HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why are so many DU'ers fa...

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:39 AM

Why are so many DU'ers falling for bullshit?

A casual stroll through the "latest" pages brought me to this question. It seems every fifth thread is someone barking about how the Democrats / Obama had better not cut social security or medicare benefits. Lots and lots of these threads, and they all have one thing in common...

Not a single fucking shred of evidence to back themselves up with. Nobody has referenced any source from Obama or the Democratic party that cites any plan to slash into these programs. None. And yet, here are DU'ers up in arms, in a frothy rage, as if these plans were actual, and immediate.

They are not. The only "evidence" we have is a bunch of speculation and "reasonable advice" from the very same "liberal media" outlets that spent the last week nursing on Romney's cock, trying to bring his campaign back to life by wishful thinking.

I just want that to sink in for a moment. The very same peopel who not eleven days ago were telling us a Romney win was certain and a blessed achievement for America, are now telling us, "Oh well, the President should start hacking into benefits."

And DU'ers - some DU'ers, some who I would personally refer to as "the usual suspects" - are just livid. Post after post they tell us how the goddamned motherfucking backstabbing democrat sons-of-bitches and that two-faced conman they put in power are all going to fuck us over on Social Security and medicare! FOR REALS, NO JOKE! And, of course, when you repeat a lie often enough, people just start to believe it... So then I see other, presumably less... irrational DU'ers picking up the meme and speaking as if this is really happening, which leads the general community to absorb it because hey, even the cool kids are talking about it, it must be the real deal.

WHY?! Jesus fucking Christ, people. You really, really are going to slurp that vomit off the floor, aren't you? I can't fathom this, that the same people who just rallied the fuck up to give this president a goddamned landslide... are suddenly first in line to stab the shit out of him over some unsubstantiated bullshit speculation being promulgated from the very same sources that were rooting for the other guy. You really, honestly think that the first thing this guy is going to do, is start dry-humping the Paul Ryan budget plan. That's what you think? Why? because an editorialist for CNBC thinks "he should do this?"

Take some deep breaths, people. Get some oxygen back in that bloodstream, and fucking think. No, no, our president and our party are not going to suddenly reveal themselves to be the motherfucking antichrist as a collective, though some of you very clearly wish and hope for that. No, they are not going to "throw social security under the bus," nor medicaid or medicare. it would be fucking dumb And if there's one thing we can say for sure about this administration, it's that "fucking dumb" doesn't apply.

However, it does apply - and has been applied frequently - to the very people telling you what a scheming, two-faced, backstabbing devil Obama is. Now if you want to buy that product, I guess I can't stop you... But I can say that it's not the truth. If you are that ready, that eager to shoot yourselves in the foot over some idiots shooting off their mouths, well... there's not much I can say about that...

Except that we went through this already, two years ago. Same sources, same parrots, same panic. I'd rather DU not spend the next two years psyching itself the fuck out over bullshit and nonsense from the motherfucking Washington Times editorial pages.

371 replies, 33590 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 371 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why are so many DU'ers falling for bullshit? (Original post)
Scootaloo Nov 2012 OP
jberryhill Nov 2012 #1
loyalsister Nov 2012 #66
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #83
intaglio Nov 2012 #87
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #94
intaglio Nov 2012 #100
jberryhill Nov 2012 #105
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #152
jberryhill Nov 2012 #92
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #95
jberryhill Nov 2012 #252
Maraya1969 Nov 2012 #296
freshwest Nov 2012 #213
demosincebirth Nov 2012 #308
Chunk Nov 2012 #2
Summer Hathaway Nov 2012 #3
Bette Nov 2012 #31
Summer Hathaway Nov 2012 #40
freshwest Nov 2012 #215
BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2012 #312
freshwest Nov 2012 #326
BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2012 #368
freshwest Nov 2012 #369
CakeGrrl Nov 2012 #4
freshwest Nov 2012 #217
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #5
Newsjock Nov 2012 #6
driver8 Nov 2012 #148
dchill Nov 2012 #7
Bette Nov 2012 #35
groundloop Nov 2012 #205
dchill Nov 2012 #227
enlightenment Nov 2012 #258
Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #8
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #9
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #175
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #10
azurnoir Nov 2012 #16
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #156
Fearless Nov 2012 #11
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #12
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #19
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #22
druidity33 Nov 2012 #104
Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2012 #163
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #254
Dawgs Nov 2012 #191
Fearless Nov 2012 #194
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #223
kenfrequed Nov 2012 #241
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #257
joshcryer Nov 2012 #242
eridani Nov 2012 #283
joshcryer Nov 2012 #286
eridani Nov 2012 #288
joshcryer Nov 2012 #292
eridani Nov 2012 #327
Summer Hathaway Nov 2012 #33
msanthrope Nov 2012 #110
ancianita Nov 2012 #344
Summer Hathaway Nov 2012 #358
Cowpunk Nov 2012 #304
Fearless Nov 2012 #197
Raksha Nov 2012 #332
renie408 Nov 2012 #209
Fearless Nov 2012 #319
azurnoir Nov 2012 #13
Hekate Nov 2012 #14
southmost Nov 2012 #15
barbtries Nov 2012 #212
southmost Nov 2012 #301
judesedit Nov 2012 #17
Xyzse Nov 2012 #18
joshcryer Nov 2012 #20
Dragonfli Nov 2012 #25
joshcryer Nov 2012 #30
Dragonfli Nov 2012 #32
joshcryer Nov 2012 #37
Dragonfli Nov 2012 #42
joshcryer Nov 2012 #46
Dragonfli Nov 2012 #51
joshcryer Nov 2012 #55
freshwest Nov 2012 #219
jberryhill Nov 2012 #253
joshcryer Nov 2012 #266
jberryhill Nov 2012 #274
jberryhill Nov 2012 #106
freshwest Nov 2012 #218
oldbanjo Nov 2012 #21
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #74
eridani Nov 2012 #23
Chunk Nov 2012 #29
eridani Nov 2012 #38
Chunk Nov 2012 #43
eridani Nov 2012 #47
Blanks Nov 2012 #180
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #269
Blanks Nov 2012 #279
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #297
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #79
jberryhill Nov 2012 #107
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #150
jberryhill Nov 2012 #151
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #155
kurtzapril4 Nov 2012 #181
joshcryer Nov 2012 #239
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #245
joshcryer Nov 2012 #248
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #256
Raksha Nov 2012 #333
OnionPatch Nov 2012 #135
pnwmom Nov 2012 #24
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #26
byronius Nov 2012 #27
Rincewind Nov 2012 #28
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #81
Jim Lane Nov 2012 #34
Chunk Nov 2012 #39
Jim Lane Nov 2012 #136
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #263
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2012 #36
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #41
Chunk Nov 2012 #48
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #50
Chunk Nov 2012 #61
Chef Eric Nov 2012 #160
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #80
ronnie624 Nov 2012 #210
cer7711 Nov 2012 #44
Dragonfli Nov 2012 #54
tama Nov 2012 #67
woo me with science Nov 2012 #71
Bonobo Nov 2012 #75
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #86
leftstreet Nov 2012 #140
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #78
Agony Nov 2012 #90
corkhead Nov 2012 #93
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #103
Brickbat Nov 2012 #111
dreamnightwind Nov 2012 #112
Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #114
forestpath Nov 2012 #137
bullwinkle428 Nov 2012 #144
Puglover Nov 2012 #200
hootinholler Nov 2012 #145
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #154
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #161
Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2012 #164
nolabels Nov 2012 #350
Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2012 #352
nolabels Nov 2012 #364
Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2012 #367
Liberalynn Nov 2012 #165
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #168
Dawgs Nov 2012 #192
just1voice Nov 2012 #201
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #211
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #216
pa28 Nov 2012 #220
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #224
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #277
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #233
joshcryer Nov 2012 #246
stupidicus Nov 2012 #259
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #272
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #275
WillyT Nov 2012 #306
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #311
hfojvt Nov 2012 #45
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #158
cer7711 Nov 2012 #49
carolinayellowdog Nov 2012 #52
tama Nov 2012 #72
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #69
Agony Nov 2012 #98
ProSense Nov 2012 #153
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #278
ProSense Nov 2012 #317
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #339
ProSense Nov 2012 #341
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #342
ProSense Nov 2012 #348
kenfrequed Nov 2012 #363
plethoro Nov 2012 #187
DirkGently Nov 2012 #276
kentuck Nov 2012 #315
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #53
DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #56
JoeyT Nov 2012 #59
DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #60
JoeyT Nov 2012 #62
DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #237
JoeyT Nov 2012 #57
Hissyspit Nov 2012 #64
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #76
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #170
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #182
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #231
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #366
joshcryer Nov 2012 #264
Hissyspit Nov 2012 #298
joshcryer Nov 2012 #250
Ivywoods55 Nov 2012 #58
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #63
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #65
Cha Nov 2012 #68
eomer Nov 2012 #70
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #82
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #73
lamp_shade Nov 2012 #77
Iggy Nov 2012 #84
GitRDun Nov 2012 #85
corkhead Nov 2012 #88
GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #89
JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #91
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #96
lamp_shade Nov 2012 #101
lamp_shade Nov 2012 #102
msanthrope Nov 2012 #113
eomer Nov 2012 #121
ProSense Nov 2012 #123
lamp_shade Nov 2012 #132
eomer Nov 2012 #179
joshcryer Nov 2012 #271
eomer Nov 2012 #287
joshcryer Nov 2012 #291
eomer Nov 2012 #331
joshcryer Nov 2012 #334
eomer Nov 2012 #338
Bonobo Nov 2012 #138
aikoaiko Nov 2012 #147
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #162
kurtzapril4 Nov 2012 #221
SidDithers Nov 2012 #238
stupidicus Nov 2012 #260
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #284
lunatica Nov 2012 #97
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #99
SidDithers Nov 2012 #108
jberryhill Nov 2012 #109
SidDithers Nov 2012 #126
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #129
1-Old-Man Nov 2012 #115
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #131
morningfog Nov 2012 #116
Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #117
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #118
amborin Nov 2012 #244
dawg Nov 2012 #119
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #122
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #142
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #230
krispos42 Nov 2012 #120
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #124
jeff47 Nov 2012 #125
philly_bob Nov 2012 #127
Blue4Texas Nov 2012 #128
Robb Nov 2012 #130
lamp_shade Nov 2012 #134
Overseas Nov 2012 #133
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #139
dreamnightwind Nov 2012 #196
lillypaddle Nov 2012 #141
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #143
ProSense Nov 2012 #146
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #222
Romulox Nov 2012 #149
Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2012 #157
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #159
JEB Nov 2012 #166
plethoro Nov 2012 #167
dougolat Nov 2012 #328
Sugarcoated Nov 2012 #169
stillcool Nov 2012 #171
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #172
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #365
HomerRamone Nov 2012 #173
JEB Nov 2012 #174
plethoro Nov 2012 #177
liberalmuse Nov 2012 #176
intheflow Nov 2012 #178
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #183
kentuck Nov 2012 #184
Scurrilous Nov 2012 #185
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #186
Milliesmom Nov 2012 #188
MicaelS Nov 2012 #189
robertpaulsen Nov 2012 #190
Dawgs Nov 2012 #193
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #203
woo me with science Nov 2012 #225
woo me with science Nov 2012 #226
seaglass Nov 2012 #335
heaven05 Nov 2012 #195
Taverner Nov 2012 #198
Enrique Nov 2012 #199
Enrique Nov 2012 #202
ProSense Nov 2012 #204
Puglover Nov 2012 #206
zentrum Nov 2012 #207
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #305
JNelson6563 Nov 2012 #208
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #214
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #228
Luminous Animal Nov 2012 #261
elleng Nov 2012 #229
Ian David Nov 2012 #232
BrainMann1 Nov 2012 #234
Cha Nov 2012 #240
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #235
great white snark Nov 2012 #236
treestar Nov 2012 #243
msanthrope Nov 2012 #247
Hissyspit Nov 2012 #336
msanthrope Nov 2012 #355
Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2012 #249
stupidicus Nov 2012 #251
lamp_shade Nov 2012 #255
Initech Nov 2012 #262
southmost Nov 2012 #307
Initech Nov 2012 #310
Bucky Nov 2012 #265
ReRe Nov 2012 #267
politicasista Nov 2012 #268
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #270
DirkGently Nov 2012 #273
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #285
DirkGently Nov 2012 #302
dtom67 Nov 2012 #280
dtom67 Nov 2012 #281
cui bono Nov 2012 #282
Robb Nov 2012 #289
joshcryer Nov 2012 #299
robinlynne Nov 2012 #290
Robb Nov 2012 #294
robinlynne Nov 2012 #303
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #309
robinlynne Nov 2012 #313
JVS Nov 2012 #293
robinlynne Nov 2012 #314
Coyotl Nov 2012 #295
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #300
Coyotl Nov 2012 #343
bluedigger Nov 2012 #316
CaptJasHook Nov 2012 #318
colsohlibgal Nov 2012 #320
Chunk Nov 2012 #321
Chunk Nov 2012 #322
Chunk Nov 2012 #323
Chunk Nov 2012 #324
Hissyspit Nov 2012 #337
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #347
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #351
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #360
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #362
YOHABLO Nov 2012 #325
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #329
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #330
bigtree Nov 2012 #340
Robb Nov 2012 #345
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #356
Vattel Nov 2012 #346
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #349
kentuck Nov 2012 #353
Autumn Nov 2012 #354
SidDithers Nov 2012 #357
Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #359
Zorra Nov 2012 #361
heaven05 Nov 2012 #370
SidDithers Nov 2012 #371

Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:45 AM

1. We now return to our regular programming

Scenes from last season...



Oh, and plenty of cat food too, also

Obama eliminating all social spending is our version of the NRA "NOW he's coming for our guns" routine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:28 AM

66. "Obama eliminating all social spending is our version of the NRA "NOW he's coming for our guns"

Absolutely!! So many threads make my eyes roll lately. Thanks for the sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #66)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:20 AM

83. Except Obama has never expressed a willingness to take guns away

And he certainly hasn't demanded that guns be taken away.

Nor has he appointed, praised, and embraced those who've called for 22% of guns to be taken away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #83)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:57 AM

87. Still spouting these Republican talking points?

You'll be saying next that cutting waste from Medicare/Medicaid is a direct cut to services - just like Paul Ryan touted during the election. Or that all bipartisan Commissions toe the party line and any members not doing so be cast into the utter darkness, their names expunged from history and the earth where their homes stood be salted.

BTW I always find it amusing that you use the abbreviated name of Emmanuel Goldstein, the stalking horse used by Big Brother in the oppression of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #87)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:19 AM

94. You're claiming that facts are Republican talking points?

Or that my links lead to lies?

Please clarify.

As to the claim that the Medicaid cuts (so far) are cuts to services.. no I certainly don't agree with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #94)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:35 AM

100. I'm saying that your links are misleading n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #100)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:44 AM

105. Don't let Manny bother you, this is his "thing"

It's like getting upset at water being wet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #100)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:31 AM

152. Were they taken out of context? Or

did the speaker mean something different?

If you make serious accusations, you have an obligation to present serious evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #83)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:13 AM

92. Ah, Manny, how've you been

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #92)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:24 AM

95. Good! You?

Very pleased that Romney is finally out of our lives, and that Liz Warren is my Senator elect.

Progress!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #95)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:09 PM

252. Well, I'm so happy that I'm not even going to let you piss in my Wheaties


Stay healthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #83)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:20 PM

296. John Conyers, Jr. refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the

2012 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

(Before I go further may I add that all your information is taken from this one man who was trying to push that the President didn't respond to for some reason. Conyers tried to say that President Obama wanted to cut Social Security. Well Social Security was never cut and I don't expect it ever will be cut under this president so I suggest you take your garbage anti-Obama rhetoric elsewhere.


