberal
(26,804 posts)Actually, we have an amazing opportunity now to go hard left by putting the spotlight on what the far right has in mind for this country.
Couldn't be happier with this pick. Gekko/Galt 2012! 
dflprincess
(29,573 posts)yet the Democratic party keeps moving right.
Progressive dog
(7,809 posts)I am so sick of people making a conspiracy out of everything and anything. After almost 4 years in office, how much has social security been changed? How much has medicare been changed? Which recent President has tried to make the tax system more progressive?
At what point do people who claim to be Democrats put aside their conspiracy theories, stop their complaining about the imagined future and start to work to counter the admitted conspirators?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It certainly isn't a conspiracy theory.
Progressive dog
(7,809 posts)So you listen to the rethug side of the story on a bargain that didn't go through. We all know Boehner and his crew would never tell a lie. Sure, the President gave away the store but the Rethugs stood firm.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Progressive dog
(7,809 posts)Of course, he might not be telling the truth, so who knows. Maybe the plan never really existed.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)extended the Bush tax cuts?
Progressive dog
(7,809 posts)
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)My partner just said nearly the same thing to me as we were discussing this . I think you are exactly right.
This sort of maneuvering of our political landscape to the right has been going on for awhile (free trade agreements, eg) but this seems like a grand finale. Hate to think about what the encore might be.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)that your partner commented that to you.
It is encouraging that people are finally waking up to the game.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
That's the difference. 
great white snark
(2,646 posts)WE are the "WE" FFS.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)is a rather important difference. Most of us choose to join in solidarity with DUers who work for our Democratic candidates - and even the Party itself during election season. That is our WE. I'm proud to stand in solidarity with you.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)And I mock, openly & purposely, the ones who don't. Not sure where Skinner stands today, but I took him seriously when he issued this statement.
".....If you are here to advocate on behalf of Mitt Romney or some lost-cause third-party spoiler, you will be banned. We're unlikely to give you a warning first because -- let's face it -- if you are supporting someone other than Barack Obama you are on the wrong website. We don't care if you live in the bluest blue state, or the reddest red state -- President Obama is our candidate."
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)That's the only thing I can figure out. Because surely he meant his own TOS. He wrote it. This is the only damn 3 months out of Obama's term when DUers aren't supposed to bash and trash him.
I've looked forward to this 3 months, thinking Admin would take a stand.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)offenders have been shown the door. But the fact remains that his own TOS are being manipulated, and in some cases, downright ignored.
If you have posters constantly bashing/trashing the administration, knowing that there really are only two "REAL" choices for DU in the fall, why are they given more wiggle room than a disruptive newbie? Most newbies would be quickly dispatched were they to create some of the op's that pass for "critiques" around here.
Skinner's in a tough spot because there are two distinct groups here at DU. One group devoted to what used to be the mission of DU, and that's "Electing More Democrats", and then there's the third party supporters who want to hijack DU, and change it's mission. I see the spot he's in, because at the end of the day, this is a business for him. But, like you, I'm hoping against hope that Admin will make a final stand so that there's no ambiguity going forward.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Because no Democrat would make cuts to SS, Medicare & Medicaid.
The "Grand Bargain" was a huge eye-opener for Democrats who were paying attention, and it convinced many of us that the Democratic leadership was weak, their ability to negotiate was mind-numbing, and they were indeed willing to bow to the new Tea Party majority in the House by agreeing to their demand of cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. It seems the DLC'ers want us to believe President Obama's attempt to strike this "grand bargain" never happened because the deal fell through. Ironically, it fell through because Boner didn't have control of his new Tea Party members who would would never agree to the tax increases that the Republican leadership was willing to negotiate as part of this "grand bargain." (The tax increases finally agreed to by the Obama team were an effing pittance compared to the cuts in social programs they put on the table.)
A few months before the "Grand Bargain" began, the Washington Post article linked below, described President Obama's mindset as follows:
Let's take a walk down MEMORY LANE, shall we?
Would they support him?
The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, Daley recalled.
During the on again/off again negotiations described in the WP article, the Gang of Six entered the picture offering a $2 trillion increase in taxes and better protection for the poor and elderly than what the Obama/Boehner negotiations offered. When the Democrats attempted to use the Gang of Six's report as levy for a better deal, Cantor and Boehner went into a tizzy and the deal fell through. My initial response was "good!" Had the Democrats made cuts to the social programs they created and have protected for decades, it would have destroyed the party. I have absolutely no doubt about it. But here's the real kicker to this story and explains why so many Democrats are leery of what Obama will do once the election is over and this issue is on the table again. After all of the capitulating to Tea Party demands, and it was apparent the Republicans weren't going to budge, Obama did this:
Perhaps now you can understand why we Democrats are concerned this issue will be on the table, again, next year.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)we aren't alone.
patrice
(47,992 posts)for their own political aggrandizement. OP has a history of doing that.
OP probably also has a job and all of the health care OP needs.
I HAVE been patient, but I. have. had. it. with. this. shit.
The for-profit motive is what has turned Medicare into an un-sustainable program. We. MUST. save. it. so that it does a better job and so that we can expand coverage. If we don't, it will destroy itself, which is what a bunch of people want it to do. I will not back off of that message no matter how much OP and cohort call me a Ryan supporter.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)with left-leanings. I don't really get your rant. Is this one of those "everyone sucks so vote for Ron Paul" things?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)he is vastly preferable to the fascist sociopath Romney. That said, however, can you explain any meaningful 'left leanings' Obama has manifested in the past four years? I don't believe the ACA counts since any 'left-leaning' healthcare reform would not more firmly entrench the for-profit health insurance sector. The ARRA was too small by a factor of 50% to prime the pump in any meaninful fashion. As a result, at best we've got a dead cat bounce in the economy currently and Obama's re-election chances would be toast had the Repigs nominated someone with integrity and gravitas like Huntsman.
randome
(34,845 posts)You'll feel better.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)judging by the blithering responses from the usual apologists.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You touched a nerve..judging by the blithering responses from the usual apologists."
...not that. It's that some people believe the "both parties are the same" meme is bullshit.
People who reject the implication that President Obama has a sinister plot to cut Social Security aren't "apologists," they're simply don't buy into the conspiracy.
Spending time building straw men to tear down while ignoring the real threats is not how some prefer to spend their time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021113316
The Ryan budget is real. President Obama has offered no proposal to alter Social Security.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)seems willing to move a few steps more to the Right and each time they do, the extremist, insane party moves a little further to the Right. It's like watching a dance, always headed in the 'Right' direction.
The Dems who do not support this shift to the right don't have any power.
And Ron Wyden, who I generally love, supports Ryan's plan? What is he thinking?
People are sick of this shift to the right. All they want is for Democrats to speak clearly on the issues that are on the minds of the people. Like SS, Medicare, jobs, help for Main Street instead of Wall Street, etc. Looks like we can give up on any prosecutions of the criminals who destroyed the economy. All is forgiven.
Those are all popular issues so no Democrat should have any fear of speaking out about them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Both parties are NOT the same. But each year more and more of our Party...And Ron Wyden, who I generally love, supports Ryan's plan? What is he thinking?
...is a big friggin straw man that has nothing to do with Wyden. It's implying that there is no difference between Romney and Obama.
I mean, WTF is this:
What the hell does Ryan's pick have to do with Obama? It's not the OP's first such post, and throughout the comments it's all about Obama.
It's shit-stirring bullshit, and it's too bad that so many people go along with it.
When Wyden is called out (and I know), it's completely ignored. Has the OP specifically called out Wyden?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And what will you have to say after the election if what happened last time, happens again?
I know, you will tell us we were not really listening to what was said. We misinterpreted the words and should have listened more carefully. It's OUR fault for projecting onto the President what we WANTED to hear!