This candidate has demonstrated 0% courage during the test. John Conyers
http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/26904#.UKRRToZ0oUw


(John Conyers is usually one of our friends but I don't understand where he is coming from now. I hope he works the the President and they can get things done together during the next 4 years. You are one of the ones the OP is talking about. We are here to support OUR President and give constructive criticism. We don't need people bring things up from 1 1/2 years ago trying to bring him down. Get over it. You lost)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #66)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:05 PM

213. K &N R right here. Well said rant. Thanks all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:51 PM

308. ...and why he didn't do this and that is why I pissed at him. Looks like it's rerun all over

again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:49 AM

2. LoL, nice rant.

 

You have a way with words. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:55 AM

3. GREAT rant!

Couldn't agree more with your assessment.

And the 'usual suspects' have also wasted no time whinging about everything that Obama will do WRONG in his second term, which hasn't even started yet. But they KNOW, man, they KNOW ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:38 AM

31. True rant

You're right summer, these people are going out of their minds! It's as if the last 4 years never happened and we are at square one again...bullsh*t! I'm hearing folks calling into shows and freaking out over gun confiscation. That has never even been mentioned by this administration, or any other that I can think of. Confiscation? Give me a break! Just continued hysteria from the righties...and I am sick of those whom I thought had a independent brain, to fall under the spell...
WHY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bette (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:50 AM

40. Now is the time for all good men

to come to the aid of their party - by getting their knickers in a twist over every possible scenario that their party might, in an alternate universe, become part of.

When expressing such opinions, any basis in reality is, as always, optional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:08 PM

215. The 'It's all Obama's fault' meme is so cool though, don't ya think? And convenient, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #215)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:39 PM

312. it's that gonzo cynicsm....a sign of coolness

And superior intellect.

It's a buzz to be all, "yeah man whatevs; I know things you all are too smiley to perceive."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #312)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:55 AM

326. Speaking of coolness and superior intellect in action:

To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.

What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something.

If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand Utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.
~ Howard Zinn

That man was almost always smiling, too.

There is a proverb, perhaps Chinese:


“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”


It's far easier to criticize those doing their best from afar, than to actually try to do their work. There are a lot of cheap thrills in this world. That is one of them.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #326)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:53 PM

368. the future is an infinite succession of presents....

and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.


that's so good. Howard Zinn, another on my list of must reads. (I'm a very slow reader! ADD. grrrr. )


yes, absolutely, it is a cheap thrill to parade around behind a mask of cynicism. I remember the feeling back when I was a teenager.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #368)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:06 PM

369. Agreed to all of that. If you don't time to read, do a youtube search to listen to him. Here's one:



More on the sidebar on the right of the youtube page for you to listen to while doing housework or other things...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:56 AM

4. Thank you

A few days after REAL disaster was averted, and it's back to believing every half-assed piece of speculation that hints that POTUS is going to do WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD NOT DO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:16 PM

217. But CT says he will, and that's the filter we're hearing...

The terror engendered by WND, Infowars, patriot radio and Faux Newz is always chattering away in the background. I don't blame those who were hoodwinked, but won't bother with those who always ignore the facts presented contrary of those beliefs.

Those who claim moral superiority after disregarding facts disputing their animus to Obama and all Democratic Party members and not agreeing with their alternate reality, are Ignored.

Thanks for your post.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:57 AM

5. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:00 AM

6. Who knew that The Rude Pundit had a DU alias?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:03 AM

148. Ha Ha!! That cracked me up! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:09 AM

7. But, but, but... I thought Obama already CUT...

Medicare by $716 billion... At least that's what Romney/Ryan and the SuperPACs said...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dchill (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:42 AM

35. NO...

Not cuts, it's savings from Medicare, to be put into the new healthcare exchanges. Savings from fraudulant practices, from medicare. Seriously, if R&R were correct, wouldn't they be the winners of this election? Besides the point of them lying constantly about anything they thought would woo the uninformed voters.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bette (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:01 PM

205. dchill forgot to use the sarcasm tag......


Anyway, welcome to DU Bette

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #205)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:01 PM

227. dchill didn't think he needed...

no steenking sarcasm tag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bette (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:18 PM

258. Link, please.

Not suggesting your comment isn't true, but I'm not familiar with the reports that state the savings from Medicare will go to the healthcare exchanges, so more information would be helpful.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:17 AM

8. I didn't want to say anything at first, but I agree.

Let's quit with all the safety net rabble-rousing threads right now. At least wait and see if the president caves in on SS and Medicare. So far, it looks like he won't do that and only wants to return taxes to Clinton rates. Like you said, this is almost as absurd as the gun nuts who think Obama will suddenly take away their guns and the people who thought he wants to start white slavery. There's a lack of evidence thus far that the big 3 are in jeopardy, yet I noticed these threads have gotten dozens of recs on this forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:18 AM

9. Hear, hear! It is high time someone stuck up for infinitely credulous stooges

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:37 AM

175. x2.

 

They need all the help that they can get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:20 AM

10. They really need to keep it all in one thread...

 

It sucks scrolling through all the paranoia to find the good content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:38 AM

16. oh this could be yet another group but what to call them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:48 AM

156. The Hair on Fire Zone ...

AKA, "DU In What Should Be In Good Time But Some Just Won't Have It"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:21 AM

11. You don't get it. You're missing the point.

The point is that we are affirming that we will not accept these things from happening. What on Earth is wrong with that??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:36 AM

12. You might as well be vowing to fight off the orcish hordes of Sauron to protect the realm of Gondor.

Over on the other side - and mind, I'm not saying you're one of them, just using the comparison - they believe, heartfelt, for-sure believe that a Democratic president is going to send brownshirt federal thugs door to door to confiscate guns and bibles. They're not pretending, they really believe this. And they oppose this! You'll see them signing pledges on how they oppose the gun-and-bible grabs from the Federal government. They vow to fight it tooth and claw and bullet until their dying breath.

The problem for them is simply that this will never fucking happen. It's nonsense, jousting at windmills.

So what's wrong with that? Well, the more htey repeat it, they more htey become convinced of the reality, the inevitability of it. They drift further and further from the moorings of the universe that the rest of us live in, and delve deeper into their little fantasy land. Suddenly other crazy things are acceptable, and before you know it, the ass end of your hummer is slathered in Ron Paul stickers and you follow Alex Jones on your iPhone.

Might be that the descent into such Lovecraftian madness is fun, I don't know. I'd rather not find out. Point is, spooling your brain around non-reality is not good for you, the peopel around you, or the country whose political process you take part in.

You oppose cuts to social security? Cool, that's great, I think orcs are assholes. But I don't really feel any need to express my anti-greenskin bigotry all over DU, becuase, well, it has no grounding in reality. dig?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:51 AM

19. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to operate on your level.

Some people are handicapped by caring about real things in the real world and don't have your talent for solipsism, viewing potential entitlement cuts in the real world as significant primarily in terms of their own internet bile-spewing psycho-drama.

You should cut these people some slack.

They are not real bright and thus have some comical idea that they can talk about their policy priorities in public.

There is learning curve involved in recognizing that people with a keener understanding of reality than yours need to shut the fuck up, lest they disturb the placid surface of the one inch deep pool that is your beautiful mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:06 AM

22. Potential entitlement cuts are like potential invasions by the Cubans

But hey. Some people like grabbing their junk and screaming "WOLVERINES!!!!" to the sky, I guess.

I'm just saying fantastical nonsense based on right-wing fucknuttery probably shouldn't be the basis of DU's herdthink.

Have fun with your Lovecraftian madness, Cthulhu

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:40 AM

104. The President himself

has mentioned Means Testing as an option. He also agreed with many of Rmoney's positions on Entitlement Reform in the debates, saying there needs to be change and sacrifice. As well, Obama has a history of starting the process of Bargaining from a weak position... and then capitulating to 'minor' Republican demands. There's precedent for supposing that Obama will "give something away" to the R's. Why is it wrong to voice support for a strong (or even stronger) Social Support System?



BTW, i think this whole concern troll meme is BULLSHIT. We need to talk about the issues we fear for as a community, this isn't about negativity, it's about finding the right solutions. We need to help Obama get better at the things he has not been good at, and loudly cheer the things he has been good at.

Just my pennies...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:57 AM

163. A dose of realism!

Yes, Obama is going to have to prove that he's through caving in every time the Republicans and Blue Dogs threaten to throw a tantrum.

His first term has not given me much hope. Romney would have gone for horrible policies all gung ho, but to fear that Obama might chip away at the safety net in the name of "working across the aisle" is not unrealistic, given what happened with the Bush tax cuts last time and with the insurance reform bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #163)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:16 PM

254. Bravo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:13 PM

191. ^^^^^ LOOK HERE ^^^^^

Spot on response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #191)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:27 PM

194. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:49 PM

223. Once again, after lefties showed up and voted for Obama,

the DINOs and appeasers are telling us to shut up and trust the president. Just like they did on the public option and Bush tax cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #223)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:29 PM

241. Exactly.

But we need to bear in mind that our cause is not to criticize the president as a person. Rather, we need to stand up for policy and be very, very firm about it. The majority of Americans are against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

We have to make noise and heat about this to assure that the president has the necessary political cover to say: "Look Bohner, the people have spoken and they are against any cuts to these programs and that is something that Democrats are not going to accept and something that even many republicans are against."

The OP on thread is this sort of more on the noise end on the signal-noise ratio. It seems more like a feedback loop to the voices of those looking to assure that any "Grand Bargain" doesn't leverage a balanced budget disproportionately on the backs of the poor and elderly. The OP seems to be trying to squelch or dismiss this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #241)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:18 PM

257. It's rather Stalinesque, if you ask me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:30 PM

242. means testing = higher income pays more / gets less

Oh those poor millionaire retirees getting $4,500 a month from Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #242)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:09 PM

283. If you are going to spout RW bullshit, you could at the very least get the numbers right

The current yearly limit is ~$32K/year, not the fact free idiotic $54K/year number that you are so confident of. And even if it were that much, so what? The top amount is given to only 1% of SocSec recipients, who paid into the system during their working lives, and compared to lower earners, will get much less back. If they have other income, this amount is 100% taxable, which puts money right back into the system. Eliminating this earned benefit for them saves no money that is even worth the bother, and undermines political support for the program.

SocSec is already means tested, in that the initial benefits formula is skewed toward lower income workers, as it should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #283)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:35 PM

286. making the wealthy pay a bit more = undermines political support

And I'm the one throwing out right wing talking points.

Silly.

Sorry for getting the number wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #286)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:55 PM

288. Means testing is NOT the same as scrapping the cap, and you know it

SocSec is already indirectly means tested, and scrapping the cap should NOT mean eliminating benefits for the rich, just reducing them. The benefits cap could be replaced with a straight upward-trending line with a slope of about 0.01, which should meet any possible objection from anyone who is not a winger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #288)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:59 PM

292. I have no desire to pander to the rich on this issue.

I don't even support means testing but I don't like the pandering about it.

I agree with raising the cap.

I highly doubt there's support for it in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #292)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:08 AM

327. It is not "pandering" to say that anyone who puts money into a government retirement program--

--should get money out of it upon retirement. The payback for higher income people is lower, and they are taxed on every penny of their benefits. There are so few of them that eliminating their benefits is financially meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:39 AM

33. I think what DU sorely needs at this point

is an I'm being told to STFU smilie.

That way the rest of us can know when you're being oh-so-obviously persecuted.

Oh, and we should also have an "I have a keener understanding of reality than you do" avatar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:51 AM

110. We need a "I am purer than thou" one, too. Sort of a Torquemada/Puritan

thing maybe???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:46 AM

344. DU also needs an Obama Smilie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #344)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:12 PM

358. An Obama smilie

would be used by those on a Democratic website who support the Democratic president, and the Democratic Party.

There wouldn't be much use for that here. In fact, such notions are deeply frowned upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:12 PM

304. That, my friend, is some Grade A prime snark

Well deserved, I might add.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:35 PM

197. I will happily fight off the orcish hordes of Sauron to preserve Social Security

Medicare, Medicaid, "foodstamps", federal student loan programs, and any other social help program that politicians don't understand that people's lives actually depend on. This has nothing to do with Republicans or their fears. It has nothing to do with guns or Bibles. This has to do with the THEFT of the money that we've put in our retirement accounts our entire lives, programs that we depend on to go to college, to EAT, to survive if hurt, and to survive in old age. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with being worried when people claim these necessary programs are on the table. PERIOD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #197)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:18 AM

332. THANK YOU! My life depends on my SS widow's pension

because it's my sole source of income. I will damn well NOT be called a hair-on-fire conspiracy theorist and similar snarky put-downs when Obama indicates his willingness to put my meager livelihood on the table. He has done that several times already, starting with his appointment of the Cat Food Commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:25 PM

209. I WILL NOT ACCEPT MY NEIGHBOR EATING BABIES FOR BREAKFAST!!

Damn STRAIGHT!! We have to affirm all the things that we have scant or no evidence of happening that we don't accept!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #209)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:31 AM

319. Some of us have reason to worry about the loss of our social safety net.

I'm glad that you are clearly not in that group. It is disrespectful however to belittle such needs for other people. I thought we were above this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:37 AM

13. Great rant and yes I've seen that too n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:37 AM

14. I applaud your eloquence

KnR

But the usual suspects really get off on this, and it makes DU tedious. Maybe they could have their own forum? But no, that kind of idea was rejected wholeheartedly long long ago.

Thank you, nonetheless.

Hekate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:38 AM

15. dunno, I guess some people like to nag/whine/bitch

I'm glad we're not whining about a new repug president

that'd be some serious bitching going on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southmost (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:54 PM

212. how do you gnash teeth?

i would be gnashing my teeth for sure. all things considered life definitely got better on Nov 6

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #212)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:52 PM

301. I'm so glad we didn't get a teeth gnashing fate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:41 AM

17. I agree. I also just gave up cable television as it is total bullshit.These Hollywood wanna-be's sit

there running their mouths telling us how they would do things. I don't really give a shit how these puppets would do anything. It's quite another to have one opportunity to get things right nationally and internationally. I think I'll trust Obama to do that. He's done a fantastic job so far even with all the GOP obstructionism. People love to criticize and complain. They are seldom happy with the way things are at any time or any place. Obama has my utmost respect and admiration for how he has inspired the masses, how he has managed to get Congress to agree on and pass anything, and how he has kept his composure, manners, and empathy while dealing with those unreasonable, racist idiots. Why in the hell he would even want to try to help these ungratefuls to have a better life now and in the future is beyond me. He is a cut above the rest. He's awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:50 AM

18. Not worried at the moment

In fact, all I really care about has already happened.
Romney does not get Supreme Court Judges put in.

In regards to the Fiscal Cliff. I tend to think that it might be best to just blow past it, and set up a new and differently formulated form of tax cuts, centered on the Middle Class, and small businesses set to expand in the US.

However, point 1 remains. Anything else is just gravy for me.
I doubt he could do any worse than what the Republicans wanted to try to do.

So, I am taking a chill pill and enjoying the show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:57 AM

20. The right wing is really good at peddling their narrative.

I mean the media itself (which is decidedly right wing) will take a story of the Democrats coming to the table and insinuate that the Democrats advocate certain cuts (which for the majority, particularly those on DU, simply isn't true).