So, we are taking all that advice this time, and making sure we do not make those mistakes you all claimed we made last time. Why are you upset about it? YOU all are the ones who told us what we did wrong.
Much as you'd all like to, you can't have it all your way, or both ways or whatever it is you are objecting to. People are wary out here in the real world just fyi. We want to hear clear messages. Is that too much to ask?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And what will you have to say after the election if what happened last time, happens again? "
..."what happened last time"?
What I don't get is the silliness of believing that the President is going to cut Social Security after the election.
I mean, given the way this silly meme has evolved, why on earth didn't this sinister President, when he allegedly had everyone buying into the "grand bargain" and the right was allegedly "pulling his strings and controlling the debate," just do it?
Answer: He was waiting until his second term.
The premise is so ridiculously absurd it's giving RW logic a run for the money.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)appear to be.
I don't think he intends to cut SS, that doesn't mean it won't happen, by raising the retirement age eg, or readjusting the COLA aspect of SS. That is what scares people the most. He needs to be asked about that, because that has certainly been discussed, how to make the COLA payments less by adjusting the way the inflation rated is calculated.
There are all kinds of ways to cut SS when in fact the opposite should be happening. SS payments should be raised. First that would stimulate the economy, those people spend their money, and second the money is there, they put it there, it's theirs, well what they didn't steal.
But no way should there be any kind cuts, or anything that actually is a cut disguised as a 'strengthening' or 'adjustment' or whatever other word they come up with.
And it isn't very promising to hear that Erskine Bowles, SS hater, may take Tim Geithner's place. We need to know who is going to be in these cabinet positions as that tells a lot and we failed to ask these questions last time.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)In fact, it was Obama who first put those cuts on the table. Republicans balked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
http://www.americablog.com/2011/07/obama-put-social-security-and-medicare.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/170095-obama-move-on-social-security-puts-him-at-odds-with-reid-pelosi
What I find ridiculously absurd is the defense of hideous Hooverian economics.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Some people, I swear, don't grasp politics. The President knew that the teabaggers wanted to rape the country so he dangled a carrot. None of those "proposals" were real or capable of passing the Senate. That's politics. That's how politics works.
dflprincess
(29,573 posts)nor does he play games with it by using it as a "carrot".
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Particularly if they know some of those things won't pass.
So the fact that it wouldn't pass, the fact that nothing that the teabaggers proposed would go anywhere in the Senate doesn't matter.
It's all on the President.
As I said, culture of authoritarianism. People think the President is a Dictator.
dflprincess
(29,573 posts)I expect a Democratic president to defend the safety net (pathetic as it is in the U.S.) not use it to pander to the right wing.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)He said he would do that sort of thing.
dflprincess
(29,573 posts)I really doubt he would have won had he done that.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)God it's like people don't remember the most insane primaries we've ever had.
Obama: Yes.
Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?
Obama: Yes.
Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?
Obama: Everything should be on the table.
Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?
Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.
dflprincess
(29,573 posts)either one (so I did miss this or maybe I blocked it so I didn't hurl when I voted that November). And yes, I'll admit I had been suckered by John Edwards - but he still had a better message than the other two.
I voted for Obama in 2008 because he wasn't John McCain and it is with great reluctance that I will vote for him again this year as the lesser of two evils.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It's kind of ironic that I spent so much time bashing Obama during the primaries, was proven correct about him, and now I "defend" him simply because he did what he said he'd do. I'll vote for him this time with less reluctance because of that.
My only hope is that after the elections he shifts to partisan mode. It could happen if we win back the House.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)So the untouchable "3rd Rail",
the inviolate Cornerstone of the Modern Democratic Party,
the most successful Social Program EVER,
has been turned into a "carrot"
or a bargaining Chip.
...and THIS is being heralded as smart?
...and THIS is being defended here as "good politics"?
Nice.
....and this is a move in WHICH direction?
...and this makes Social security MORE secure,
or LESS secure?
You can put wings on a pig,
but that doesn't make it an eagle.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Our Poisoned Democratic Message
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1482232&mesg_id=1482232
bvar22
(39,909 posts)... that I have a hard time believing that there are some here who can NOT see it.
In my short lifetime, we have gone from the New Deal and the Great Society
to
*bailing out Wall Street Banks,
*deregulation,
*privatization of The Commons,
*Anti-LABOR "Free Trade",
*Mandates to BUY "Insurance" from For Profit Corporations
*extending Tax Cuts for The Rich
(in the 50s -60s, the top bracket was 70% - 90%.
Even the Republican administrations supported this tax rate, and America was prosperous.
Who is fighting for THAT today?)
*reducing FICA Contributions
*Bargaining with Social Security
*Marketing Republican "Austerity" Plans from the Bully Pulpit
*Increasing the War Time Powers of a Unitary Executive for a phony, perpetual War on a Word
....and some here are cheering this,
and claiming to be the only true Democrats?
Are they just too young to remember what the Democratic Party used to STAND for?
Is it possible that some here do NOT know the history of the Labor Movement, the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Policies and Values that built the biggest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working Class the World has ever seen?
Is that possible?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)would Gamble with the people's SS Fund (it is OUR Fund, NOT any politician's btw) and their Health Care with a bunch of the worst Sharks in the history of this country and 'trust' them not to bite.
Josh tells us that Obama was just kidding, that he was playing Russian Roulette with SS, Medicaid and Medicare, Food Stamps etc. and that when he was dangling all of this in front of the hungry Republican sharks, he just knew they would not take it. He only did it to 'show them up'. What a game, how brilliant!
What he is neglecting to include in that is that Boehner DID accept those dangling carrots and it almost was a done deal. Fortunately it was the rabidly partisan Tea Baggers who did that deal in.
And now I guess he'll be along to tell us that Obama's Crystal Ball told him that is exactly what was going to happen. That Obama was counting on the Tea Baggers to help him out.
Some of the arguments I see on this board are amazing sometimes.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...was political suicide and that no one would choose it.
Anything to get reelected.
And it seems to be working.
Much to the disdain to people who joined here after he was picked.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)idiots. None of us have a clue about what is going on, right? Okay if you say so
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)That's all I can say. If the OP is right we're looking in for a big patch of austerity in our future. Things are going to go downhill, etc.
I frankly do not see that future.
Time will tell.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they will have a huge fight on their hands IF they even try, we minimize the chance of Austerity. Occupy changed the dialogue of Austerity that we were hearing for so long. Once they realized the people were not only aware of what they were up to, but were likely to rise up against it, we didn't hear the Austerity language anymore. No more 'share the sacrifice' or 'eat your peas'. Europe waited until it was late, we've what that did for the people. It's too late AFTER the fact.
You watch. When the people do not wait until it's too late, as a few are advocating, but speak out BEFORE disaster strikes, it tends to work far better than your way. Which is 'well let's wait and see what they do THEM we'll, we'll, we'll, do what?? What did you do about the lifting of the Offshore Drilling Ban? Hmm?
I believe that prevention is better than cure. I intend to keep speaking to my Reps and anyone who gets the idea that they can fool the people, to let them know, don't even think about it.
Thank you Occupy for forcing the issue into the national debate! They have done more good than all the whiners who want every to STFU and spend their time waiting until it's too late. No thank you!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Typical.
We're the ones saying that the OP is wrong and that the voters and activists aren't going to let that happen!
The OP is saying we're being pulled to the right! We are saying we aren't! The OP is wrong!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)That's what happens when you elect an uber-bipartisan candidate.
That's what we did.
And now we're crying foul when said candidate does EXACTLY what they SAID they would do.
Totally petulant nonsense.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the American People, and if you are even suggesting that we have in the WH is someone who is willing to do that, then trust me, you are not helping him at all. If any politician was willing to play such a dangerous game with the lives of the American people, they do not belong in politics.