It's all about demoralizing the left and destroying their activism. It's a divide and conquer tactic. It's designed to foster complacency. Yes, complacency, see, when people don't think that they can change the system, they choose not to even try. And while the war cries are disguised as "putting the Democrats feet to the fire" or "holding them accountable," the reality is that it's just messaging to take us off tack and drop our own advocacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:20 AM

25. Yes the right wing is peddling this narrative most effectively, clever how they use thirdway.org

to make their arguments

They first want to shut up all progressive thought on the matter

As the President and Members of Congress work to find a balanced solution to the fiscal cliff, it is a huge mistake to draw ideological lines in the sand. We explain why in an open letter to the network of liberal groups calling for a national day of action against a grand bargain.

http://www.thirdway.org/publications/608


Then they shall propose their stealth republican approach to fill the silence they are asking for with their rationalizations of how austerity is needed for "balance"

As the lame duck begins, President Obama will begin his push for a grand bargain to reduce our long-term debt and avert the fiscal cliff. But opponents of a balanced deal are already planting their flags—not just on the Republican side, but also on the left of the Democratic Party.

In this memo we lay out six key facts about a grand bargain

http://www.thirdway.org/publications/609


This group is a right wing think tank, so why do they drive most of our party's policies, even when those policies are opposite the campaign rhetoric?

Some more Right wing infiltration position papers:

Collision Course: Why Democrats Must Back Entitlement Reform
http://www.thirdway.org/subjects/145/publications/564

without changes, the inter-generational promise of Social Security—our nation’s most important social insurance program—is a false one.

This idea brief summarizes the trouble with Social Security, and proposes a “Savings-Led” Social Security reform plan that actually increases the program’s progressivity. Our plan makes roughly two dollars in benefit reductions for every one dollar in revenue increases, and achieves solvency while enhancing economic growth.

http://www.thirdway.org/subjects/145/publications/363

the strange thing is if you look at their front page right now,
yeah do it right now http://www.thirdway.org/
they appear to have the President as a supporter and drop his name in all their latest publications putting forth this right wing narrative, they even faked their board of trustees, I mean whoever heard of this repug named WILLIAM M. DALEY anyway! http://www.thirdway.org/trustees
and all those other right wingers pushing this narative.

and we are supposed to believe these Democratic movers and shakers are their "honorary co-chairs"
http://www.thirdway.org/co_chairs "as if"

and who the hell are these right wing hacks?
http://www.thirdway.org/staff

We have to end this right wing narrative at it's source, by ending the lies from this right wing mis-information project!
Glad to have you aboard!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:33 AM

30. They're lying. Why are you posting their lies here?

That is their view, not the administrations view, but you peddle their view as if it's the administrations!

What a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:39 AM

32. Are they right or left? Democratic or Republican?

I think they are Republicans in (D)rag, but what do you think, according to most here these are Democrats and you were claiming the right was pushing this narrative, If I am correct they are Repigs and you are also correct, if they are Democrats then the most powerful Democratic lobbying group in DC are the ones pushing the grand bargain, not JUST Republicans.

Make up your mind.
What are they?
Who is right?

I think we both are right as explained above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:44 AM

37. They don't represent the administration.

Whether they are "Democrats" is questionable. I think they are infiltrated by conservative and right leaning (if not Republican) policy wonks. I am not a Democrat and do not involve myself with Democratic Party politics.

I simply understand the administration and have followed the administrations policy proposals for the duration and am unconvinced that they are in any way aligned with the DLC/Third Way/Republicans.

Those who say they are are just ignorant and falling for Third Way / right wing lies.

Never forget that Obama's 2012 budget proposal was the most progressive of any president in history.

As Biden said, "Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:56 AM

42. We agree they suck, I differ from you in that I think the President is a Centrist as they are

Moderate is what he always told us he was and I take him at his word.
For now we disagree, if he opposes the right within my Democratic party regarding this issue, I will start agreeing with you on much more than we do now.

Fair enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:10 AM

46. The Third Way is not centrist or moderate. They're decidedly far right.

I did not say the President's proposals were leftist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:19 AM

51. they are right, but these days that is what they mean by "centrist" even in the Democratic party

It is the result of both parties moving to right for the past 30 years, when I was a kid Sanders would have been slightly left of center (but would have been very close to center), by today's standards Nixon would be to the left of half the Democratic in the Senate.

Don't blame me, I liked it better when "centrist" actually meant close to the middle, but that was a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:26 AM

55. That is what they want you to believe.

Leftist trade deal with Colombia: Assure that no jobs are lost, create a commission to assure that no jobs are lost in direct trade with Colombia. Assure that people get unemployment if jobs are lost and make sure that corporations don't send their companies to Colombia to do business there at lower costs.

Moderate trade deal with Colombia (what Obama did): Release duties on companies dealing with trade in Colombia. Assure that unionists in both countries are protected and the deal is off if they cannot show that they're protecting unionists.

Right wing trade deal with Colombia: No duties, no taxes, no revenue, companies can move to Colombia, not pay taxes, death squads will be trained by the US government.

The right wing wants you to believe that Obama's moderate policies are "far right" because it means that they legitimize their far far more insane policy positions! And you fall for it. What can I say? It's a vicious cycle.

Obama is a center-right moderate. He's right wing as it pertains to foreign military policy (still a fucking warmonger, but no wear near as bad as the 1000x objectively worse Bush Jr.), center as it concerns domestic policy, and possibly somewhat left wing as it concerns social policy (pro-abortion, pro-gays).

He's the perfect bipartisan President.

But he's not a goddamn Third Wayer as the liars would want you to believe and would want you to spread around the net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:26 PM

219. Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:10 PM

253. You are a man of considerable patience and thoughtfulness


Carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #253)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:06 PM

266. Coming from you, that means a lot.

Thanks. Sorry for being bitter a times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #266)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:32 PM

274. De nada

I've been impressed with a lot of your posts for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:45 AM

106. Well, that's why Democrats will never turn out to, uh, oh...

...forgot... that was last month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:23 PM

218. +1,000 to what you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:01 AM

21. Very good comment, I had noticed

It didn't take but a few days for the trash to start, I rather give Obama a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldbanjo (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:39 AM

74. In fact, some were even asking if it's okay to criticize him again since the elections

were over.

It gives you pause to wonder if they've ever supported this president to begin with, what with the vitriol and venom they seem to indulge in when "criticizing" him.

They don't give him a chance because they don't want to, and they hear things that hurls them into panic-mode and blow it out of proportion even when they're later proven completely wrong. And when it all turns out to be nada, they don't apologize. They don't give credit (unless it's piecemeal), but they're the first to thump their chests that they, personally, kept him "on the right track" before they go on to another rant about something else that sends them into panic-mode again, and the vicious cycle continues.

Very tiresome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:17 AM

23. Obama's debate performances are not sources?

Did you miss the part where he said that he agreed with MITT FUCKING RMONEY about SocSec? If you didn't miss it, did that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Every retiree organization (including AARP), AFL-CIO and evey union, every progressive website, Bernie Sanders and a number of other people in Congress are worried enough to set up a bunch of 800# hotlines and online petitions, and you are blowing every single one of them off? Any one of those sources, let alone all combined, have much more credibility than you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:32 AM

29. got a link?

 

Did you miss the part where he said that he agreed with MITT FUCKING RMONEY about SocSec? If you didn't miss it, did that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chunk (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:44 AM

38. Links to the debates are all over the intertubes n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:59 AM

43. No just the one where Obama is warm and fuzzy to mitt romney inside, thanks

 

Did you miss the part where he said that he agreed with MITT FUCKING RMONEY about SocSec? If you didn't miss it, did that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chunk (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:10 AM

47. Didn't say that. I said that Obama AGREED WITH Rmoney on SocSec

And I asked if that made you or the OP feel all warm and fuzzy. I thought it was one of the most disgusting comments in all of the debates myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:58 AM

180. Something is going to have be done about social security.

That could mean raising the cap on income. The fact that Obama agreed with Romney that there is a problem; is not the same as agreeing with Romney on what the solution should be.

We have a growing population of old people and a population of young people paying into the system that isn't growing fast enough.

The president acknowledged that something is going to have to be done. It would have been inaccurate for the president to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #180)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:14 PM

269. So do you believe we need to make it clear to Pres Obama how we feel or

sit back and praise whatever he does?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #269)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:50 PM

279. I think the best plan...

Is to come up with ideas about what the best course of action is; then make it clear what 'we' think he should do.

I don't think we should praise or condemn him until he has made his position known.

It certainly wouldn't hurt for us to individually let him know what we think the best course of action is, but I think if we all agreed on the same thing and then signed a petition saying that we agreed with it; that would be more pursuasive.

My personal position is eliminate the cap on income or at minimum raise the cap to 1/4 million or so. Maybe see how that affects revenue and then reduce the employees percentage if it is a significant increase in revenue.

I hope when he talked about 'a balanced approach' to reducing the deficit that he was talking about oil industry subsidies and crop subsidies being reduced. Which is more consistent with his other talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #279)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:23 PM

297. I dont disagree at all. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chunk (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:04 AM

79. "I suspect that on Social Security we’ve got a somewhat similar position"

e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-social-security_n_1940755.html

Obama followed by saying it needs to be "tweaked". Which is utter bullshit - Social Security is in very fine shape. The projections that it will only pay 80% of promised benefits starting 25 years from now are based on cooked numbers, they assumes that the economy will forever stay as bad as it is today. If the economy recovers even partially, then it will pay 100% for at least as far into the future as has been modeled (75 years).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #79)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:46 AM

107. The cap surely needs to be removed

That would be one tweak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #107)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:22 AM

150. Have those words come out of Obama's mouth?

He may have said it, but I missed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #150)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:28 AM

151. I have never heard him say "I am wearing underwear" either


"Tweak" can mean any sort of adjustment. The conclusion of you and your ilk that it means the end of the world is a product of your imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #151)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:42 AM

155. Ooh, me and my ilk!

If President Cool Breeze would just come out and say "raise the cap," the vast majority of this country would rally behind him. Including middle-class Republicans. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #155)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:17 PM

181. It seems like it would be a very easy thing to say.

Why he hasn't said it...who knows. We'll all see, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #150)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:21 PM

239. Obama has frequently advocated removing the caps.

As far back as 2007.

You're not paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #239)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:42 PM

245. Too bad he didn't get it done his first term.

Hopefully the second term's the charm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #245)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:57 PM

248. It was an epic political fail.

Obama should've dissolved the 112th Congress after passing a massive progressive package of legislation in the 111th Congress (divided congress = President decides if it sits).

He probably would've got reelected with super majorities never before seen.

Instead he played the slow game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #248)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:17 PM

256. Funny.

ACA isn't progressive, and "playing games" with the social safety net is unconscionable. And slavish devotion to Obama, or any elected official, is dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #150)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:28 AM

333. I want to hear Obama say "raise the cap." NOT someone else.

President Obama and nobody else. And I want to hear him SAY THOSE WORDS and say he supports the concept. Then and only then will I trust him on this issue.

To my knowledge, those words have never come out of Obama's mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:20 AM

135. I remember seeing this or something very much like it in the debates.

I couldn't say which one, but I heard with my own ears that Obama is ready to "reform entitlements" when the GOP accepts tax increases for the rich. It's frightening to think that may translate to: get ready to work until you drop dead.

I'll say it right now......if the retirement age is raised, if our benefits are cut, with the help of Democrats, I will be in Washington with my pitchfork and torch. I agree with those here who are starting their "preemptive" bitching. I will add mine to the chorus as well.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:19 AM

24. A righteous rant. Thanks! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:23 AM

26. Good op-ed, Scootaloo.

I agree with you just about the whole way. Enough needless worrying about stuff without reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:29 AM

27. Weak-minded analysis of circumstantial evidence loosely crafted from bits of id-based meme.

With an absolute certainty of truth.

Sounds like someone we know.

I know for a fucking FACT that Barack Obama has no intention of damaging any portion of the safety net. To say otherwise is to poison the dialogue on our side with personal tides of emotional instability, and offers aid and comfort to teabilly fucksticks.

I believe that is the technical term.

Offering alarmist opinion is one thing; to suggest that one KNOWS that Obama is a right-wing wolf in sheep's clothing, or an appeaser of fascists from either personal weakness or a bleary moral compass is the basest and most vile form of stupidity: unconscious projection of one's inner weirdnessess upon the world at large, and the primary authority figure in particular.

Really, it's fucked up to pre-accuse the most progressive and intelligent President in our lifetimes of base crimes based on intuition and evidence chains that are complete bullshit.

Hey, did you know Obama's building slave labor camps for progressives? It's true! I saw it in his eyes, and he once said the actual words! Not in that order, but I know what he meant!

Fucking crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:31 AM

28. It's worse than that,

my second cousin's sister-in-law's mailman's Sunday school teacher's dog walker's gardener's auto mechanic's next door neighbor's nephew's co-worker's chiropractor's baby sitter says that Obama is going to ban all cute cat pictures from the internet!!!! And, it's on the internet, so it must be true!! We should start a petition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rincewind (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:14 AM

81. But what about ugly cat pictures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:40 AM

34. There's nothing wrong with a self-unfulfilling prophecy.

I don't know how firm Obama's opposition to entitlement cuts is. I hope it's firmer than his insistence on a robust public option in the ACA proved to be.

My impression was that, in the debt-ceiling bargaining, he was willing to go along with a deal that included cuts in Social Security and/or Medicare, but I'm not sure of that without going back and immersing myself in the details. I am sure that he appointed deficit commission co-chairs who had no love for these programs and who duly proposed cuts. That doesn't mean that Obama would support such cuts, but it is a straw in the wind.

What we know is that there will be strong pressure from the right to attack all the social welfare programs, whether means tested (like Medicaid) or not (like Social Security and Medicare). What will happen if the left just sits back complacently and says, "Obama would never do that"? There's certainly at least a danger that Obama would do it. There's certainly at least a chance that a lot of squawking from the base, now, while attitudes are being set, can have a favorable impact on the eventual outcome.

We don't want anyone at a White House meeting to say something like, "Well, the liberals won't like this, but they'll just grumble a little and go along with it." They need to know now that we will NOT go along with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:46 AM

39. So true,

 

since Obama writes all laws, then minutes later approves them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chunk (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:29 AM

136. Sorry, but I completely don't understand your position.

I'm not saying that Obama writes all laws, and nothing I actually said comes remotely close to that.

I will maintain what I would have thought to be a noncontroversial proposition: that Obama has a great deal of influence over what becomes law. He can sign or veto bills passed by Congress. By stating his preferences, by using the bully pulpit, and by threatening a veto, he can also affect the processes on Capitol Hill. On fiscal policy and on most other major issues, therefore, it's worthwhile for progressives to attempt to influence Obama's decisions. Does your sarcasm imply that you disagree with any of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #136)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:58 PM

263. Well said, Jim Lane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:43 AM

36. OMG!!! I may have the computer off for a week!!! I might miss something!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:56 AM

41. "President Obama definitely had a bad night when he faced Governor Romney in Denver for the

 

first presidential debate. However, for many listeners the worst moment was not due to his atypical inarticulateness. Rather, the worst moment was when he quite clearly told the country that there was not much difference between his position on Social Security and Governor Romney's. He also expressed his desire to "tweak" Social Security to improve its finances."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/social-security-president_b_1951914.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:12 AM

48. Sorry but do you have a link?

 

there was not much difference between his position on Social Security and Governor Romney's. He also expressed his desire to "tweak" Social Security to improve its finances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chunk (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:14 AM

50. do you have some kind of problem?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:52 AM

61. Yes, thank you

 

However, for many listeners the worst moment was not due to his atypical inarticulateness. Rather, the worst moment was when he quite clearly told the country that there was not much difference between his position on Social Security and Governor Romney's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chunk (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:53 AM

160. Here you go.



At 8:50, President Obama states that his position on Social Security is somewhat similar to Romney's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:10 AM

80. Stop with the facts already! They make my head hurt!

Cleverly-penned bon mots like "what a scheming, two-faced, backstabbing devil Obama is", "nursing on Romney's cock", and "You really, really are going to slurp that vomit off the floor, aren't you? ", incubated in a 100% fact-free environment, are more my style.

Yay!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #80)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:26 PM

210. Doesn't really set the stage for rational dialog, does it?

I'm terribly disappointed in this OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:07 AM

44. Ermm . . . First Post Here, Ever

Scootaloo,

That was more heat than light, yes? Insulting your fellow progressives with such venom and vitriol convinces no one of anything save that you are in a near-incoherent rage over lefties-more-left-than-you-are putting pressure on the administration to defend certain much-attacked social programs.

Let me try enumerating ten points, as civilly and courteously and cogently as I can:

1.) This president—whom I very much like and admire, by the way—has a history of uttering soaring populist/progressive rhetoric during campaigns and then governing from a center-right political perspective/stance.

2.) President Obama has proposed that a so-called “Grand Bargain” include $4 trillion in savings. That’s a ratio of $3 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases
.
3.) If you let the Bush tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000, you already have $1 trillion in tax increases right there.

4.) President Obama has promised Corporate America a tax cut from 35% down to 28%, at the very time his administration is sounding the same-old, tired and discredited “Shock Doctrine” austerity rhetoric: “shared sacrifice” (when the past 30 years of wealth transfer to the richest 1% has been anything but); “reasonable compromise”; “bi-partisanship”; etc.

5.) You’ll notice that I keep citing “President Obama” directly. Not “vomit on the floor” or “some editorialist for CNBC” or ungrounded speculation and rumor-mongering but . . . “President Obama”. Because that’s who I’m citing as a primary source. President Obama.

6.) There is a definite mood and building consensus in Washington—both pre-election and post-election—that the “responsible and reasonable” thing to do will be to “tighten our belts” and pursue “fiscally responsible, deficit-reduction policies” that could result in actions such as the raising of the eligibility age for Medicare, Social Security, etc. True, nothing has been done yet—but reporter after politician after blogger after inside-the-Beltway witness has been talking about this grim, “belt-tightening” mood of consensus in Washington and communicating the fact of its existence to their various constituencies.

7.) Paul Krugman—though proven right time and time again on the economy and the various actions taken by this administration—still seems to get short-shrift from people who should know better. As he remarked to an interviewer recently: “I’m tried of being Cassandra; of being proved right after the fact. For once I’d like to be listened to before economic disaster strikes.” Paul Krugman regards with fear and alarm the very same outcomes you are ridiculing as preposterous and unthinkable. I hope, in this instance, that Krugman’s unease is proven unfounded and the “Wisdom and Insight of the Scootaloo” is proven right. Time will tell . . .

8.) It is fundamentally dishonest, unfair and hurtful to signal in advance of tough negotiations that reductions in spending might be made at the expense of the working poor and much-stressed middle class. Question: Why doesn’t President Obama make a clear and ringing statement to the effect that: “Since SS adds not one single dollar to our deficit, any talk of ‘SS reform’ is a non-starter.” Why not take it off the table before negotiations even begin? I’ll tell you why—I think you already know—because SS “reform” is very much on the table. This Democratic president may very well succeed to doing what no Republican has ever been able to accomplish: start to erode the cornerstone social policy achievement of FDR’s administration. It is this possible outcome—among others—that have caused social leftists like myself to raise the alarm.

9.) Like it or not, this president does have a four-year track record. His accomplishments are legion (too many to enumerate again here) but he ALSO has a record of center-right negotiating and expressed contempt and/or irritation and/or disengagement from his progressive/liberal base. (The examples I could cite in support of this stance are—like his accomplishments—too many to again enumerate here. If you’re as smart and informed as I think you are—and as fair-minded—you know very well what I mean.)

10.) So given all of this: the stakes at risk, President Obama’s past record of negotiating (I don’t think he’s a poor negotiator; I think he gets exactly what he wants: a center-right outcome); the necessity and urgency for liberals to remain engaged and put leftward-leaning pressure on this administration—why WOULDN’T progressives be up in arms over any hint of a sell-out or capitulation in advance of “Fiscal Cliff” talks?

I hope this missive—the first I’ve ever posted to Democratic Underground—causes you to rethink and re-examine some of the contempt and vitriol you dumped on the heads of hard-fighting progressives who hold a different opinion than you do.

PS. And no, I am not a “troll” or a “false concern care-bear” or a “lurker” or any of the other group-think, self-congratulatory/semi-paranoid in-group/out-group monikers some members here enjoy hurling at people who disagree with their stated opinions. I’m a working-class, 49-year-old, book-loving Chicago Democrat and political junkie who was so offended by your post that I was moved to write. For that, I thank you for getting me more directly involved in the discussion. Be well, Scootaloo!

Carl E. Reed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:25 AM

54. A well reasoned and thoughtfully articulated post. I hope to see more of that and you here /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:28 AM

67. Wellcome to DU!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:32 AM

71. Hear, hear.



Let me offer you the warmest welcome to DU that could ever exist. Your post is magnificent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:43 AM

75. Greatest first post ever. In history. Anywhere.

You knocked it out of two ballparks, Carl. Thank you for that well-thought out and comprehensive response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #75)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:24 AM

86. +1

I wish we could rec posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #75)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:33 AM

140. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:53 AM

78. Scootaloo's right - other than long lists of facts, you "progressives" have nothing to

back up your claims.

True Democrats know that the clever use of phrases like "nursing on Romney's cock", infused with innuendo fabricated from whole cloth, is far more persuasive than facts.

So take your facts and go somewhere where they actually matter! Here at DU, we prefer fantasy and false accusation.

(On a serious note, welcome to DU! I hope that you stick around, despite the mendacious yammering we put up with from the la-la-la-not-listening wing of the party.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:03 AM

90. Thanks for the big shot of anti-vitriolic reason.

Cheers!
Agony

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:13 AM

93. Thank you for your post. I hope articulate words like yours come easier to you than they do to me.

I hope you are "inspired" to write more on DU in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:38 AM

103. Nicely put!

Welcome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:52 AM

111. Well done.

Why anyone would mock those who are ready to hold Obama's feet to the fire, again -- just as he asked us to do! -- is beyond me. It reminds me of people "reassuring" others here a couple years ago that Obama wanting to "tweak" Social Security obviously didn't mean he was going to "slash" it. Well, OK -- but there's a lot of ground between "tweak" and "slash," and it's not slurping vomit off the floor to ask about specifics on the spectrum. So I especially like your No. 8.

Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:53 AM

112. Thank you, wonderful post

I look forward to seeing your posts around here more often, you have an excellent grasp of what's going on, and a constructive way of making your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:57 AM

114. Great post.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:32 AM

137. Very well said!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:44 AM

144. Carl, PLEASE do not be a stranger here at DU! An incredibly well thought-out post,

filled with genuine evidence. Anxiously looking forward to the counter-argument from the OP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #144)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:53 PM

200. No counter argument.

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Just a big box of toxic straw. Somewhat similar to the OP.

On edit:Scootaloo did add another response. And a good one. I wish he/she would have crafted the OP as sanely as is his response down thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021813696#post224

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:46 AM

145. That post is a pretty as a unicorn rainbow fart!

Thanks for posting that and welcome to DU. I hope you stay a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:38 AM

154. After reading Scootaloo's trademark toxicity...

it was really refreshing to read that. Welcome to DU, Carl E. Reed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:53 AM

161. A thunderclap of a post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:02 AM

164. I can't disagree with a thing you said

What is WRONG with Democrats who just accept whatever Obama does as "the best that is possible under the circumstances"?

Is it that they're too young to remember when Democrats actually stood for something instead of just reacting to the Republicans?

Anybody repeating Republican or Blue Dog talking points about Medicare needs to study the history of how and why it was enacted in the first place.

That "no criticism allowed" attitude makes me want to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #164)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:15 AM

350. It's good to be nostalgic but the world has changed a lot since FDR

What is even stranger is we just went through an even bigger financial meltdown than had happened in the thirty's (in real terms) yet we still have the misfortune of having to deal with the perpetrators that still have positions in our economic structure. It's different, really

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabels (Reply #350)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:04 PM

352. And whose fault is it that a bankster is Secretary of the Treasury?

Whose fault is it that an advocate of Ruling by Test Scores is Secretary of Education?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #352)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:26 AM

364. Who was that said keep your loved ones close.......

and your enemies even closer. Though i wouldn't think President Obama would of been doing this on purpose (but then again) it seems to be working out that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabels (Reply #364)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:16 AM

367. If that were the case, "keeping my enemies closer," I'd say

"Sir, if you want to keep your cushy Cabinet job, you will mend your ways and do things for the benefit of ordinary people, or I will ask for your resignation and you will be holding a press conference in which you state that you 'want to spend more time with your family.'"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:08 AM

165. Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:13 AM

168. Thank you for speaking up so clearly and forcefully.

 

This is one of the best posts ever in response to an OP.

Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:19 PM

192. YEP!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:53 PM

201. Well said "vitriol you dumped on the heads of hard-fighting progressives"

 

and very well thought out and written post overall. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:48 PM

211. Excellent post and welcome to DU

A vast majority here would agree with you. Then there are a few who should just scoot along and stay out of the activists way. If we fail and our worst fears come true, there will be people like Scootaloo who will be scratching their heads and wondering what we could have done to stop it from happening. One would think all Democrats would be united in preserving and strengthening the pillars of our party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:30 PM

220. You should build your post count and make this an OP.

This is a a well written and well reasoned explanation of why alarm bells are ringing on the left.

Also a good reminder that certain people in our own party would have us sit down rather than defend traditional party values. Normally I just ignore them but you can also do . . . what you did. Damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:53 PM

224. First off, welcome to DU.

I do like this post of yours, it's pretty good, even if I'm going to chew on it like a pit bull eating an olive garden breadstick.

For starters, I'm not insulting my fellow progressives. I'm insulting people who embrace fantasy, turn it into sky-is-falling rhetoric, and use that to launch attacks against Democrats and anyone who might support them, ever. I'm attacking panickmongering nonsense-bearers who, just by virtue of the president existing automatically assume the absolute worst at all times. I'm attacking the use of breathless editorials penned by the same people who've been working against us for decades as credible sources for what's going on inside the president's head. I'm attacking people who walk through life in a nihilist haze of everything everywhere always being utter shit, and who attack others who dare to think otherwise.

If that's what makes a person a "progressive," then progressivism must be in a pretty sorry state. And i guess that means the many people who evidently aren't insulted aren't themselves progressives? Probably not what you meant, I guess, but kind of reads out that way. Point is, "my fellow progressives" aren't people who wallow in abject misery over every wobbly poll number and George Will article, and spread that morose despair around as if it were incontrovertible fact.

Now for your points, I'm afraid for the most part it's self-referencing supposition and assumption on your part, backed only by an unwillingness to provide backing for the statements contained.

1) This "center-right" nonsense is just that... Nonsense. For the most part the assumption rests on how the president handles foreign policy... which is more or less identical to how every president since Roosevelt has handled foreign policy, for better or worse. In other affairs, he's quite clearly center-left. Sure, that's not far enough to the left, but hey, it's something. If you want to see "center," look at Clinton. If you want to see center-right, look at Bush.

2) And you assume every cent of those cuts will be squeezed out of grandma's benefits? Why? "Because!" isn't an answer.

3) A sound argument for ending the Bush tax cuts. Which is what's going to happen unless the Republicans work with Obama figure out how to increase taxes. Which isn't going to happen. Boehner's squawking about "closing loopholes," as Romney did, with just as much depth and as many specifics. This means that your center-right claim is being painted onto a guy who's propping his feet up and waving bye-bye to a crowning piece of center-right legislation.

4) I don't know if you've ever read Naomi Klein, but since you're using her term, I'd suggest re-reading. Seriously, re-read "The Shock Doctrine," then compare it to this administration. Reducing the maximum tax rate for corporations by 10% while also increasing the bottom rate, closing breaks and loopholes (unlike the Pukes, he gives specifics such as off-shoring tax breaks, and taxing foreign earnings) is kind of fucking far from what Klein writes about.

5) Except you only actually cited Obama in point #3 up to this point (barring your goofy misrepresentation in point #4)... And you don't ever cite him again after that. You cite yourself a few times, and you cite Paul Krugman, but you only cite something actually stated by the president those two times; and one of them is you trying to equate him with the policies of Margaret Thatcher or something.

6) A "consensus", according to Republican-dominated media, and conservative thinktanks, that actually isn't represented in the Democrats who you are attaching the opinion to.. .Well, maybe a few, there's always been a few, but by and large... This is a phantom, pundits trying to create a narrative. And you're buying into it. You really shouldn't.

7) There's really no conflict between Krugman and myself. We're both going after sky-is-falling-oh-noes nonsense. He's going after the promulgators of it - the beltway pundits, conservative "thinkers," and those sorts who are screechign that Social Security is going ot crash around everyone's ears any minute now. I'm going after obstinately progressive people who hear those people squawking, and run to the assumption that the evil two-faced duplicitous motherfuckers in the Democratic party are of course going to go along with it all because OHMIGAWD TEH PARTIES R TEH SAME!!!!!~!!!!!~@ The closest I've found from Krugman that mirrors your panic is his advice to the administration to not impliment Simpson-Bowles. Of course, the administration rejected Simpson-Bowles before krugman gave that advice, so I guess it was just prophylactic finger-shaking. you know, just in case.

8 ) You seem pretty convinced that Obama is going to sell us all down the river. Up to this point, where you solidify this position, you have offered no backing for that belief... And... you still offer no backing. The president - via the Vice President - has already stated that Social Security is not going to be cut. Of course, your response to that is to buckle down and insist that he's lying, same as it is for the others who are so "insulted." When the administration tells you point blank that no, this is not the plan, you simply dismiss such a statement because you KNOW you're going to get your back stabbed. it doesn't fit into the "Obama is the devil" narrative, so it must be dismissed utterly, or even used as further proof of what a lying bastard he is. In other words, using contrary evidence as positive evidence. Like arguing that bigfoot is real because bigfoot is very stealthy and no one has any evidence of bigfoot, SEE?!

9) Yes, he has a record of such negotiating... None of which has resulted in any actual center-right policy, despite your claim in the next point. I know that for those who truly, fervently believe that Obama's just a duplicitous conman the notion that he's a fucking good politician is impossible to conceive, even offensive to consider - thus the derision given towards the term "playing chess," despite the fact he keeps making checkmate against his opponents. Such negotiations are theater; baiting the Republicans into revealing they have absolutely no interest in negotiating, even when offered their own ideas for a baseline. it's a tool in breaking their deathgrip in the legislation. Which is of course why their mouthpieces are working so, so very hard to convince you that Obama's going to institute death panels... er, uh, slash into social security so grandma has to eat catfood. By question is simply why you're falling for it.

10) There's a difference between "putting leftward pressure on" or "making our stance known," and "Running around screaming on major progressive discussion areas that Obama is definitely going to fuck us all over, the two-faced asshole!" You understand? Voicing a concern is different thing than assuming the worst-case scenario is current reality and using it as a bludgeon against progressives. The different is application of active neurons. The difference is the difference between Krugman and Beck... and the people I'm referring to aren't looking like the Krugman end of the scale right now.