Please stop making up things you have zero evidence of. He did what he did for exactly the reasons he gave. He naively thinks, or thought and I hope he is over that phase by now, that by giving Republicans SOMETHING, like raising the retirement age, they would not abuse the fact that he opened that door, which should be slammed shut in their faces.
You are the one who constantly tells us we were 'fooled' by him. Well, we are going to make there is no chance of anyone misunderstanding our position after the next election.
We want to hear clear statements of exactly what plans they have for SS, Medicare and Medicaid BEFORE the election. And they will be held to that after, as we have done since the last election.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)This is a fact. Even Republicans in the Senate were against it.
Please quote "what I have made up" verbatim. Since you will not be able to do so I can just assume this is another game where people insult me without substance.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all Social Programs to Republicans just for the hell of it. That he had some master scheme in his MIND when he did that. You can read minds?
The only reason it did not go through was because of the Tea Baggers. Republicans were on board. It was a close call and should never have been done. John Conyers saw what a majority of rational people saw when this happened. And sorry, your imagination doesn't stack up against Conyers' years of experience in Congress. I guess he is too stupid to figure out this little 'game' the president was playing also.
Tell me, what was the goal, what great point was this game supposed to make?
Here's what it did, it caused a lot of anger fear among the elderly, you know they're not into these games being played with their SS checks and with many Democrats who I guess are too stupid to understand that it was all just a big joke being played on Republicans. Too bad they don't have a sense of humor about these important issues.
If there was a point to playing a game it backfired didn't it. You would thik someone smart enough to think up a scheme like this would be smart enough to know that it might anger half the base of the Dem Party, mostly those directly affected. That was quite an error of judgement in this game you think he was playing.
He was NOT playing a game, he was willing and has said so, to give them some 'cuts' hoping, he said, that we 'could control' where those cuts would be made. How naive, to give an inch to Republicans and think they would not take a mile.
Sorry, this was NO game.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Politics is not a game. Real people are affected by political decisions. By choosing to grant the teabaggers we allowed to get elected concessions (that were never politically viable) he was the bigger man. Now he can say "Hey, I tried to do those things, just, darnit, it wouldn't pass." Of course I would have preferred he not be such a bigger person and that he fight them tooth and nail since the 112th Congress has been the most incompetent in history, he would've lost nothing. But hindsight is 50/50 and I think Obama learned a lot. I think he will still reach across the isle but once he is reelected I think he will fight harder for things that matter since his election possibilities won't hinge on failure or success.
The fear mongering is from "leftists" who want to make Obama look bad that he was "taking away" things that mattered to people. The term catfood commission started with teabaggers but it's used regularly now here on a left wing website to refer to Obama and Democrats. It is hilarious to be sure. The right wing controls the narrative completely. They twist and contort logic so much that they make it seem as if Obama is no different and that "we are being moved to the right." It is preposterous and insulting to good Americans who are not in fact "moving to the right."
Ryan gets picked? It's a "brilliant move" (OP's own words) to "usher in austerity"! Think about that! It's asinine!
Please quote what I say in the future because I didn't say he did it "just for the hell of it."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are elderly and need Medicare, or poor and need Medicaid give a rat's ass about who is the 'bigger man'??
I'm glad this is just something you are imagining because if this president actually was doing what he did, risking throwing SS, Medicaid and Medicare into the jaws of the Republican Sharks just to 'look like a bigger man', if that is the only way he thought he could 'look like a bigger man' especially since NO ONE NOTICED that he was the 'bigger man', then he would have to be stupidest person to ever hold office. Considering that he is an extremely intelligent man, this is nothing but a wild theory you have pulled out of somewhere.
Please pay attention now to reality. The President has TOLD us why he did it. He does not deny that he knew it was likely to be accepted. He did not do it 'to look like the bigger man'. He did it hoping they would accept it, because he has this strange belief in 'compromise' and in the integrity of the totally off-the-wall Republicans. He did it hoping it would end the gridlock and once accepted then hoping that 'we could restrict the cuts' once they got past that phase.
Please stop making stuff up when the facts are so easily available. Unless you don't believe a word this President says.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Obama: Yes.
Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?
Obama: Yes.
Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?
Obama: Everything should be on the table.
Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?
Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/clinton_obama_and_the_social_s.html
He did it to fulfill his campaign promise and to reach across the isle and to be the bigger man. Now, I have provided a direct quote of candidate Obama and am not "making stuff up." Stop accusing me of things I am not doing.
You question Obama's intelligence when you say that he "hoped they would accept it because he has this strange belief in compromise." Obama is not stupid. He knew that whatever the teabagger Republicans proposed in the House would not pass the Senate in a million years. He also likely, after having been obstructed for two years, knew that they wouldn't propose anything sane. If you think that Obama didn't know these things then you are the one calling him stupid.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:02 AM - Edit history (5)
about the economy, what ails it, and what will be necessary to fix it. That was the greatest betrayal of all, and the most damaging to the party and the nation.
We had just endured eight years of constant pummeling with Republican lies about the source of our economic problems and how to fix them. President Obama had from Day One of his Presidency to change the narrative and the national conversation about the economy, in order to build support for Democratic policies that could actually help us.
Instead, he stood up in front of the country to proclaim with the Republicans that we needed sacrifice and pea eating, and he offered the Grand Bargain.
Even if it had been a clever trick and a "rope-a-dope" (which is ridiculous based on the history), Presidents with tricks can't lead a hurting nation in a fundamentally new direction. We desperately needed passion, leadership, and a corrective vision, but instead our Democratic President PUBLICLY validated for the American people the Republican framing of our economic problems. He cemented the Republican narrative and made it a bipartisan narrative in ways that we are still trying to undo.
This is why Democrats need specifics now. We need a passionate, substantive defense of these programs and the reasons Democrats support them, a promise to end the destructive payroll tax holiday, and a vow that a Democratic President will never attack the safety nets, never raise the eligibility ages for these programs, never cut/slow benefits ...ever.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...
But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.
Don't act betrayed. Be proud that the guy did what you elected him to do.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to grind the rabid Republican Party into the ground once and for all. It makes me cry sometimes.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Fuck Ralph Nader.
Sid
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)about American elections?
Do Canadian automobiles have seatbelts? Do you wear one? Why do you have such vitriol towards Ralph Nader?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)
On edit later: Oh my word.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I took something like half a year off DU and it's the same group pleading for more time and more chances.
The funny thing is, it seems we have no choice- whether we want to see how much more damage can be done or not, we will anyway.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Lots of attacks, but few attempts to actually refute the OP.
Response to girl gone mad (Reply #110)
DemocratsForProgress This message was self-deleted by its author.
Xipe Totec
(44,649 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 10:14 PM - Edit history (1)
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)This is republican message board tactic, patrice.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)And considering how often they give Repubs a pass I'd say their dislike towards Dems far exceed their dislike of Repubs.
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)to a single notion and that notion ONLY, the end of whatever THEY define as the powers that be and they are willing to engage in the broadest forms of prejudice about billions others in order to achieve their own power goals.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2012, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)
the homeless because that's high-profile politics especially as it relates to the street drug industry; NOT interested in doing LGBTQ issues as Civil Rights because that relates to economic class/race justice, but do want to sucker us into going head-to-head with religion on that issue for their atheist cohort; there's a bunch of johnny-come-lately-Paulite-"peace" advocates in their midst; also Libertarian anarcho-syndacalists in computer science looking to develop alternative energy, hemp, and cannabis entrepreneurship; will ride Democratic backs to student loan abatement if they can and that is linked to the mortgage crisis so its good strategy on their parts; but will also attack the re-vitalization of Medicare, because quite a few of them have decided what we need is fewer people around, so that's why we are seeing that linked to false accusations about the end of Social Security in order to undercut the Obama administration on those two issues; they're getting ready for 2016; have no use for unions; and will run their own candidates soon.
If we have to endure accusations such as those in OP, so do they.
On Edit: And this is why so many have decided to let Medicare die of unsustainability, so that there will be fewer people around to compete for resources when/if this happens:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112721718
hay rick
(9,993 posts)The debate has been framed: Bowles Simpson Plan vs. the Ryan Plan.
While the labels have remained the same (D, R)- the contents of both packages have changed remarkably. It is time for a little truth in advertising.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)for summing things up.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Too bad there is no price to pay for inaccurate predictions. For shame.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What is so terrifying about that demand that it elicits such anger...from self-described Democrats?
Our own President put them on the table last April. It is not unreasonable to want assurances that that will not happen again.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Why is it 'fear mongering' to want the President to promise not to cut SS and Medicare?"
That is not what your OP is about. Here's a reminder:
The effect of the Ryan pick is that, after an entire election season of hearing the horrors that Ryan's budget will inflict on ordinary Americans, the public will welcome the bipartisan Grand Bargain catfood commission plan to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We will welcome it with tears and hugs as the humane and generous choice.
We are being played like suckers. The one percent have finally figured out how to get Americans to welcome the dismantling of our social safety nets.
This is the big nut, folks. For decades, the existence of the social safety nets, and the public's expectation that they will always be there, has been the single greatest obstacle the one percent has faced in truly looting this country.
They have finally figured out a way to do it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Why would you post charts trying to defend the Grand Bargain from last year?
The Grand Bargain hurts seniors by chaining the CPI and increasing the Medicare age of eligibility.
We should be able to agree on the simple premise that Democrats do not attack the social safety net.
Democrats have a right to expect a promise that President Obama will not go there again.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"We should be able to agree on the simple premise that Democrats do not attack the social safety net.
Democrats have a right to expect a promise that President Obama will not go there again."
...should go into business selling bullshit red herrings. Seriously, you could be Romney.
patrice
(47,992 posts)practices that were made acceptable by their profit potential rather than by whether they do or do not provide salutary effects for patients?
e.g. Medicare pays for chemical restraints. They're cheaper than actually having enough of the right kind of staff around to take the right kind of care of certain kinds of patients. Chemical restraints also profit pharma big time. Targeted cuts in Medicare could end this practice, but I bet certain people will scream about that sort of thing anyway, because to do so serves their own very narrow self-serving political goals.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)They keep saying this shit month after month, year after year, and when they're wrong they know that next time they trumpet the idiocy their same group will come in and cheer them on and say how right they are.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...and slander him on a regular basis.
Infiltrators, though, I dunno. I don't know if people are genuinely misled or if they're intentionally distorting and making up conspiracy theories. It's possible that they're simply simple minded and so easily misled, though. Very possible. Maybe even probable, as I tend to not attribute to malice what is easily explained by stupidity.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)There is a price to be paid for making inaccurate predictions. We eg, predicted when we support Democrats in 2008 and worked so hard to wipe out Republicans, that the Offshore Drilling Ban would be safe for a while again. That was an inaccurate prediction on our part and a price has already been paid.
We also predicted that at last some of those Wall STreet criminals and War Criminals would finally be called to account for their crimes. That too was an inaccurate prediction and as a result there is a huge price being paid.
So this time we are trying to make sure that our Party fully understands what we expect of them because clearly they must not have heard us loud enough last time.
And if in your mind, Democrats letting their Party know what they expect, iow, that they fight hard for Democratic Principles, is 'fear-mongering' I'd like to know how on earth anyone can come to such a conclusion.
Do you think we should be asking the Republican Party to fight for Dem Party principles? Who should we be talking to?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...as soon as the elections are over.
This is the most asinine conspiracy theory I have ever heard.
patrice
(47,992 posts)have had at Medicare for All in a long time.
The next stage of their effort will be to attack the work of the ACA empowered Person Centered Outcomes Research Institute as it addresses the standards of care within a "care" milieu that gets some of the worst results for the highest prices in the world.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Look at these key words in the OP "the public will welcome the bipartisan Grand Bargain catfood commission plan." Talking about the general public as if they need to to have their hands held by the almighty knowers of right and wrong. Paternalistic garbage to the core.
No, the public will do what the public will do. Most of the public is apathetic, they don't care one way or another, they just want to go on with their lives. Therefore it is up to activists, political junkies, to do what we do. And we aren't going to fucking look at the Ryan plan and accept some spurious as of now non-existing plan without putting a lot of thought to it and consideration.
Even if we do accept some austerity (which I do not see happening despite the bemoaning, I think the environment is going to shit and we'll have much bigger problems to deal with), it won't be because of fucking piece of shit divisive Paul Ryan.
Paul Ryan was chosen specifically to divide and conquer. And look at the recs on this thread. It's working fucking beautifully.
patrice
(47,992 posts)hated, when, technically, a dialectic CAN produce an awful lot of different things, depending upon who participates and how. Trying to FORCE people out of that dynamic on the authoritarian PRESUMPTION that one can reliably and validly calculate exactly where all of those permutations are going AND, not only that, but also that product is not what anyone needs or wants is so wildly blindly insanely presumptuous as to be staggering in its proportions.
patrice
(47,992 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Ah, the shift from denial to rationalizations and justifications is coming soon!
"...which I do not see happening despite the bemoaning.."
...but not quiiiiiiite yet.
Stay tuned.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I said if we did, which again I don't think we will, it won't be because of some Paul Ryan conspiracy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)asinine of all, that even if there was, the President was just pretending, that he has divine powers which allowed him to see into the future with a crystal ball which showed him that the Tea Baggers would screw up the Grand Bargain!!
Now that is one hell of a Conspiracy Theory. I think you win the Political Conspiracy Theory of the Internet.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I highly doubt Obama foresaw that we'd let the teabaggers win the House.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)warned the Party, as did Nancy Pelosi who made two trips to the WH asking them to have the president change his speeches to leave out statements blaming 'both parties' for the problems in DC.
She made it clear that Congressional Democrats were being very adversely affected by this attempt at 'moral equivalency' and pointed out that she and the rest of the party had placed their reelections in jeopardy by agreeing to support the president on some 'very unpopular legislation'.
Why do you think Pelosi was worried, AND turned out to be correct? I guess she's just trying to make the president look also!
If you stayed home, that is on you. Do not include the rest of DU in your 'we' who showed up to vote despite their disappointment and saved the Senate and pretty much all but a few of the Progressive Congressional seats.
Independents and young people were lost though as a result of the disappointment that all of us tried to warn about. Progressives always vote which is probably why they are taken for granted.
Next time VOTE instead of staying home and then lecturing the rest of DU who have never stayed home on election day.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)This pick of Ryan is really designed to pull everything to the right.
Romney's popularity numbers are in the tank.
His biggest value to the 1% at this point is to pull Obama to the right and the Ryan pick fits with that strategy.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...by making up asinine conspiracies that Ryan is actually intended to sabotage the Republican party, lead to a possible takeover of the House, and ultimately usher in their policies. It's asinine.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I'm not even really following the news. Just spouting off as ususal
Definitely voting for Obama anyway.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)....even after he offered a proposal to do exactly that last year...gets described as a "right-wing" position.
We need specific promises about this now. The Grand Bargain catfood deficit commission II will convene after the election, and we cannot afford for him to go there again.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Democrat=good, Republican=evil thing.
Especially during the campaigning seasons I guess.
It's more of a campaign website for slinging internet poop at Romney. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posts that "demand" things like policy commitments from elected Democrats are seen as attacking because either they don't want to commit to things or they just don't agree or whatever.
This is more a political campaign site and not a place to talk about civic engagement and influencing our government. It is both, but mostly it is just a poop slinging machine.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)from outright denial to rationalizations and justifications.
patrice
(47,992 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It's totally insulting.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Maybe you could enlighten me, I generally don't miss when someone is being paternalistic.