Now, all that said... You don't need to justify yourself with a life story or anything. The fact that you actually typed all this up and spell-checked (probably better than I did!) and at least tried to make some points (even if, in my take, you haven't done so) already cleared you of any suspicion of being a 'winger

Anyway. welcome to DU, Carl. Shame to see you're still at 2 posts. Even if we might not agree on much here, this was pretty well-crafted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #224)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:40 PM

277. Why respond with what appears to be ...

... a collection of straw men?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:35 PM

233. very good and welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:53 PM

246. This President is not a populist and never was a populist.

All of his policy proposals follow from his nomination speech, deficit reduction, putting "everything on the table" have been center right.

I agree that "putting pressure" is necessary.

The OP is not about "putting pressure" it's about the right wing narrative flowing through DU with bullshit post after bullshit post.

I mean, let's look at the $4 trillion number you throw out there. Sounds scary, right? Except Simpson-Bowles wanted to reduce the deficit by $6 trillion. Oh, and Obama throws the $4 trillion number around because he already got $1.7 trillion in savings. In reality the savings would be closer to $2 trillion: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3856

So, while your paragraph sounds really bad, like Obama the center-right / bipartisan / moderate President is going to throw everyone under the bus, cut SS, Medicare, etc, it's not the reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:23 PM

259. indeed

I've been making many of the same points to the blind cheer leading squad since they started in with this nonsense.

BHO could have laid all the concerns to rest a long time ago, and it's the fact that he hasn't more than anything else, is what justifies the fears/concerns this crew has been whining tirelssly about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:20 PM

272. As first posts go, I'll say that's number 1!

Excellent missive, sir!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:32 PM

275. bravo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:19 PM

306. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - And Thank You !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:22 PM

311. You are not well informed, are you? Too busy talking, to read?

Social Security - Obama has stated that SS is off the table.

He has not governed from the center-right. In your opinion, maybe. But not mine, and I'm not center-right. Your opinion does make something a truism. It's opinion.

Have you not heard the fiscal cliff plan? I guess not. Google, and you'll find it.

Best to read up and be informed before posting arrogant I-know-it-all posts.

Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:08 AM

45. I don't know

why ARE so many DUers reccing this thread?

I wonder if you were one of those people.

Back in October and November of 2010, there were a number of DUers spreading rumors. They wrote threads like "Obama is gonna cave on the Bush tax cuts" (something I had predicted as far back as February 2010 and decided to run for Congress to try to prevent it). Others pushed back, wagging their finger at such unfounded speculation. They swore that, of course Obama would never cave on the Bush tax cuts. Probably the same people who swore that it did not matter that Obama was filling his cabinet with a bunch of conservative DLCers, because Obama was the President and Obama was a progressive even though he could not see fit to appoint any progressive to the cabinet other than the invisible woman Hilda Solis.

Then, whoops, December rolled around and suddenly Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts and zip-zop his comprosurrender was signed into law about a week later after only a token opposition from Bernie Sanders.

Some in the media are pushing Obama to make a "grand bargain". Well, I make no apoligies for adding my voice to the people who are demanding of Obama "just say NO to a 'grand bargain, play hardball against the Republicans and avoid the spelunking that you did so much of over the last four years."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:49 AM

158. Good question... you think they might have learned after the Bush tax cuts cave. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:14 AM

49. Ermm . . . My First Post Here

Scootaloo,

That was more heat than light, yes? Insulting your fellow progressives with such venom and vitriol convinces no one of anything save that you are in a near-incoherent rage over lefties-more-left-than-you-are putting pressure on the administration to defend certain much-attacked social programs.

Let me try enumerating ten points, as civilly and courteously and cogently as I can:

1.) This president—whom I very much like and admire, by the way—has a history of uttering soaring populist/progressive rhetoric during campaigns and then governing from a center-right political perspective/stance.

2.) President Obama has proposed that a so-called “Grand Bargain” include $4 trillion in savings. That’s a ratio of $3 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases.

3.) If you let the Bush tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000, you already have $1 trillion in tax increases right there.

4.) President Obama has promised Corporate America a tax cut from 35% down to 28%, at the very time his administration is sounding the same-old, tired and discredited “Shock Doctrine” austerity rhetoric: “shared sacrifice” (when the past 30 years of wealth transfer to the richest 1% has been anything but); “reasonable compromise”; “bi-partisanship”; etc.

5.) You’ll notice that I keep citing “President Obama” directly. Not “vomit on the floor” or “some editorialist for CNBC” or ungrounded speculation and rumor-mongering but . . . “President Obama”. Because that’s who I’m citing as a primary source. President Obama.

6.) There is a definite mood and building consensus in Washington—both pre-election and post-election—that the “responsible and reasonable” thing to do will be to “tighten our belts” and pursue “fiscally responsible, deficit-reduction policies” that could result in actions such as the raising of the eligibility age for Medicare, Social Security, etc. True, nothing has been done yet—but reporter after politician after blogger after inside-the-Beltway witness has been talking about this grim, “belt-tightening” mood of consensus in Washington and communicating the fact of its existence to their various constituencies.

7.) Paul Krugman—though proven right time and time again on the economy and the various actions taken by this administration—still seems to get short-shrift from people who should know better. As he remarked to an interviewer recently: “I’m tried of being Cassandra; of being proved right after the fact. For once I’d like to be listened to before economic disaster strikes.” Paul Krugman regards with fear and alarm the very same outcomes you are ridiculing as preposterous and unthinkable. I hope, in this instance, that Krugman’s unease is proven unfounded and the “Wisdom and Insight of the Scootaloo” is proven right. Time will tell . . .

8.) It is fundamentally dishonest, unfair and hurtful to signal in advance of tough negotiations that reductions in spending might be made at the expense of the working poor and much-stressed middle class. Question: Why doesn’t President Obama make a clear and ringing statement to the effect that: “Since SS adds not one single dollar to our deficit, any talk of ‘SS reform’ is a non-starter.” Why not take it off the table before negotiations even begin? I’ll tell you why—I think you already know—because SS “reform” IS very much on the table. This Democratic president may very well succeed in doing what no Republican has ever been able to accomplish: start to erode the cornerstone social policy achievement of FDR’s administration. It is this possible outcome—among others—that have caused leftists like myself to raise the alarm.

9.) Like it or not, this president does have a four-year track record. His accomplishments are legion (too many to enumerate again here) but he ALSO has a record of center-right negotiating and expressed contempt and/or irritation and/or disengagement from his progressive/liberal base. (The examples I could cite in support of this stance are—like his accomplishments—too many to again enumerate here. If you’re as smart and informed as I think you are—and as fair-minded—you know very well whereof I speak.)

10.) So given all of this: the stakes at risk, President Obama’s past record of negotiating (I don’t think he’s a poor negotiator; I think he gets exactly what he wants: a center-right outcome); the necessity and urgency for liberals to remain engaged and put leftward-leaning pressure on this administration—why WOULDN’T progressives be up in arms over any hint of a sell-out or capitulation-in-advance of “Fiscal Cliff” talks? Isn't that our duty as informed citizenry of the Republic? To remain engaged in the political discussion and exert pressure BEFORE another in a long, long line of unfavorable outcomes occurs?

I hope this missive—the first I’ve ever posted to Democratic Underground—causes you to rethink and re-examine some of the contempt and vitriol you dumped on the heads of hard-fighting progressives who hold a different opinion than you do.

PS. And no, I am not a “troll” or “false concern care-bear” or “lurker” or any of the other group-think, self-congratulatory/semi-paranoid in-group/out-group monikers some members here enjoy hurling at people who disagree with their stated opinions. I’m a working-class, 49-year-old, book-loving Chicago Democrat and political junkie who was so offended by your post that I was moved to write. For that, I thank you—I'm now directly involved in the discussion. Cheers!

Carl E. Reed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:23 AM

52. thank you, Carl!

Nobody that I know of likes to be scolded, but a very large number of people love to administer public, pseudonymous scoldings to the insufficiently-party-loyal. (Whatever the "party" in question, be it religious, political...) Others cheer on the abusive rhetoric, calling it "rants"-- but the "rants" here, when election season is past, are overwhelmingly directed at fellow progressives! I joined DU in 2002 but have hardly posted in the last six years because once Dems regained Congress, Dem solidarity was replaced here by incessant abuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to carolinayellowdog (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:33 AM

72. Authoritarian followers nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:31 AM

69. Hey there, Carl, welcome to DU.

Yeah, sometimes we do bicker amongst one another. It's kinda like siblings in a family, I guess. But I think you'll find that ever with all our disagreements, we're a pretty tight-knit community.

Have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:26 AM

98. This is worth a double post! if ever there was a worthy one...

Thanks for being here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:34 AM

153. It's impressive

10.) So given all of this: the stakes at risk, President Obama’s past record of negotiating (I don’t think he’s a poor negotiator; I think he gets exactly what he wants: a center-right outcome); the necessity and urgency for liberals to remain engaged and put leftward-leaning pressure on this administration—why WOULDN’T progressives be up in arms over any hint of a sell-out or capitulation-in-advance of “Fiscal Cliff” talks? Isn't that our duty as informed citizenry of the Republic? To remain engaged in the political discussion and exert pressure BEFORE another in a long, long line of unfavorable outcomes occurs?

...whenever someone presents a lenghty, vague argument just to support a flawed premise. At least it's impressive to those who want to believe it.

Yeah, "center right" outcomes like repealing DADT, rejecting DOMA and standing up for marriage equality, Wall Street reform, strengthening Medicare and adding benefits to the program, and these:

Obama Signs Children’s Health Insurance Bill

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — The House gave final approval on Wednesday to a bill extending health insurance to millions of low-income children, and President Obama signed it this afternoon, in the first of what he hopes will be many steps to guarantee coverage for all Americans.

<...>

The roll call ended a two-year odyssey for the child health legislation, which President George W. Bush adamantly opposed on the ground it would lead to “government-run health care for every American.”

<...>

In a major change, the bill allows states to cover certain legal immigrants — namely, children under 21 and pregnant women — as well as citizens.

Until now, legal immigrants have generally been barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States. States will now be able to cover those immigrants without the five-year delay.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05health.html


16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

"Center right" my ass!

Welcome to DU.



Oh, and this...

Health care reform is the law of the land: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021808119

This election feels different
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021769342

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #153)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:47 PM

278. Center-right outcomes like the ACA.

His signature achievement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #278)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:13 AM

317. "His signature achievement."

Yes, the law that added benefits for Medicare recipients and strengthened that program.

Obama's health care law is the biggest expansion of Medicaid since the program's inception. None of the health care laws offered up by Republicans since the 1980s attempted this because they hate Medicaid. They've been trying to get rid of it for decades.

'Obamacare is the law of the land'

By Steve Benen

The road to health care reform hasn't exactly been easy. After waiting nearly a century, Americans had to (1) wait for a Democratic president and a large Democratic congressional majority; (2) overcome a Supreme Court challenge; and (3) re-elect that Democratic president.

As of this week, the pieces are in place for the law's prolonged security, and as of yesterday, the nation's leading Republican conceded he's effectively giving up trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans' efforts to undo President Barack Obama's health care reform law appear to have come to an end, as House Speaker John Boehner described it Thursday as the "law of the land."

In an interview with ABC News, the nation's top elected Republican seemed to indicate that Congress wouldn't engage in the type of repeated repeal votes the way it had in the past two years.

<...>

Soon after, the Speaker said on Twitter that the Republican "goal" remains "full repeal" of the law, but it seems clear that this rhetoric is only intended to make the GOP base feel better. Boehner can have any "goals" he likes, but if he doesn't intend to actually waste time pursuing pointless ambitions, these aspirations are irrelevant.

What's more, once the full law is implemented in 2014, it will be all but impossible to roll back its protections and benefits going forward. The Affordable Care Act will take root and join other pillars of modern civil society as basic parts of American public life.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/09/15048098-obamacare-is-the-law-of-the-land


Updated to add:

The Candidates Who Ran And Won On Obamacare

By Tara Culp-Ressler

Throughout President Obama’s first term, House Republicans spent over 80 hours on more than 30 different votes attempting to repeal health care reform. Altogether, GOP lawmakers wasted over $50 million on their repeated failed attempts to take away health care from 30 million additional Americans — and that trend continued during this year’s campaign season, as Republican candidates poured over $20 million into advertisement campaigns against Obamacare.

But candidates on the other side of the aisle actually saw more success with the opposite approach. The Democratic National Convention, when many Democrats finally started touting Obama’s landmark health reform law, kicked off a season of politicians campaigning on the strength of Obamacare’s merits — and ultimately winning their races. The following candidates successfully ran on their support for Obamacare:

Bill Nelson (D-FL)
<...>

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
<...>

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
<...>

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
<...>

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
<...>

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/08/1158931/the-candidates-who-ran-and-won-on-obamacare/





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #317)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:59 AM

339. Nice Red Herring You Put Up There ...

I offered no opinion one way or another. The ACA is better than nothing, but it definitely is not as good as what we could have gotten.

Regardless, the bill's greatness or lack thereof, or who or who did not support the bill is irrelevant.

The bill was hatched as a Heritage Foundation idea. The Heritage Foundation, as you may know, is a right wing think tank. Obama took a right-wing policy idea, with modifications, and pushed his version of a that idea. He made this his "signature achievement." Remember, our debate was whether Obama governs from the center-right or not. I presented his right-wing, with modifications, idea he got passed and signed as his signature achievement.

At this point, the bill's success or not is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #339)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:07 AM

341. Nonsense.

"The bill was hatched as a Heritage Foundation idea. The Heritage Foundation, as you may know, is a right wing think tank. "

You can find similarities in every health care bill for the past century. Not a single Republican bill in the last 40 years included an expansion of Medicaid...not a single one. While there are similarities, there are other significant differences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #341)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:12 AM

342. Look, we'll agree to disagree ...

Look, I like Obama and voted for him. I do happen to believe he governs center-right. That, to me, is pretty much empirical. You disagree, and that's fine.

I've read many of your posts, and you tend to defend Obama tooth and nail. I'm totally fine with that. You defend him while rarely being uncivil towards others. Sometimes you make valid claims. I can definitely respect and appreciate that.

We happen to disagree in how he governs (and remember, I like him, too - just wish he'd govern from a more progressive position - and maybe he will in his second term). I've just become really cynical these past 12 years.

Anyway, I'm off to work. Be well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #342)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:07 AM

348. Facts have nothing to do with defending him.

Fact: No Republican health care plan offered up over the last 40 years included Medicaid. You can continue to ignore that and all the other differences in the health care law to justify your opinions.

I mean, I find it fascinating that people are insistent on defining Obama as a center-right President when the last two Democratic Presidents were Clinton and Carter, both to the right of Obama, with Carter being the more conservative of the two.

Want to extrapolate to other politicians who were never President or to world politics, fine. Don't pretend that in the scheme of American Presidential politics that Obama is center-right. It's bullshit.

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #317)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:31 AM

363. Yup.

Would it be a diversion to point out that the progressives were adults about this and voted for Obamacare despite the lack of a public option. Meanwhile some the blue dogs and their ilk were the ones that gave Republi-cover to the votes against it.

I railed against the lack of a public option here. I made a huge fuss about it but in the end I supported the politicians that voted for it. Interesting, isn't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:55 PM

187. That was brilliant. Thanks.................nft

 

ddddd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:39 PM

276. This should be an OP. Welcome to DU+++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cer7711 (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:48 PM

315. Thanks for the very cogent post, Carl.

Welcome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:24 AM

53. Amen. Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:32 AM

56. the good and bad

Yes, we do have to remind Obama why he won. We cannot deny that people have his ear, like Erskine Bowles, or even Hillary Clinton. Obama has shown he works when there is PRESSURE APPLIED, which is fine really, as Democracy is not about electing someone every four years and thinking everything is groovy. Obama DOES need to know that if he backs up, the same power that put himk into power can and will be applied against him.