But since you brought it up, I do see certain posts here which I would definitely characterize as Authoritarian. Just STFU and vote would fall into that category eg.
patrice
(47,992 posts)well that OP can say that all of them engage in nothing but denial and rationalizing and, ergo, ever so conveniently, OP and cohort have SOLE possession of THE truth.
wow. just holy fucking wow.
Occupy proves it's FASCIST inclinations EVERY time it opens its mouth.
Marr
(20,317 posts)LMFAO. Oh my god...
patrice
(47,992 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I'm sorry, but this is just absurd.
patrice
(47,992 posts)An inability to even begin to think that anyone who disagrees might just possibly have somekind of justification.
Marr
(20,317 posts)See? Anyone can do this-- it's easy.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)And when did I ask you to "bend over" or be nice to me? You've done more than your fair share of insult-throwing in this thread. It's odd to play victim at this point.
patrice
(47,992 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I don't think many Occupiers would agree with OPs characterization of the Ryan pick.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)to say "Paternalistic."
How dismissive without making any sense...just a "call out" unjustified.
patrice
(47,992 posts)wow.
Tell me how this line does not presume a superior, know it all position over the minds of billions of people and most particularly over anyone who disagrees, "It's always fascinating to watch the inevitable shift from outright denial to rationalizations and justifications."
"It's always fascinating to watch the inevitable shift from outright denial to rationalizations and justifications."
I don't understand what you are talking about............
What ARE you talking about?
patrice
(47,992 posts)I took your comment on my comment on #186 as a question about why I thought #186 was paternalistic, so I quoted it back to you with some suggestion as to what the traits of paternalism would be: superior, know it all position over the minds of billions of people and most particularly over anyone who disagrees so you could compare and decide if you think #186 is paternalistic or not.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It can't be that they have a legitimate argument! That's paternalism.
Tell me, when Paul Ryan is chosen and the arctic sea ice melts in the next 3 years are people going to be taking him and his ilk seriously? Nope. They're going to be rendered irrelevant as they are.
patrice
(47,992 posts)It CAN be very strong, 99.9999999999999...% , but it is never 100%. ALL Scientific truths ARE RELATIVE. Blanket statements that some people make just are not rational, ergo if science even gets close to trying to make that kind of statement it always qualifies it, states what the conditions are. Prediction is a very very disciplined business to real scientists.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)the Scientific knowledge that we have so far?
patrice
(47,992 posts)proprietary, absolutist, all are the traits of that which oppresses others, no matter what labels are hung on it.
Response to woo me with science (Original post)
Post removed
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)out his evil plan.
Got it.
Does this happen before Obama takes everyone's guns and sends those who disagree into his secret FEMA work camps, or after?
patrice
(47,992 posts)Anyone who thinks woo woo is a Leftie is mistaken, but then that doesn't really matter to a lot of people from various different dimensions of the political spectrum these days as long as they can shave down those margins in November and earn their bones for 2016.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Over a conspiracy theory that is just utterly mind boggling.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
That's the first time I've ever used that smilie.
sandyshoes17
(657 posts)You are right on. This is all part of a bigger plan.
patrice
(47,992 posts)assumed are too stupid to act on their own behalf on these issues and, therefore, need the superior capacities of others to guide them through their lives.
I can't understand why anyone interested in eliciting support for any perspective would do this kind of damage to their own efforts.
Ergo: This appears to be the best example of everything that the Right Wing hates about the Left/Liberals, so perfect as to actually suggest a purposefully negative caricature intended to do harm to general perceptions of the Liberal Left.
quinnox
(20,600 posts) 
Get a grip, your posts seem hysterical in this thread.
Proles
(466 posts)of the republican party has only pulled me further left.
If Obama wins, and I'm sure he will, I highly doubt he'll allow cuts to big 3 things -- seeing as how he and his campaign is just now accusing Romney/Ryan of wanting to do that exact thing. If Obama had a secret desire to cut these things, they'd be keeping quiet on those issues.
But if Obama does betray the basic tenets of the Democratic party during his second term, then yeah... that's cause for alarm, and basically a call for needing a new left-wing party.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Financial Modernization Act
Did enough damage for you that we'd never let a 3rd way Dem into the WH again?
No?
Then Killing SSI/SSDI/Medicare will certainly be the straw, right?
patrice
(47,992 posts)both of which assumptions are not true.
There's a boat-load of factors that are changing as we speak; 3rd Way could be several different things, depending upon who's in and who isn't and that includes some players who aren't even on the board yet.
Would you prefer I say "DLC" instead?
Same crop, same Republican ideas, same predictable failures...why? Because Republican ideas are STUPID unless you're a billionaire.
The best they can come up with is, "We're the only electable ones, even though we had to infiltrate your party to get elected."
patrice
(47,992 posts)but NOT necessarily the same thing as a/any 3rd Way. Dialectics can become all sorts of things, as I said earlier, depending who's in the game and who isn't. Any attempt to keep the People out of what is happening, by convincing them that they cannot have an effect upon it is a fucking crime, because some BIG shit is going down and that alone is going to create some leverage for all of those who WILL be hurt by it even though they didn't directly choose/cause it to happen. Think about who hasn't "shown up" yet . . . telling people they have no part in this, or that they are too stupid to be taken seriously, is WRONG.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)support. I haven't checked recently, but as far as I know they are an ideology that isn't about to change and one that very much needs to be marginalized in this Party. Most of their ideas do not support Democratic Party Ideals.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Dialectics can construct whatever the participants commit to: 1. thesis, 2. anti-thesis, 3. synthesis/new-thesis etc. etc. . . .
That's what 3rd Way is based upon; does it seem familiar?
What's the purpose of all of this stuff about memes? S/he who owns the most memes wins?
Shall we also surrender Christianity, democracy, civil rights, freedom . . . ?
What is this idea of empowerment/freedom that is LIMITED solely to what others say things are?
Don't mistake words for the reality that words ONLY refer to.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The words I see from the Third Way are clear. They do not oppose forever war, they are for Wall Street and deregulation etc. Unless they are just kidding, then I have to take them at their word.
patrice
(47,992 posts)whatever that Third Way is. I don't know what empirical basis you have for that. It takes more than inference to establish empirical foundations, i.e. concrete events as close to observable cause and effect as possible. Internet databases are not the be all and end all of reality.
Perhaps you can tell me more about why you credit whatever that Third Way is more than you do anything else.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)opposed to Democratic Principles, iow, I disagree with them. I disagree with people I love, that doesn't make them 'enemies' does it?
And if they don't mean what they post on their own website, that's hardly my fault.
patrice
(47,992 posts)enemy.
People value the same things differently in different situations and trying to turn others against them for doing that is what fucked up the Occupy in my experience, so that all we have left now are a bunch of Paulites masquerading as anarchists and manifesting some pretty racist behaviors, trying to piggy-back on LGBTQ Civil Rights, and courting some nearly insane druggie (and I don't mean pot) end-timers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he never said. Your interpretation of his OP is so different from mine, I wonder if we are reading the same thing.
As for Occupy, they are thriving, not just here but all over the world. I am so excited about the phase they are in now, especially since they were only supposed to last a couple of weeks and confine themselves to NYC.
Occupying the Courts and winning nearly every case so far, thanks to their excellent organizational skills in the beginning, the brilliant strategy of making sure they had their own media, now being used to demonstrate the false arrests and the lies of the police in COURT and winning.
I am also especially interested and impressed by their ongoing and increasing work against the Banks and their draconian Fore-closure policies and the many victories they have had there. Doing what Congress SHOULD have done, stand up for Main Street. These people, Occupiers, put their bodies where their mouths are.
And then there is the work they are doing for the Homeless, admirable imo.
But their current successful activities in Courtrooms, have had such a positive effect, eg, finally helping to scare the NYDP into reducing its Racist 'Stop and Frisk' program among other things. For a movement still very much in its infancy it has accomplished more for the people, more to enlighten the population, the the MSM eg.
Seems like you don't know much of what is going on with Occupy. It is a Social Justice movement that grew and spread across the Globe almost unintentionally, but it won't be going away any time soon, always moving into new areas and highlighting the problems of societies everywhere caused by the corruption that money has caused in our system.
Social Justice movements take years to develop and go throw various different phases. As this one will.
patrice
(47,992 posts)you and your ambitions, nothing horizontal about it, except for what you deem so; it's all the intelligentsia, the technorati bourgeoisie. I may not know what you know, but I do know something which you have just judged as inferior, something that doesn't count.
It is as I have said, my experience of the Occupy is that it does little more than contradict itself and engage in its own hierarchies. The reason that bothers me, and why I have taken so much time with this thread, is because OP clearly establishes where you all are going on the matter of Medicare. We're going to see lots of screaming about Medicare cuts and I think you are undercutting the needs of the people in order to establish yourselves as the contrapode to President Obama.
Turn about is fair play. If it is possible to characterize others as 0, it's possible to characterize the Occupy as 0. If the ground that the Obama administration has held and even gained in some situations is 0, then it is also quite possible to characterize whatever the Occupy is up to as 0.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)refrain from responding to them and pro-longing a discussion that is going nowhere.
Enjoy the rest of your day!
patrice
(47,992 posts)That looks very much like a dodge to me.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Just thought I'd let you know, they don't make sense to me either.
patrice
(47,992 posts)deal with treatment modalities that evolved out of the for-profit medical model and, thus, have caused American "health" "care", including Medicare, to be the most expensive in the world with some of the worst results.
The Affordable Care Act empowered a review of medical practices by doctors, nurses, families, and patients, for identifying what works best without pressure from insurance companies. That information will be used to improve care and reduce costs, but OP and cohort are going to call it "Medicare Cuts" and scream bloody murder about it so that they can prove their pre-determined conclusion that President Obama is evil.
The for-profit effect upon treatment modalities NEEDS to be addressed, identified and dealt with, so that costs can be pushed down and coverage expanded to everyone, including the possibility of mental health parity and other hopefully well supported alternative treatment modalities.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Letting the GOP define the terms of healthcare and medicare. The GOP are astoundingly transparent and predictable, yet the Dems fall into their trap time and time again. They're either in a bubble, dumb (which they aren't) or they have changed their core values. Which is it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)I don't understand any of them. Maybe I'm clueless...but, I don't think so...
What IS IT that you are trying to say to reply to the Original OP?
Could you clarify?
patrice
(47,992 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)
At least one direct question about changes to Medicare was ignored.
The entire political context of the "Grand Bargain" was left out, which, being political, is THE critical factor.
If OP comes from what is calling itself "the Left", and yes I do mean to imply whether it actually is the Left or not - which is a very relevant question this year, btw, . . . anyway, IF that's the Left, I noted several instances of traits above that seem pretty contradictory to some of the Left's basic principles.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Not a single one of them makes any sense, whatsoever.
patrice
(47,992 posts)the other guy/girl, isn't it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)What is it you are replying over and over that you are trying to says so that I, and others, can respond.
patrice
(47,992 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:58 AM - Edit history (1)
on some of some strange statements you made about Occupy that you had not been keeping up with what was going on with them. You took that as an insult, it was not it was a statement of fact since I have kept up them and knew your statements were incorrect.
Since then I read another of your comments where you seem to be saying that because you don't like what the OP wrote, the reason you are calling Occupy 'Fascist' (no insult there to all of DU's Occupiers and there are quite a few of them is to get revenge on the OP, or something to that effect. That makes ZERO sense to me, and it appears I am not alone.
I'm sorry, I tried.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)and values. I suspect I would not be the only one who would leave the Democratic party and not be willing to support them any longer if this was done. I imagine the green party or some other new liberal/progressive party would all of a sudden have a huge popularity increase and become a major force in politics. There are some things you don't compromise on or make deals with, period. Cutting these critically important social programs is one of them.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)That's why I don't call myself a Democrat anymore.
They're WEAK. They don't fight for nothing.
I want some tough Progressives to knock those bullies on their asses & flush THEIR heads down the toilet for a change.
The Republican Party should have dissolved decades ago. That Party of Lincoln stuff stopped being true in 1877 when they ended Reconstruction.
Hit 'em in the face, hit 'em between the eyes, hit 'em in the nuts. Just hit 'em.
I don't believe in this Left Right nonsense. I don't know what that means.
There's only 2 directions that make sense around here: Forward & Backward.
Are you Regressive or Progressive?
Until Utopia is reached there is always time for Progress.
Conservatives/Republicans are Backwards, Regressive.
Who's gonna be Progressive? I don't care who it is. Call yourself Democrats or Remocrats or Phlegmocrats, it don't matter.
But who's gonna do what needs to be done to make things BETTER for EVERYONE?
Obama, no more capitulation son. Hit 'em like FDR & let's get this over with.
John Lucas
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Maybe I should start poll and find out. I'm baffled by the fears that someone will run out and sign up with the Republican Party after an OP that actually makes ME glad I am a Democrat.
Democrats CARE about our Social Safety Nets. You would NEVER see an OP on FR like this, because they don't care about the elderly and the poor.
Why are you objecting to Democrats on a Dem board, acting like Democrats? It's refreshing to see that at least on our side of the aisle Democratic Principles are still highly valued and worth fighting for.
What exactly do you think we should be talking about all the time for the next several months? Romney's hair? I thought elections WERE about issues.
twins.fan
(310 posts)Leaders of the Democratic Party are being pulled right on other issues too, like the H1B visa. With financing from Bill Gates and the executives from other tech giants, the leaders of the Democratic Party are working for the interests of the tech giants and against the interests of the US, especially US STEM workers.
Mosaic
(1,451 posts)We are a left of center country, always have been, always will be.
Anyone who takes corporate media, or this repig ticket seriously is weak and a fool.
bigtree
(95,859 posts)the ones who elect these folks . . . Once you've decided that you're intellectually superior to the folks you're trying to influence - the voters -- you've completely lost the genius of your populist argument for progressive government action.
Curious though, wmws, where is this bloc of voters who are '(welcoming) the dismantling of our social safety nets?' Haven't seen that, yet.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a Republican because they read something on the Internet. Has that ever happened? Do you know any Democrats who have turned into Republicans after reading all that is available on the Internet?
What distinguishes Democrats and those who vote with them, left leaning Independents eg, from Republicans is that they are intelligent and have two thoughts in their heads at one time. They can eg, identify problems that need to be addressed, look to see if they are being addressed and if not, advocate for them to be addressed, all without turning into a Republican. Iow, they can be unhappy about the way their party is handling certain issues, and then work to make the party better. That is what intelligent voters do. They do not run to the completely off the wall crazy party thinking maybe their they will get SS protected.
And anyone who objects to Voters discussing the issues raised in this OP, is insulting the intelligence of the average Democratic voter. It is those who fear such discussions who maybe are the most likely to be influenced and are simply projecting their own problems onto others. The solution is, don't read what you think might turn you into a Republican.
patrice
(47,992 posts)is a corporatist liar that is the problem.
I have trouble committing myself to anything that dishonors horizontal empowerment by demanding conformity and mischaracterizing important elements such as what is actually happening in Medicare. It's dysfunctional because it excludes value that is inherent to diversity and, thus, increases the probability of its own defeat, which, of course, will be blamed on those evil others.