HOWEVER:

I do agree with you that there are people who do enjoy slaming Obama, and that they are EAGER and WILLING to go TURBO-CHARGED NASTY on the democrats. They were eager to do it all year, but dared not when they realized that yes, Mitt really was selling himself to the Tea Party, and they did not want to repeat the same mistake they made in 2000, the same mistake they will deny with their dying breath, but they and we know is true.

They are the equivalent of four-pack a day chain-smokers who had to quit until the cancer results came up negative, and yell "I wanna fucking cigarette!" the second they hear that they do not have cancer yet. These are the same folks that gave us 2010, the same people that the GOP depends upon. The people who get paychecks from the GOP, and are so arrogant they actually think that they are NOT tools (yeah Nader and Hamsher, that WAS aimed your way.)

What is dangerous is that they are eager to give shelter and comfort to the enemy, because they think that have control. Never mind that we Obama-bots helpd get out the vote, even in those Southern states they said we should ignore, no, they think this is about THEM. They are the ones eager to praise Chris Christie, and also to give camera time to the Libertarians (Cenk, you allowed Gary Johnson to be feted on your show, I will NOT forget that.)

The truth is, all sides:, the right, the center and the left have wolves in sheep's clothing, and it is our job to make sure said wolves do not come near the lambs. They know that as long as politics is some reality show where people are god one week and scum the next, they will not actually have to do the work. If there is one thing to come out of the Obama era, it may be that we finally realize a very un-american idea; that the people who make a dofference in the world are NOT the loud people, or the ones with "brilliant" ideas, but the people who, once they accpet a good idea, simply do the work needed to protect and nurture it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:48 AM

59. As someone that was involved in the GOTV effort in a southern state,

I'm calling bullshit on your second to last paragraph right fucking now. I didn't see a single Obama-bot working to get out the vote. What I saw were the screaming liberals the authoritarians so love to hate on. I've heard the same from people in other states.

It's why the party backs off their "Lol. Stupid liberals." attitude every four years. Because we're the fucking ones that do all the goddamned work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:51 AM

60. well as another person who was involved in that effort

I can call BS on you, especially as whenever we called some people on voting, we got the "We are too liberal for Obama" BS thrown at us.

Much as you and I may wish otherwise, Obama belong to allsections of the left, from the Blue Dogs to the Greens that held their nose this time, and voted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #60)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:57 AM

62. I didn't hear much of that.

Mostly what I got knocking on doors or calling people was racial slurs, both at him and at me. :/

I'm so glad that election is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #62)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:17 PM

237. I will be the first to acknowledge

That while I could have drawn the "I am still glad I voted Nader" cranks, you drew the "Obama needs to compromise" cranks; ometimes it is luck of the draw. That is why we comes to a place like this, so that we can get info we would not get otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:45 AM

57. Yeah, the same pack of usual suspects

that had to be repeatedly shouted down when they insisted the president was going to extend the tax cuts for the rich. The same pack that insisted the insurance companies were being given too much power in HCR. Oh, and the last time they panicked? It was because Obama offered those cuts.

A lot of people are freaking out because they're fucking scared. They don't have the privilege of waiting and seeing. If the cuts happen they are stone cold fucked, and they know it. For someone that screams about privilege all the time, you're completely fucking blind to your own.

As for me I'm cautiously optimistic. I don't think cuts are coming to MC/MA/SS.

By the way: When people are scared yelling at them and telling them how much they suck does little to reassure them. Especially when it's coming from the people they know are going to yell at them and tell them they suck no matter what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:18 AM

64. Matt Bai: "Will Obama Agree to Entitlement Cuts? He Already Has"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/will-obama-agree-to-entitlement-cuts-he-already-has


None of this is theoretical or subjective. It’s spelled out clearly in the confidential offers that the two sides exchanged at the time and that I obtained while writing about the negotiations last spring.

In his opening bid, after the rough framework of a grand bargain was reached, Mr. Boehner told the White House he wanted to cut $450 billion from Medicare and Medicaid in the next decade alone, with more cuts to follow. He also proposed raising the retirement age for Social Security and changing the formula to make benefits less generous.

Mr. Obama wasn’t willing to go quite that far. But in his counteroffer a few days later, he agreed to squeeze $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years, with $800 billion more in the decade after that. He was willing to cut $110 billion more from Medicaid in the short term. And while Mr. Obama rejected raising the retirement age, he did acquiesce to changing the Social Security formula so that benefits would grow at a slower rate.

This distance between the two sides on entitlement spending was sizable but not unbridgeable. In the end, the deal fell apart over the ratio of cuts to revenue. Mr. Obama wanted $400 billion more in new revenue than he and Mr. Boehner had initially discussed. Mr. Boehner couldn’t sell that number to his caucus, and he wasn’t going to try without getting even more drastic cuts to entitlements in return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #64)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:43 AM

76. BULLSHIT! Other than the President's own repeated words and actions, you Republicans-

posing-as-Democrats have NOTHING.

For example, most people don't know that Obama INHERITED the Catfood Commission from Bush! It's not he who appointed the two most outspoken and storied foes of Social Security to chair a commission to figure out how to save money. Sure, they don't know it because it's nonsense - I just made it up - but that's no different from all of the other bizarre paving over of the facts by the make-believe patrol.

So stop with your "Obama's actually tried to cut Social Security". And don't even think of quoting the President in September when he said: "Now, I'm still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission." and all the other times he's made this crystal clear. Just drink the Kool-aid, kick back, and watch while real men Grand Bargain us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #76)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:28 AM

170. "Just drink the Kool-aid." OK. But why do the we-hate-liberals crowd only offer sugar-free Kool-aid?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #170)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:17 PM

182. Interesting how the Sensible crowd accuses us of fellating Romney

and other marvelous, marvelous stuff - instead of presenting facts.

Maybe Liberals do the same, but I don't recall seeing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #182)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:26 PM

231. I alerted on the OP.

There was no excuse for taking that abusive tone on his part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #231)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:38 AM

366. Good. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #64)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:04 PM

264. To be fair, those "cuts" were mainly fraud reduction measures.

Obama does want to raise the retirement age and raise the deductible on Part B starting in 2017, though. And it'll probably happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #264)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:28 PM

298. Yes, and the cuts didn't happen either.

But that's reasonable discussion. It's not as fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:06 PM

250. Need the regular 5 minutes hate, yaknow?

I'm waiting to bump that insane Dec. surprise thread in Jan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:45 AM

58. Thank you Scootaloo!

I love your post for those of little faith!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ivywoods55 (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:58 AM

63. Politics ain't religion and Obama ain't God

And not all of us here on DU are religious anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:23 AM

65. Yeah, what we really really need to talk about is secessionists

Those are the real danger to the social safety net, there's thousands of them.























For the differently clued.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:29 AM

68. Thank you, Scootaloo! I just ignore them or

Trash them for the most part. It's the same ol same ol.. gets a lot of replies..all just as outraged about What.

Here's a little something I just posted on another thread in reply to somene worried about Pres Obama cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid..

Harry Reid's response: "We are not going to mess with Social Security"

'Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate are saying this week that they won't push changes to Social Security as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget deficit.

"We are not going to mess with Social Security," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters as he left a news conference Wednesday, according to Reuters.

During the conference, Reid invited Republicans to "dance" rather than fight over the so-called "fiscal cliff" -- the nickname given a looming expiration of tax cuts and spending cuts that will take effect at the end of the year."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/social-security-harry-reid_n_2093482.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:32 AM

70. President Obama himself went on a campaign promoting cuts to social security just over a year ago.

In the following DU post I excerpted remarks of the President in which he promoted cutting social security:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1119041

So there is, in fact, clear evidence that the President has proposed cutting social security. And that's why it is reasonable to try to head off the possibility that he will renew the effort and this time get it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #70)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:15 AM

82. I'm alerting on you

And I hope that your post is hidden, pronto.

Sorry, but I have no choice. "Facts" and "reality" have no place in a thread like this.

I'll bet you use "math" and believe in "science" too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:38 AM

73. Excuse me but despite your foul characterization of everyone with a memory, he already agreed to do

 

just that. Last summer.

I know that you don't want to admit it and are counting on American's collective amnesia, but had the teahadists not killed the deal between he and boner, it would already have been done. It was all over the news as well as the internet. I'd say that qualifies as rather more than a shred of evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:49 AM

77. The handful of "usual suspects"... Yes! Thanks for saying what the vast majority of DUers think.

Many of them have been mostly in hiding and, as I expected, are now rearing their ___ heads to begin anew stirring up hate and discontent. Oy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:20 AM

84. You Mean BULLS*** Like:

 

"the U.S. military is totally pulling out of Afghanistan"??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:23 AM

85. Definitely agree with you

Obama has always played the long game and has consistently shown an ability to put himself in a position to succeed. He has also NEVER shown himself to be prone to impulse or extreme proposals...he's a sculptor, not a hatchet-man.

It is not a coincidence that he did health care reform in his first term rather than his second. Neither is it a fluke that the Bush tax cut extension was negotiated to end after the 2012 election.

Obama has no future election to worry about and is obviously savvy enough to understand the party's political position going into 2014/2016.

I am anxious to see where he goes with his proposals, but certainly not nervous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:58 AM

88. I see no harm in making the President aware in advance what we progressives think about any notion

of cutting SS or Medicare. While I agree with some of your points, I think my concern is justified. The fact remains that he has NOT taken it off of the table.

Bookmarking for a later pat on the back... or slap on the back of the head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:59 AM

89. Knee jerks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:12 AM

91. Thank you!

For this thread. I've also noted the people with a case of the "o noooooooesssss" are the same people speculating on who the thugs are running in 2016. Think about that . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:25 AM

96. Thanks to the teachings of Manny, HiPointDem, Fumesucker, and Bonobo, who, according to new guy Carl

Are the only true progressives in this entire thread (since they're the ones who were insulted) I have seen the light. Braise be to Tengri (yes, braise, dude loves Mongolian barbeque) I can now see the truth, delivered by their guiding hands.

Barack obama really is a lying, deceitful, two-faced scumbag who's planning to sell us all down the river for shits and giggles. it's true! The True progressives have spoken! The rest of you... You should all feel shame! Shame at voting for this back-stabbing, tricky motherfucker. Some of you, the worst of the un-progressive, grandma-hating lot like me, actually voted for him twice. For us, it's weekly flagellation, I'm afraid.

All this time... for a little over four years, I've seen Barack Obama as a passable Liberal president, a first step in the right direction. How foolish I was. Oh, so foolish. I... indeed, all of us, save for these four mighty prophets, voted for who we thought was a man who could deliver a generally progressive agenda. But no! No, a mere week after the election... it is revealed that in truth... In truth we elected Paul Ryan in blackface.

Thank you, Manny, Hipointdem, Fumesucker, Bonobo, Cthulu2016, and New Guy Carl... Without your help, I would have never realized what immediate danger we were in. So... What now? Rally for impeachment, right? I mean, we can't let this go on, right guys? We have to take this motherfucker down, toss him in the street. I mean he's absolutely for sure going to cut every entitlement program, while also absolutely for sure passing all the savings on to the top corporate donors, right? He's going to rob us blind, like the sneaky underhanded conman he is! We have to... we have to...

Oh... bitch on the internet? Well... Seems anticlimactic. But I guess you guys can't possibly be wrong!
Reverence two-year-old NYT articles? Really, shouldn't we... No, no, you're the True Progressives.
Vote Jill Stein? Oh, now you go too far.

- because I know I'm being too subtle for some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:36 AM

101. THANK YOU, Scootaloo !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:37 AM

102. +1,000,000,000,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:54 AM

113. HiPointdem???

Rings a Bell to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:42 AM

121. So are you okay with the cuts to social security the President has proposed?

Sorry to interrupt the ranting with a trifling detail, but do you agree with President Obama's stated position that we ought to cut social security benefits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #121)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:48 AM

123. President Obama's Opening Move: Raise $1.6 Trillion In New Tax Revenue From The Wealthy

President Obama's Opening Move: Raise $1.6 Trillion In New Tax Revenue From The Wealthy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021810643

Good stuff!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #121)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:13 AM

132. Can you provide a link please to this stated position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #132)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:48 AM

179. Yes, here are a number of quotes by the President from July and August, 2011:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #179)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:18 PM

271. Obama Revives Social Security Idea: Raise Payroll Tax Cap

"You know, I do think that looking at changing the cap is an important aspect of putting Social Security on a more stable footing," Obama said, via satellite feed. "And what I've said is, is that I'm willing to work with Republicans and examine all their ideas, but what I'm not going to do, as a matter of principle, is to slash benefits or privatize Social Security and suddenly turn it over to Wall Street -- because we saw what could happen back in 2008 and 2009 when the stock market crashed, and we are still recovering from that."


You linked Obama quotes that are directly related to his "willingness to work with Republicans" and not advocacy positions for cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #271)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:51 PM

287. This one is clearly an advocacy position for cutting social security benefits:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me separate out some of these programs. And I’m going to start with Social Security. People pay into Social Security. It’s a social insurance program. They’re not getting it for free. It’s not a handout. It’s taken out of your check. It’s been taken out of your check for a lifetime. And it provides you a floor when you retire.

Now, hopefully, people have other savings that help supplement their incomes in their golden years. But we’ve got to make sure Social Security is there not just for this generation but for the next generation. (Applause.) Now, Social Security is not posing a huge problem with respect to our debt and our deficit. There is a problem that if we don’t make any modifications at all, then in a few years what will start happening is, is that the amount of money going out is more than the amount coming -- amount of money going in. And people debate how soon, but in a couple of decades you’d start having a situation where you’d only get 75 cents on the dollar that you expected on Social Security.

If we make some modest changes now, the kind of changes that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill agreed to back in 1983, we can preserve Social Security, make sure it’s there for the future 75 years out. So Social Security is something that we can solve relatively easily. It doesn’t mean that we don’t make any changes at all, because there may be some tweaks that we can make to the program, but we can assure that Social Security is there for future generations.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/17/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-alpha-illinois


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #287)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:58 PM

291. That's just a proposal.

If I propose that we can eat some veggie burgers that doesn't mean I advocate vegetarianism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #291)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:16 AM

331. The President stated his proposal repeatedly over a two-month period.

And the change he proposes is a cut in benefits for millions of people, entire generations of people, over all their retirement years.

In other words more like proposing that entire generations eat veggie burgers for all their lives. Which sounds much more like veggieburgerinism than just an idea about a single burger.

And, anyway, what I said originally was that he proposed it repeatedly over a two-month period. Whether the proposal was a concession and whether it was advocacy or not wasn't really my point. I don't want Democrats to suggest in any form that cutting social security benefits is on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #331)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:30 AM

334. He does that because if he ruled stuff out they wouldn't "come to the table."

That's the point of the "everything is on the table" rhetoric.

Of course, I would prefer he straight up say "X is off the table" because it won't hurt him.

They'll come back and say "Obama took X off the table! He didn't want to work with us!"

Except. Ryan did just that when it came to Simpson-Bowles!

So why even pander? Take it off the table. They'll lie either way.