Self-fulfilling prophecy is profoundly powerful and real. It is built upon attribution error, rather than upon understanding others, which perpetuates the same old enemy dynamo under different labels until it breaks too and another master achieves ascendency.
e.g. look up thread and ask yourself why so many people in your cohort almost NEVER start with a question. It's almost always some accusation of enmity or claim to un-earned authority.
patrice
(47,992 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)I get tired of trying to point out what you so eloquently point out.
sigh.
patrice
(47,992 posts)if you ask me.
Just an hypothesis: I'm finding it quite interesting how BAD it makes Occupy look, almost as though that is intended.
Marr
(20,317 posts)going to be the buzz phrases after the elections.
patrice
(47,992 posts)bourgeoisie.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)bourgeoisie.
You were looking for a PURE MOVEMENT...that would RIDE TO THE RESCUE?
Or, you are just into trashing "OWS" because you feel it confronts our current President?
Which is it?
patrice
(47,992 posts)for differing with you all.
Assuming it's impossible to support President Obama for completely enlightened rational justifications.
I didn't expect anything like perfection out of my experience with the Occupy. I gave it everything I had from September last year up until I think it was April this year. I camped with them frequently and spent a great deal of time trying to solve their problems in GA and just working around camp, cooking and listening to people bitch about other people, especially about anyone who demonstrated initiative, and also lots of time trying to figure out who was stealing absolutely everything that happened to be around, including one student's laptop with about 4 years of research on it and also stealing everything that was donated. This is only half of the story. I have defended the Occupy with practically breath, until just now in this thread. I keep in touch with people I have known from the Occupy and the only consistent thing I have ever experienced from most of them is a strong interest in an end to government and, of course, Obama is, to them, the primary example of why that must be done. I don't think the President is by any means perfect, but I also am NOT in the habit of surrendering my rational faculties to people who continue to demonstrate that they are completely dominated and enslaved to one idea and one idea only, to end ALL government as soon as possible.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)You would understand that we are faced with very tough choices for those of us who consider "Principles" over "Politics" in this new election.
We will differ...but that the "Lesser of two choices" is crammed down our throats night and day and that our current President that we all had such high hopes for has constantly differed to Wall Street's interests has to be WHY many of us want to "Soldier Own" to achieve the "REAL CHANGE WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR!" Not that other thing we are being sold, these days.
I understand how tired so many of us who have been "soldiering on" defending Clinton in the late 90's when many of us got on to Internet and tried to create a New Progressive Coalition. We were horrified at what was done to Hillary and Bill and then the Stolen Election of 2000..and then the Iraq War based on lies and deceptions and worse.
But, it doesn't matter any more to our fellow Democrats. It's "Move Forward" or "Be Left Behind."
At some point our spirits just break down and we go with "the best we can get" and try to "DEAL WITH IT" ....the best we can.
Still...there are some small numbers of us who HOLD OUT...and will NOT DEAL with the LOWEST we are supposed to EXPECT!
That's where I am. And that's why so many of us are "UNDER THE BUS."
It's not OUR time ...now......But, one day when all is said and done...it could be the future.
PEACE!
KoKo
Edited for Typo's that might be still there
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)taking it over!
That's definitely one of the more 'creative' attacks on Occupy I've seen yet.
patrice
(47,992 posts)reform is in the offing; it's going to be called "Cuts in Medicare", because that will serve Occupy's agenda to earn their political credentials by contributing to the defeat of any and all Democrats, especially the President.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Is there some hidden code I don't know about? 
KoKo
(84,711 posts)we Democrats will have to make "Major Concessions" to get Obama Re-elected.
What a Sad Bargain we are faced with. It shouldn't have been this way....after all the work...after all the angst.......after BUILDING THE NETROOTS to see them Stall and FALL BACK into the very MORASS we came from with ELECTION 2000 and before.
Sad Times, Indeed. But, it will "ALL FALL DOWN" ......ALL FALL DOWN...and those who are AWARE will be the ones to PICK UP THE PIECES!
SO MANY OF US WORKED SO HARD...so LONG for this NEVER TO HAVE HAPPENED...
Those of YOU who laugh at us with will be more the VICTIMS than those of us who KNEW...and worked to ORGANIZE OURSELVES in our OWN SPECIAL PODS.
Laugh On, "SID DITHERS" and others.... Times are a-Chainging....and it's more likely that those who say and did what they could and were "pushed back" and then organize once again....will...in the end...have the ability to do the GREAT CHANGE going forward.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)there will be a lot of votes for Romney/Ryan. I doubt Romney picked Ryan in a vacuum with no external input. And I thought Nixon was bad way back when. Nixon seems mild compared to Romney/Ryan. Here, they will vote for Romney/Ryan, many are under robotic control. And there is also the question of what shenanigans will be played when votes are counted.
Carroll
(16 posts)Barry Goldwater suggested an end to Social Security. It didn't go over well.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)WUR DOOOOMED!
patrice
(47,992 posts)to improve Medicare by identifying for-profit treatment modalities. After-all, they MUST demonstrate to everyone that they are right about that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Mr. Obama, or lose credibility and, thus, spoil their political ambitions.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Occupy is not a monolith, it is appropriate to represent that Occupy as Occupy, amongst anarchists it has as much status as any other Occupy.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)most of the Reccers of this thread has one way or another spoken against everything this administration has achieved.
patrice
(47,992 posts)it with Romney/Ryan.
The reason they want Medicare to die of it's for-profit treatment modalities, and NOT become sustainable through appropriate reform, is because they don't want too many people around for this, since when/if this all goes down, competition for resources is going to become quite intense:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112721718
I know people around what used to be our Occupy who believe every word in this link. Their political inclinations are anarchist and Libertarian. They say things very very similar to OP.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)into the misinformation being sold by the Aristocrats and their servants, how can so many people in America be so naive.
It is absolutely obvious what will happen if the republicans get in, but most of these people are also impervious to the
amount of damage that will happen under a pResident Romney. (just the thought).
Majority of people are driven by self-fishness, they tend to forget that, when it rains it pours and it does not
pour in one area, but everywhere, wherein we all get soaked.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)They've found a way to appeal to the most deeply rooted fatalists and convince them that nothing can ever be done to move forward. I mean the OP truly believes that the pick of Paul Ryan was a "brilliant move" to "usher in austerity" for the masses. Direct quote.
By controlling the narrative within liberal circles we have become weakened and become distracted from what needs to be done.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)this is the type of thread that absolutely screams for the return of unrec.
Sid
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Can you share something that goes beyond:
I feel that you are pent up and want to say what you think....but, because you are Canadian ...you hold back and just snark at folks.
What is your problem with the OP and what it says? And with the replies from honest people who stated their opinions on this thread without doing
You need to understand that many of us who read this site can't understand why you seem to constantly disparage posters here and yet...never give any feedback that is reasoned or links to articles that would better express your viewpoint...if you are unable to express your point of view in a coherent way and so are reduced to as your replies to every post your reply on.
Could you tell us what YOU REALLY want to SAY?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The tired bullshit about the Parties being the 'essentially same'. The ridiculous Naderite saw that they're identical. The whining and grousing that the election doesn't matter. The tired 'concern'. The implication that voters should stay home.
It's crap. We have a dynamic, progressive President who is MOVING THE BALL FORWARD. Is he perfect? No. But he's a damn sight better than the alternative AND he is someone worth voting FOR. There are good reasons to support our people, and our party. Both parties are NOT the same.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)about our Government are Naderites or others who are "undermining the Party to support Nader?
Are you comparing "questions" about policies of our Democratic Party asked by donors and voters are to be considered mere "whining and grousing?"
Where in the OP's post was a call to boycott this election?
Why shouldn't active Democratic voters and donors still have a voice in our Democratic Party and on a site called "Democratic Underground?"
Who are YOU...to judge people who post here and to paint them with some brush that only you hold in your hand according to YOUR JUDGEMENT of them?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Who am *I*? ...
Who am I???!?!??!?!!
WHOOOO AM I??????!?!?!
Beyond that, I'm the guy who is telling you what's obnoxious about this thread.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Or did they turn the lights off on you guys there?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)They just had another fundraiser for a new server.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)to raise the necessary funds. Oh, and a bake sale too!
emulatorloo
(46,161 posts)n/t
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The real CT is to think that the people will not get screwed so long as they just STFU and Vote. No, the People should never, ever express their concerns. They don't need to! Our elected officials can be TRUSTED. So just sit down and shut up and trust us.
We will NEVER lift the Ban on Offshore Drilling, never, ever, promise!! Now there's a promise that belonged in the CS. We'll talk about prosecuting war criminals AFTER the election but for now, just STFU. Another promise that belonged in CS.
I hope you don't mind if this time we compete with the Corporate Lobbyists currently flooding DC telling OUR Reps what THEIR NEEDS are.
Have you told them to STFU and just vote? Funny how it's always the people who are told not to express their concerns 'before the election'.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in support of defending SS and Medicare against a man who spent his public career attacking those programs. Statements such as those we hear all the time from Bernie Sanders who makes it so clear that SS needs no 'adjustments, strengthening, fixing' such as raising the retirement age, adjusting COLA or any of the other sneaky ways which have been suggested. He clearly states that SS is solvent, had nothing to do with the deficit, and leaves no one in doubt that if anyone says otherwise, they are lying.
Ryan provides a perfect opportunity to join Sanders in his efforts to educate the public and in doing so, make him look like the threat he is to the Social Safety Net while assuring voters that Democrats are totally opposed to any of the previous suggestions which they now see as completely unnecessary. Raising the cap should also be highlighted and would be a very popular issue.
Since Democrats already wavered on this issue, now is the time to let them know that we are paying attention and that this is their moment to stand up for these Democratic programs.
If you think it's ridiculous for voters to weigh in at this time with their concerns about these life and death issues, then I totally disagree with you.
dougolat
(716 posts)Ryan's baloney can't stand up to such a discussion.
Problem is, the owned-media megaphone won't allow it.
emulatorloo
(46,161 posts)"When Obama defeats him, thereby converting All DU'ers into Mouthfrothing Teabagger Democrats"
It is preposterous nonsense, and way below the level of discourse that ought to be going on at DU.
You are a very kind-hearted person, but surely you know woo woo conspiracy theory bullshit when you see it.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)This is not "woo woo conspiracy theory bullshit" it's just plain fact.
emulatorloo
(46,161 posts)"The effect of the Ryan pick is that, after an entire election season of hearing the horrors that Ryan's budget will inflict on ordinary Americans, the public will welcome the bipartisan Grand Bargain catfood commission plan to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We will welcome it with tears and hugs as the humane and generous choice."
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)
But I think you're missing the point. There doesn't have to be a spooky dark conspiratorial cabal making it happen, there is a collective understanding of what is or isn't possible politically and it's fed primarily by the media. You don't need Fu Manchu to make it happen, just one or two news stations owned by the same company with an agenda. This is indisputibly the case, if you are going to pretend that Rupert Murdoch hasn't been instrumental in shaping policy in the UK for decades, you may do so, but you are not going to be taken seriously by me. Or anyone genuinely interested in politics, for that matter.
Continuous hand-waving of "ooooh! So you believe this? So you believe that? Oh, come on. Come on. It's just not credible. It isn't. No. Really. No" is a tactic employed by an imaginary republican politician in an Onion article I read some years ago. It doesn't really constitute a rebuttal, does it?
I'll join in, if you like, try this:
"So you DON'T believe that political triangulation ends up in the entire spectrum moving to one pole or amother? You DON'T? You seriously DON'T? SERIOUSLY? You DON'T? You MEAN IT? Are you saying that's your POSITION? SEROIUSLY? Is that what you're saying? You're saying THAT? That you don't believe it? You don't think so? Really? REALLY?"
Tedious, isn't it? You can spout much incredulity as you like - it says nothing about the OP.
emulatorloo
(46,161 posts)The vast majority of Woo's posts are fact free hair on fire conspiracy theories.
ON EDIT - check out Ryan's polling. Looks like 74% of seniors think he is full of shit. Looks like a majority of folks don't think he is ready to be President. So far the "brainwashing" doesn't seem to be working.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)At all.
Why did you post it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
emulatorloo
(46,161 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I am sending this OP to my two Senators, both of whom are Democrats with a note asking them to please respond to the people on this issue and speak out clearly against any cuts, fixes, strengthenings and whatever other labels are given to what actually are cuts, to deceive people into thinking they are not cuts. And to make sure there is absolutely no talk of raising the retirement age.
We are Democrats, we do not even suggest whittling away at the miniscule safety we still have.
To say otherwise, to make any excuses for it, to be bi-partisan about it, THAT is the Conspiracy Theory because everyone knows what Democrats stand for.
emulatorloo
(46,161 posts)"The effect of the Ryan pick is that, after an entire election season of hearing the horrors that Ryan's budget will inflict on ordinary Americans, the public will welcome the bipartisan Grand Bargain catfood commission plan to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We will welcome it with tears and hugs as the humane and generous choice."
So I am being brainwashed because of the Ryan Pick to embrace the failed cat food commission? (the commission that couldn't even confirm it own report?)
This is an "issue?" More like paranoid delusion.
I have no problem with calling my Sens and Reps re protecting the safety net. Both of them are hard core liberals, and I know they will do what is right.
However, I do have a problem with woo woo conspiracy theories.
As to the "failed talking point" - from what I can tell the talking point at DU these days is to try to pretend that Obama = Ryan.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you are so upset.
And a talking point is when more than one person, rather than using their own words and thoughts, repeats the same word or phrase over and over again. Political operatives believe that if people do that, it will cement, most often a wrong idea, in the minds of the people.
Since I have not seen even one person say 'Obama = Ryan' which would be ridiculous btw, that talking point doesn't exist.
What the OP is saying is that Ryan's ideas are so off the wall, insane, crazy etc when it comes to the safety net, yet despite that he has now been given a national platform, there is the possibility that ideas that are bad enough now, will begin to look better by comparison and there is a very definite possibility that they could become acceptable. Manny is not the only one to understand how that can work.
To make sure it does not happen, all people are asking for is that Democrats let it be known now, that they will not be forced to move more in that wrong direction, but will in fact come out swinging in the opposite direction. To tell Ryan/Romney how insane they are, NOT to even think of any kind of bi-partisanship with the looniest representatives of the Republican Party.
And if you think citizens do not have a right ask their party for that kind of clarity and distinction between them and the radical right, you are wrong. Because if they don't, it is a distinct possibility as we've seen so often before.
Bernie Sanders does this every day. All that is being asked is that Dems now do what he does, slam the Republicans with the facts, no prevarications, about the Social Safety Net and I have no clue why your or anyone else would object to that.
emulatorloo
(46,161 posts)"Bernie Sanders does this every day. All that is being asked is that Dems now do what he does, slam the Republicans with the facts, no prevarications, about the Social Safety Net and I have no clue why your or anyone else would object to that."
Bernie is a hero and he does it the right way.
He does not post bullshit conspiracy theories on the internet about how this is a Secret Plot to brainwash DU'ers.
Nor does he pretend that there are vast hoards of Democrats who want to defund medicare and social security. He doesn't do straw men.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)You *say* that it does. That's it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This OP is silly. Romney's VP pick is evidence of nothing other than that he is a horrible and desperate candidate.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think his campaign is in trouble.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...from Ryan's plans.
I mean, from now until the election all we're going to hear about is how the VP pick wanted to gut Medicare and SS and basically rape the country. It actually credibly puts the House back into negotiable territory. Something some argued was unheard of just a few months ago thanks to the gerrymandering.