We're on the same page I just don't see the advocacy that you and others imply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #334)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:37 AM

338. Agreed that we're somewhat on the same page, but...

a couple of distinctions: I don't think these statements by the President are for purposes of negotiating with Republicans; rather they are for negotiating with progressives, getting us used to the idea. And I say that we must reject the entire framing of the process, because what the Republicans are doing is applying the Shock Doctrine. Setting the stage for mutual concessions would mean we've already lost. Instead we need to forcefully expose the entire sham and demand the real solutions. President Obama should be engaged in this rather than participating in the sham.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:32 AM

138. Eventually you will simply run out of straw.

Your act is as tired as a Foghat concert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:56 AM

147. And the jury results are in. 3-3 Leave It

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:20 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Thanks to the teachings of Manny, HiPointDem, Fumesucker, and Bonobo, who, according to new guy Carl
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1814395

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Some awful phrases in this post, implication is that the DUers named said those things when in fact this poster is the one posting about impeachment and blackface. To claim specific DUers said anything like that, when they did not, is just wrong. Calling it 'sarcasm' does not make it right. Got a problem with what someone says, fine, but to have a problem with things you say someone said is not fine at all. Not only are some of the phrases disgusting, the claim that this tipifies the views of the named posters is disgusting.
This makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:53 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: The purpose of this post was to call out and attack posters whom the OP disagrees with and to incite other posters to join in. It seems like a hateful, cowardly thing to do.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It IS a common community practice for people to call out specific people in threads and paraphrase their positions to make rhetorical points all the time. This post is fine and makes DU fuckin awesome.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:55 AM

162. Pretty epic flameout, dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:37 PM

221. Are you always such a hostile jerk?

Seriously, you're not winning any converts here.

Carl said none of the things you mentioned, he actually made well reasoned arguments for the way he felt. You, on the other hand, are just sarcastic, snarky, nasty, dispeptic and somewhat deranged.

We're not the ones who need to wipe our chins, Scootaloo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:18 PM

238. Righteous...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:38 PM

260. oh boo hoo

like any one here thought whatever BHO will or ever intended to do is even remotely comparable to what the alternative had in mind, and like we're all a bunch of single-issue voters like some geniuses apparently claim to be.

How long have you had so much difficulty discerning between what are or aren't mutually exclusive concepts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:10 PM

284. Go lick some vomit off the floor

And I mean that in a good way.


To the jury, read the OP on this thread before you vote on my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:25 AM

97. LOL!

I love the way you fucking wrote that!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:28 AM

99. FINALLY!! A voice of reason shouting over the din from the DU Tower of Babel! Thank you! nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:48 AM

108. Election season is over. DU is back to normal...

Speculative outrage rules the day, and is the raison d'être for many posters.

Huge K&R.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #108)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:50 AM

109. So... he's gonna make us speak French, too, eh?

Well you can voulez vous that stuff somewhere else. With fromage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #109)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:56 AM

126. Mais oui...

Or at least in a French accent. Everyone must now sound like Gerard Depardieu.

Zut alors!

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #108)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:07 AM

129. "Speculative Outrage" I'm stealing that term!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:04 AM

115. You apparently did not hear Chuck Schumer speak at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast

He was giving away the farm with a 2hour delay right there on Cspan. You might try watching, its the only honest source of information available to us without travel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #115)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:08 AM

131. Chuck isn't President.

And also, Chuck represents New York, and thus is owned by Wall Street, so you would expect him to say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:14 AM

116. When plans are announced, it will be too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:23 AM

117. Where do you live and what are your most important personal political priorities?

I ask because most of your posts seem to be angry sermonizing at those who dare to speak out about anything. I never see you advocate anything, nor speak of any local issues nor local election news. Yelling at others is not discussion nor does it communicate what you think.
Some of us just went through 3 years of being subjected to vitriol from those who wanted us to shut up about marriage equality and DADT. The President, however, wanted us to keep up with the pressure. We got DADT repealed, the President came out for equality and so our methods were successful, the methods the President had suggested we use. Through the whole time, folks on DU were yelling at us, explaining their 'Pragmatism' and telling us to stop wanting a pony. They lecture that 'he can't do that until after the next election'. But he did and doing so helped him win again. The 'shut up and let him be' crowd was wrong. In fact, they were derelict in their duty to support him and instead just made lots of noise and argued with those of us who were eventually victorious. 'Pony, poutrage' they went on and on. Then we got what we set out to get. Progress and a big feather in Obama's cap.
So those calling for silence from the electorate are not offering that which I see as useful political methods. They have been proven wrong by Barack Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:33 AM

118. Barking Bumptious Bumpkin

Thanks for setting us straight

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #118)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:42 PM

244. the OP is by barking pumpkin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:37 AM

119. Just curious, Scootaloo. What are you going to say ...

if the President really does propose raising the Medicare age to 67?

I know you are certain that this is never going to happen, and I hope you are right. But just humor me. If it did happen, what would you say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #119)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:43 AM

122. Instant modal switch

from denial to support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #119)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:39 AM

142. He will say that it was necessary due to the Repukes in Congress

and then we will be scolded again, this time for not understanding the way Washington works. I posted a couple years back the 5 Stages Of Denial from the Kool-Aid drinkers. I'll try to dredge it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #119)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:16 PM

230. "Saying" implies articulation and word usage.

You see the shit i say when i'm in a good mood, right? Imagine a bad mood

No, seriously; it's a conditional thing. Would it be a serious "this might happen" offer? or is it just more slugbait set out for the Republicans? My take is that it would depend on that question.

Now, if it were a unilateral "we're going to do this" thing? Then yeah, I suppose my OP will be worth framing as my "DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN!" moment. But I'm not going to panic, nor endorse such panic, over such a scenario unless it seems likely. and so far... it doesn't seem the least bit likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:41 AM

120. Preventive medicine.

By showing how apeshit we'll go over this, we'll prevent it from happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:52 AM

124. They are projecting their own fears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:53 AM

125. So....completely forgot about that whole "debt ceiling negotiation" then?

You know, the one where Obama offered almost all the cuts the Republicans wanted?

Demanding that Obama not do those cuts is not the same as calling him a "backstabber".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:00 AM

127. If I'd been on jury, I would have voted to kill OP. Insulting tone.

Did anyone challenge it?

As a matter of principle, I don't challenge posts because I want to see all viewpoints.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:01 AM

128. President Obama

In his first term, the president compromised too much for my taste. It looked like the Republicans in Congress were running all over him. Then he began to use Executive orders and took stands on gay marriage, immigration. He encouraged bills on jobs for the military and deficit reduction that did not pass but were exposed as such during the election that now are a starting point for his second term. It really wasn't until Clinton took the stage at the convention that I realized just how much the president HAD accomplished. As a result, I am more trusting that the president knows what he is doing though it may not always "look" like it. He is definitely a finesse kinda guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:07 AM

130. Well done. And look!

The "useful idiots" (I believe you said "usual suspects") you anticipated have even arrived to froth in your direction.

It was as if I'd just read the tide table and found my feet damp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #130)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:19 AM

134. I noticed the herd. I wonder where they came from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:18 AM

133. Because Single Payer was part of the 2008 campaign, and the public option was taken off the table.

We have been asked to keep on campaigning for what we want, in order to resist the very strong and very wealthy forces who want to privatize Social Security and make cuts in vital programs for the poor and middle class.

I am glad to see so many people pushing for NO CUTS to SSI, Medicare and Medicaid.

We need to be sure our legislators know we expect them to get revenue from higher taxes at the top, eliminating war profiteering by de-privatizing military services, a tiny transaction tax on Wall Street, and leave the benefits the we want our taxes to go to (SSI, Medicare for All, and Medicare) alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:33 AM

139. Show me a link where he commits to no changes in benefits or costs.

He has never said he will keep these programs in place. In fact, he could barely manage to say he didn't like the idea of vouchers for Medicare and privatization for Social Security.

The fact is that there will have to be some changes, especially to Medicare because the program is only good for ~10 years and needs to be good for at least 50 years to call it stable. That means some combination of increased taxes or reduced benefits. The obvious solution is to index the cap level, retroactive to the last time it was set, and then keep it moving in line with inflation. The Republicans will fight that tooth and nail.

An even more obvious solution is to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Again, Republicans will fight that to the death.

So you tell me. How is Obama going to solve the problem? Or is he just going to let the program get 4 years closer to insolvency, which puts is on path to voucherize it after Obama leaves office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #139)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:34 PM

196. That is a fight worth fighting

"An even more obvious solution is to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Again, Republicans will fight that to the death. "

Seems like a no-lose situation to me. The electorate would see whose side the Republicans are on. It's pretty hard to defend not allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. I suppose the possible loss would be in corporate money that goes to Dems.

He should go for it, and we'll have his back if he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:35 AM

141. Thanks for saying that

You're right on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:44 AM

143. Did you believe it when the rags leakerd that the Public Option was taken off the table?

Did you believe them when they leaked that the Bush tax cuts would be extended?

I don't really know any DUers who believe that

what a scheming, two-faced, backstabbing devil Obama is.


I do believe he is better at campaigning than at getting things done, and that he is a conservative democrat who takes more advice from DINOs than from leftists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #143)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:49 AM

146. It's like

"I do believe he is better at campaigning than at getting things done, and that he is a conservative democrat who takes more advice from DINOs than from leftists."

...wingnut drivel, only worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #146)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:45 PM

222. Really? Wingnuts are complaining that Obama is too conservative?

can you provide one of your links to an instance of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:07 AM

149. Pet peave: people who say "there is no evidence" when they mean "the evidence is not

conclusive".

The President's numerous broken promises from 2008 are evidence of what he will do this time, for example. So to say there is "no evidence" is simply incorrect. What you mean to say is that the evidence, such as it is, isn't compelling to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:49 AM

157. I feel you. Honestly, I've been trashing these speculative threads.

Sick and tired of the whining about things that we don't even know about yet. It's all speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:11 AM

166. I want to believe

but I can't get out of my head how single payer was not even given a seat at the table and public option was left alongside the road. Bush tax cuts extended "just this one time".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:12 AM

167. Do we or do we not still have a reduction in payroll taxes that funds

 

Social Security still in place? As long as this idiocy that never should have been implemented is still in place, I will rage against ANY discussions on cutting Social Security or Medicare irrespective of how much it displeases those discomfited by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #167)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:40 AM

328. +1....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:19 AM

169. I agree with you

and will be using the thread trashing & poster blocking features liberally

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:31 AM

171. it would be interesting..

to have some kind of a psychological study done on the high drama, outrage-a-day needs of some people. I know many are paid to say, which makes perfect sense..but the rest? Maybe their bored out of their minds and get off on creating distractions. It doesn't bother me as much as it once did, but then I am far less gullible then I used to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:32 AM

172. Is this the best vitriol that you've got? The very best? As Giles Corey said, "More weight."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #172)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:28 AM

365. I taught that. :-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:34 AM

173. see no etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:36 AM

174. Raise taxes on the f'ing rich

and cut the bloated military. It was a DEMOCRATIC victory. Time to move FORWARD in deeds not rhetoric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #174)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:43 AM

177. Exactly. Also, let's start tracking...

 

whether deeds are actually substantive, not merely tokens designed to appease rather than address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:39 AM

176. Burning wet dogs.

Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:43 AM

178. Daniel Pinkwater once said this on NPR:

(paraphrasing) "What news story will get the most comments from listeners? 'Ladies and Gentlemen: Social Security.' Nothing more needs to be reported for the floodgates to open."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:38 PM

183. Rec and Kicked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:40 PM

184. Maybe because...?

Some people would not recognize bullshit if they stepped in it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:42 PM

185. Excellent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:50 PM

186. I thought the same thing when I saw how many recs this had

 

Did Obama say that Social Security needed to be 'tweaked' in the debate or not?

Because since he did, all the people telling us to shut the fuck up and wait and see, can now shut the fuck up themselves.

WE are not idiots. WE have been studying the history and actions of the Democratic party perhaps a little longer than 2 months.

Our ancestors fought for US.

The programs they pushed FDR and others into putting in place created the best standard of living on earth and the largest healthy middle class the world has ever seen.

The right wing and their deregulation allowed millions of homes to be stolen from the middle class, crushing millions into poverty and homelessness.

We now have Millions of homeless school children who did absolutely nothing to deserve that.

They were just born into a world where the adults had grown ignorant and complacent.

Now they want to take our retirement and health care we have paid for already, that they stole to pay for wars and Big Government while giving themselves tax cuts so they could hoard more money.

Is this the history we want to leave for future generations?

FDR did not act alone, he was pushed into being the hero we remember now.

Let's make Obama a hero of the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RepublicansRZombies (Reply #186)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:04 PM

188. Will help push him

Please everyone go and fill out Bernie's Budget Deficit
questions, it's inportant. Thank You.He will send to President Obama and Congress.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/polls/index.cfm?uid=31afa002-f755-4cbd-9433-0eafe4bc5e68

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:09 PM

189. Because our biggest enemy is ourselves.

We're too often a circular firing squad.

No matter what some Democratic leader does, or does not do, we can be assured some other
Democrat is just waiting to cry "He / she hasn't done ENOUGH!" Then proceed to rip apart said leadership.

President Obama is a much better man, and a much better Gentleman, than me. If I were in his position, I'd tell some of these Doomsayers to go .... .........., well, you get the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:11 PM

190. Your profile says you became a DU member on December 14, 2011.

That means you've been a member here for less than a year. So I find it puzzling to see this statement in your OP:

"Except that we went through this already, two years ago. Same sources, same parrots, same panic."

Exactly what is your evidence for stating this as fact? How did you obtain your knowledge of what we went through two years ago? Have you been lurking here longer than that or were you a member under a different name two years ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robertpaulsen (Reply #190)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:22 PM

193. Ha! Good point! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robertpaulsen (Reply #190)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:59 PM

203. this person writes like they have been paying attention to politics all of two months

 

they have zero Republican 'ideas' we should actually consider...

and yet they get this to the top of DU greatest page?

Why would anyone recommend this nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RepublicansRZombies (Reply #203)


Response to robertpaulsen (Reply #190)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:00 PM

226. The last big thread like this

had about 180 recs, but it was mostly one person arguing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robertpaulsen (Reply #190)


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:31 PM

195. with

so much bs and compromise in politics, to have some fear about losing ones hard earned source of income is not so far fetched or buying into "bullsiht".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:43 PM

198. The GOP lost - don't let them set the discussion!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)


Response to Enrique (Reply #202)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:00 PM

204. "Obama says he wants to do tax reform and to look at long-term entitlement spending..."

10:45 AM PT: Obama says he wants to do tax reform and to look at long-term entitlement spending after the tax cuts are extended. "What I'm not going to do is extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we can't afford."

10:47 AM PT: Obama says you can't generate enough revenue to pay for the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy simply by closing loopholes. And he plays the election card, saying this was an issue debated during the game. "We've got a clear majority of the American people," on taxes. "The only question now is are we going to hold the middle class hostage?"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/14/1161600/-President-Obama-news-conference-1#20121114104527


He said he'd be willing to look at such spending after the tax cut fight. Nothing he hasn't said before.

It's not a "shred of fucking evidence," it's a stretch to fit a narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #204)


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:18 PM

207. Surely you jest.

1.From day one of his first term he adopted Republican frames on what was wrong with the economy---i.e. The Deficit. This was a trap they set for him because they knew it would go up immediately after he put the Bush's debts on the budget. And he fell for it, instead of promoting entirely different frames: Jobs, jobs, jobs and raising new revenue.

2. He put the Social Security hater Simpson on the Simpson Bowles committee to see how to modify SS.

3. He discusses the national deficit in the same conversation in which he discusses SS, as if SS has anything to with the deficit. He should talk only as Gore did: "SS should be in a locked box", always protected. That is the only way to talk about it.

4. He's a Democrat who utters the words "We must modify SS and Medicare". That is how moderate Republicans who want to slide us slowly towards privatization talk. It is a frightening set of words in the mouth of a Democratic President.

5. He never talks about raising the cap. Which if he did and used the bully pulpit to explain it continuously, would make SS solvent into the far future.

6. He never put Krugman or Reich or Steiglitz at the table. His mentors were Wall Streeters who would not have SS as being in the top ten concerns.

That's 6 "shreds of evidence". We damn well need to stay in touch with him at a high volume and make it clear: Do not mess with SS. Fix it by raising the cap.

Quit accusing us of calling him a back stabbing devil. We look at what's happening and are deeply concerned that he talks this way. It doesn't seem like chess. It seems like moderate Republicanism that he's not even aware of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #207)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:16 PM

305. Well said. Thanks for saying it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:20 PM

208. Short answer:

We have some long-term trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:06 PM

214. your bullshit sounds alot like Republican bullshit- coincidence?

 

"And Republicans are supposed to be the ones who refuse to compromise?

What has liberals freaked out is the fact that any deal with Republicans will likely include cuts to their cherished entitlement programs."

http://investmentwatchblog.com/fiscal-cliff-look-who-refuses-to-compromise/


not very well disguised either....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RepublicansRZombies (Reply #214)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:05 PM

228. That's an interesting claim

Seeing as my "bullshit" is targeted at people who are arguing that the president is a tricky, shifty, untrustworthy conman who's absolutely, certainly, definitely going to sell the nation down the river, based on the claims of conservative "thinkers" and corporate media pundits.

I wonder where, if ever, I suggested we should cave to the Republicans? I didn't, did I? You seem to be making the assumption that because I think DU'ers shouldn't run around screaming as if Barack Obama had already instituted the Ryan Plan, I actually support said plan.

That's wild.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #228)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:49 PM

261. Hahahahaha!!!!!

Seeing as my "bullshit" is targeted at people who are arguing that the president is a tricky, shifty, untrustworthy conman who's absolutely, certainly, definitely going to sell the nation down the river, based on the claims of conservative "thinkers" and corporate media pundits.


Indeed! Such arguments are rife on DU! JUST EVERYWHERE! IT'S MYTHOLOGICAL, I TELLS YA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:11 PM

229. Thanks Most of my thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:28 PM

232. Obama's going to use HAARP to eliminate Social Security and create crop circles. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:43 PM

234. Scootaloo<I'll say it simple

as my Grandfather said keep it simple (KISS) next time you need two pages to say nothing remember this. Not all DU're take that long to come to the point. There are to many sources to find the news, but you have to be the one to analyze it and I stress ana lyes, so there. Stop trashing us and that is what you are doing. You swing more than Romney did. You didn't pull this one over me GOTCHA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainMann1 (Reply #234)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:24 PM

240. I think Scootaloo makes a valid point.. The President is being Trashed but

oh, nobody can call that out..cause they don't like being..wait for it.. Trashed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:44 PM

235. Well, the President wants a so-called "balanced approach". That means some spending cuts.

Also he supported Social Security COLA cuts last year. He also supported raising the Medicare eligibility age. So the concerns are valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:16 PM

236. 180 recs. What a sight for sore eyes.

Thank you Scootaloo.

The far left squatters never have anything positive to contribute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:33 PM

243. So true.

Now that R$ is gone, it's back to panicking about Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:54 PM

247. Look, Hamsher, Greenwald, Turley, and the other parasites gotta eat.

You noted how the media has a vested interest in spinning bullshit--see the recent Romney campaign.

Well, the farthest left refuses to consider the possibility that they've been taken in, much like the Teaparty. With their veneer of pseudo-intellectualism, and appropriate snark content, the punditry that appeals to the farthest left seems to be more personable than RW propagandists, but they are no less money- or agenda driven.

Jane Hamsher's PACs--which apparently have funded Greenwald, too--are an interesting study. So is her fundraising on behalf of 'advocacy' for Bradley Manning---money that has not, apparently, been turned over to his defense attorney.

Look--these parasites aren't STUPID---they figured out long before Colbert did how to make money streams from obliging leftists work for them.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-stephen-colbert-learns-how-keep-his-super-pac-mone

This parasitic punditry is pretty convincing because they sound intellectually superior to what is offered on the right, and therefore, some listen to them and think they know what's 'really going on.' They then try to bring their pearls of wisdom to DU,where they are shot down by posters who are skeptical of all sources. This does not cause learning, however--just like Faux News viewers, it causes a reinforcment of their prejudices....

Open a can of catfood, and watch them try to dampen voter turnout for 2014!!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #247)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:02 AM

336. What a pile of slanderous unsupportable shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #336)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:07 PM

355. Jane doesn't have PACs? Hasn't paid Greenwald?

Hasn't raised funds for her advocacy using Manning's name???

Which isn't true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:58 PM

249. Good grief.

Thanks for your righteous indignation rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:06 PM

251. Oh boo hoo

why are so many DUer's pretending there's nothing to fall for?

Is because they are ill-informed or not very bright?

http://americablog.com/2012/11/leaked-deal-memo-for-last-years-grand-bargain-obama-willing-to-go-quite-far.html

the question remains a valid one, given what is known. This is not to say conditions haven't changed, etc, and the "willingness" may be gone, but to say that fears, etc, are irrational, etc, given what some of us "know" has been the case in the past, is nothing more than an exaggeration coming from the cheer leading squad.

ANd what's particularly amusing about efforts like yours here, is that you're apparently finding fault with those who are demanding that the social safety nets not be cut, like your baseless and blind trust in the wake of no public option, etc, that left the rightwingers spewing about how "unpopular" the ACA was while "omitting" that (ranging from 12-14% as I recall) was due to the feeling it didn't go "far enough", isn't what is really "irrational". It's almost like you're claiming all of BHO's "promises" have gone unbroken or something.

Wow, compare and contrast that to what those fearful of cuts are basing it on -- BHO's own words and willingness as incontrovertibly shown in the link above.

I suppose if you repeat these kinda lies/exaggeration often enough, some will start to believe them. I'd rather DU not go through the next two years with so many hiding should such cuts occur, because they invested so much "liberal" tolerance into berating those with legitimate fears and concerns that the mere claiming there's no foundation for, serves as no argument against them -- because BHO"s own words and willingness in the past is exactly what they rest on.

Thanks for this post though, it's a keeper with most of the "usual suspects", no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:16 PM

255. Thanks for saying what most of us have been thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:50 PM

262. Because bullshit mountain is everywhere!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #262)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:26 PM

307. LOL, yeah the avalanche on Bullshit Mountain

is dispersing bullshit everywhere, kinda hard to keep clean

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southmost (Reply #307)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:04 PM

310. Yeah it's a stinky mess to clean up but someone's got to do it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:05 PM

265. Answer: it's a kind of public service we provide for all the sanctimonious know-it-alls on DU.

So, you're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:08 PM

267. I will confess...

.... I haven't fallen! Had a couple heart attacks Sunday while listening to Meet the Press to prove it, too. I believe that PO was truly humbled by winning this 2nd term. The base really came back with a vengeance for him. But yes, there are some here that are a little shaky. Buck up, pals. Get a grip and hang on. It truly is a NEW DAY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:09 PM

268. Kick

Win the election, and let the circular firing squad resume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:17 PM

270. I so agree. We voted, now to sit back and praise whatever the President does.

Oh yes and disparage anyone that might dare express an opinion as to what he should do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:21 PM

273. NO. Concerns about SS are warranted. Obama has equivocated.

Take a deep breath yourself, there Scoot. You have no basis to be screaming at DUers here.

Social Security is a huge issue, and Obama has equivocated. He has been strong on opposing privatization, but doesn't clearly oppose other changes, like raising the retirement age or recalculating benefits.

I heard Obama speaking in a piece on NPR one morning, and he lumped Social Security into the general idea of problematic, unsustainable government spending that would need to be addressed. He has NEVER been clear that he stands for zero cuts to the program, or that it is entirely separate from the the deficit, and to the extent that pisses people off, it is his fault, not theirs.

On Morning Joe, Mark Halperin, a senior political analyst for Time and MSNBC, tried to get David Axlerod, Obama’s senior campaign adviser, to spill the beans about Obama’s plan for Social Security. Axelrod wasn’t spilling anything. Instead, he used vague words. What does this fuzzy stuff mean to viewers: “the approach has to be a balanced one” or “we’re not going to cut our way to prosperity?” Like so many others, Axelrod seemed to follow the advice of that seminal political consulting team, Clem Whitaker and Leone Baxter, who advised clients, “Never explain anything. The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support.”

Halperin asked a second time: What’s the president’s proposal? Again nothing, except that Axelrod said “this is not the time” to have that discussion. “We’re not going to have that discussion right now unless the Congress wants to sit at the table and say, ‘OK, we’re ready to move on a balanced approach to this.’” Apparently, to Axelrod, an election campaign is not the right time for the incumbent president to tell voters his plans for Social Security, one of the biggest issues that will surface after November 6.

http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/pinning_down_obama_on_social_s.php?page=all

"I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position," Obama said. "Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is -- the basic structure is sound."

In actuality, Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney have differences in their approaches to Social Security reform that Democratic-minded advocates argue are hugely important on both substantive and political levels. One top Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to criticize the president so soon after the debate, said it was a "puzzling line" to offer at a hugely watched event. Nancy Altman, a longtime progressive advocate for Social Security, called it a "fat pitch" that was missed.

"There is a real difference in philosophy," she said. "For Obama to say that he believes he and Romney agree, either Obama has not been straight about his position on Social Security all these years, or he and his campaign haven't looked at Romney's position."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-social-security_n_1940755.html

This is an important issue and people not only have the right to express their concerns, but the duty to do so.

Stop telling people what to think and say. You don't know where their concerns come from, and you have no basis to assume people are stupidly absorbing rightwing propaganda. It's possible that reasonable, rational people, who already know how to "fucking think" disagree with you.



"Jesus Fucking Christ" indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #273)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:21 PM

285. "It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan...

and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill."

Straight from the horse's mouth.

1983 Increase in Retirement Age
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/IncRetAge.html

Thanks for posting that Obama quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #285)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:57 PM

302. "From the horse's mouth" indeed. So the concerns are rational. "STFU" call out threads are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:56 PM

280. its called "chained cpi "...

They have been talking about changing the COLA formula to aless favorable rate. This is a defacto cut to SS. Look it up yourself.
...if you can stop foaming at the mouth long enough...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dtom67 (Reply #280)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:00 PM

281. btw

Bernie Sanders has been warning of this. for months. If you think he's a shill for the GOP, then you might as well delete your account.
take off the rose colored glasses, man...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:07 PM

282. Why do so many DUers insist on posting these divisive posts?

And why do they get so many recs? So petty.

Not to mention your rant is complete bullshit, to borrow your term. Obama put SS and Medicare on the table. He made it okay to bring it up at all. It should be off the table, period.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #282)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:57 PM

289. When you say "divisive" and then note the high number of recommendations...

... I mean, probably "exclusionist" might be a better word. If it's a word. Which it probably isn't.

But you follow, surely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #282)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:47 PM

299. Heh, if you post a reasonable thread it sinks like a rock.

You gotta be a bit snarky or controversial if you want your thread to stick around.

Get the outrage train going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:57 PM

290. One year ago Obama made a bad deal with the GOP. We do NOT want a repetition. There is every reason

to fear it.

before that he made a bad deal with the GOP. And before that he made a bad deal with the GOP.
The GOP told him to get rid of Van Jones. Elizabeth Warren. He did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #290)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:02 PM

294. The GOP probably wishes today he'd "kept" Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #294)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:07 PM

303. The people made a great choice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #290)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:56 PM

309. Didnt the GOP tell him to dump ACORN? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #309)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:42 PM

313. have you seen Acorn lately?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:00 PM

293. You're mistaken. When Obama talks about entitlement reform, it causes people to question his...

intentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #293)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:42 PM

314. YES it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:12 PM

295. You skipped class the day we had Trolling 101, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #295)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:50 PM

300. That's out of line. The OP never missed a trolling class

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #300)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:25 AM

343. Those who trained as trolls obviously didn't either

cuz they, and there are a lot of them, are sure fooling the OP

I constantly look at the number of posts, and the correlation is rather obvious regarding who has what CONCERN. There is a lot of CONCERN going around about Obama failing, Obama impeachment, Obama weakness, Obama (you know the real problem) ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:52 PM

316. Are you kidding me?

I wait until there's over 300 replies to your post...and still no consensus?

I'm going with an imbalance in their precious bodily fluids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:19 AM

318. Baby Boom + Longer Life Span due to Modern Medicine.

You put two and two together. Especially when Congress has been borrowing against SS for years.

If you think SS isn't going to be tweaked. Then you are living in a fantasy land.

If you think Medicaid isn't going to get hit hard. Then you are willfully ignorant.

The question isn't IF there are going to be changes. The question is how much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:53 AM

320. Maybe Some Of Us Just Want A Real Liberal Democrat Again, Not Another Neo Liberal

I wish I was sure Obama will stick to his pledge to stand firm on higher tax rates for the wealthy, but some of his comment in his presser today already set my backpedal alarm off. We'll see. We're still waiting for a horde of Wall Street Execs to do perp walks, if what they did isn't fraud I don't know what was. He's also been very pro free trade agreements, he's sipped that flat earth kool aid.

Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing. I hope, with no elections in the future for him, that he stands up for the middle class against the banksters, but I'm skeptical, he hasn't yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:56 AM

321. Obama said he will not reduce Social Security benefits or change the retirement age.

 

BALTIMORE -- President Barack Obama said his federal budget proposal does not include cuts to Social Security benefits.

On a visit to Parkville Middle School on Monday, Obama unveiled some of the details of his federal budget plan, which he said will cut about $3.7 trillion from the budget deficit.

Amid pressure from critics and his own deficit commission to make drastic cuts to entitlement programs, Obama said he will not reduce Social Security benefits or change the retirement age.

"We have a responsibility to invest in those areas that will have the biggest impact in our future," Obama said.

----

"We were very pleased to see that the president recognizes Social Security as a promise that the nation has made to America's workers and its families," Tiffany Lundquist, of AARP Maryland, said.

Read more: http://www.wbaltv.com/Obama-Social-Security-Budget-Will-Not-Be-Cut/-/9380084/8917340/-/bmklw4/-/index.html#ixzz2CGfna8if

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:02 AM

322. No, President Obama Did Not Propose Cuts to Medicare and Social Security Benefits

 

Over the past week, there has been significant caterwauling and criticism of President Obama by some on the left who claim that the President has proposed to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits as part of the debt ceiling negotiations. There is a major problem with those complaints, however – they are not true. In fact , our President has time and again made clear that he will not accept benefit cuts to those programs but, instead, wants to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Help remind voters of that fact by Sharing this post on Facebook, etc., and by writing a letter to your local newspaper editor thanking President Obama for standing up for Medicare and Social Security.

The manufactured outrage began when the Obama Administration announced last week that Social Security and Medicare were both “on the table” in the debt ceiling negotiations. Some voices on the left interpreted that to mean cuts to benefits, and those voices were immediately amplified by a conservative media that is always eager to spread discord among progressives. The assumption that President Obama was proposing cuts to benefits, however, ignores the fact that steps that do not involve benefits cuts can and should be taken to strengthen Social Security and that steps to rationalize health care spending can reduce Medicare costs without cutting benefits.

The attacks on President Obama also ignore the fact that he has stated repeatedly that he is interested in finding ways to put Medicare and Social Security on stronger financial footing without cutting benefits. For example, in his press conference earlier this week about the debt ceiling negotiations, our President said the following about Medicare and Social Security:

And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation

much more at link: http://www.winningprogressive.org/no-president-obama-did-not-propose-cuts-to-medicare-and-social-security-benefits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink