Duped into voting for President Obama?

[ProSense]

Nope!




HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523

Reed, Brown, Warren Demand an Up or Down Vote on CFPB Director

Senators say efforts to prevent a vote on CFPB Director imperils consumers and undermines our economy

WASHINGTON, DC – In an effort to protect consumers and crack down on financial fraud and abuse, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) today called on Republicans to end unprecedented obstruction and allow an up or down vote on Richard Cordray’s nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Reed, Brown, and Warren, who are members of the Banking Committee, said that confirming a CFPB director will help consumers and strengthen our financial marketplace.

Congress created the CFPB in 2010 to help ensure the financial products and services that Americans depend on every day —including credit cards, mortgages, and loans—work better for the people who use them. But in an effort to limit the effectiveness of the consumer watchdog, a sufficient number of Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of the CFPB’s director, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. Earlier this month, 43 Republican Senators sent a letter protesting the CFPB’s independence and vowing to oppose any nominee to lead the consumer protection agency.

“Every year, hard-working American families lose millions of dollars to deceptive financial practices like hidden fees and predatory lending. The CFPB is there to help keep families from getting scammed. They are shining a spotlight on predatory loan practices and products -- bringing them into the light, where they can be seen and stopped. We must not let opponents of Wall Street reform turn back the clock on consumer protection. Instead of preventing the CFPB from doing its job, opponents of the agency should take an up or down vote. A well-regulated marketplace is good for the economy. It improves consumer and business confidence and ensures fair competition,” said Senator Reed.

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stands up for average Americans,” Senator Brown said. “And yet, Wall Street special interests and their allies in Congress have repeatedly refused to approve anyone to serve as the Director unless the agency’s authority is watered down. The American people are fed up with the obstructionism in Washington. We need to protect this agency that protects American families.”

“Under the leadership of Director Cordray, the CFPB has been making a real difference for hard working families everywhere. After two years, it is time for the Senate to give Rich Cordray a vote--up or down--and remove the uncertainty that is costly to families, to community banks and credit unions, and to everyone in financial services.” said Senator Warren. “Political stalemates don’t end in more government or less government, but in bad government - government that lacks the clarity and predictability that our businesses need to plan for the future, to serve their customers, and to create jobs.”

Since the CFPB opened for business in 2011, it has helped hold financial institutions accountable for mistreating consumers and worked in coordination with our federal regulators to return roughly $425 million to consumers’ pockets. The agency’s Consumer Response center has already heard from more than 100,000 consumers with their individual problems related to their credit cards, mortgages, student loans, and bank accounts.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=339671

More to come!

[Cha]

1. thanks ProSense for answering the

dupees with some cold hard facts.

[ProSense]

4. How about

the future:

President Warren
Supreme Court Justice Harris

[Thinkingabout]

2. Nope i was not duped into voting for Obama but really we did not have a choice.

[progressoid]

5. +1

[kardonb]

7. duped

I was NOT duped into voting for our president . It was a clear , easy choice and I have not regretted it for one second ! I did not expect him to be perfect , no one ever is . He is working hard against an ideologically calcified congress to get his agenda accomplished . He will always have my full support !

[byeya]

8. That's the way to phrase it: We really had no choice but to vote for Obama.

[brush]

28. Duped? Are you f_ _ king kidding?

Was the poster gonna vote for Romney before he/she got duped? Get Real. Congress doesn't work anymore. The repugs duped quite a few dems in 2010 though into staying home on election stay and were able to gerrymander the house. They took advantage of the dems then who were saying the President hadn't accomplished enough since 2008, which sounds a lot like what's being said now. They got control of the house and the Government is now officially broken.

A president would have to be a combination of FDR, Lincoln and a bit of Washington to satisfy some of these people. And then they wouldn't be happy with him/her after 3 months in office.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Nope.

[gateley]

6. Not me -- I wanted to vote for him.

[zeemike]

9. The duping always comes after the vote.

We had two choices...one that said some of what we wanted to here and the other one that said exactly what we did not want to hear...the choice is easy in those cases...
But now Obama is and has nominated the ones that got us in the mess in the government and telling us we need to look forward, while nothing really has changed all that much...none of the ones that got us here have ever been held accountable...and it looks like they never will be...cause everything is "going forward"

The privatization of government is continuing along just nicely...schools, prisons, the military, they will own it all soon enough, and this little political thing will be moot...and entertaining enough to keep us busy fighting over this and that while they stick that big red white and blue dick our our ass.

If we ever do wise up, it will probably be too late to save democracy...the best we can hope for is our souls.

[George II]

11. blah, blah, blah, gloom and doom.........

....my thought is that the right candidate for people like you hasn't been born yet, and never will.

[zeemike]

15. Well you may be right...he may not be born yet.

Because it will take more than my lifetime to set this mess right....a whole generation are now starting to feel it and it will probably be their grand children that will finally break free of this endless cycle of greed and corruption that infected this country in my lifetime.

No it is not gloom that we should feel it is shame that we let this happen...and we let it happened because we can't face the hard cold facts...we lost our democracy and we will play hell getting it back...but we must and we will...but not in my lifetime...barring some miracle that is.

I know it is a bummer, like telling the alcoholic he must stop drinking it is a hard thing to do and a hard thing to hear, but it must be said.

[ProSense]

13. That's vile, and

President Obama actually unprivatized student loans in his first term: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022557183

His health care reform did the unthinkable: raised taxes on the rich.

It also did more for inequality than any other legislation in decades.

There is a debate about the impact of the recent tax deal, but simple arithmetic shows the reality.

Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.

Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s. Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html

Obama and Redistribution

Some notes for myself: how much impact have Obama’s policies actually had on current and prospective inequality?

The main policies to consider are PPACA (the health reform) and ATRA (the fiscal cliff deal with its associated tax rise).

I’m not a fan of the Tax Foundation’s work, but their analysis of the distributional effects of Obamacare looks about right: significant benefits to the bottom half of the income distribution, paid for largely by taxes on the top few percent (the Medicare surcharge and the extra tax on investment income). The Tax Policy Center — whose work I do trust — has the Act reducing the after-tax income of the top 1 percent by 1.8 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 2.5 percent.

Meanwhile, ATRA raises taxes relative to a continuation of the Bush high-end tax cuts: after-tax income down 4.5 percent for the 1-percenters, 6.2 percent for the top 0.1 percent.

Putting this together, we have a roughly 6 percent hit to the 1 percent, around 9 to the superelite. That’s only a partial rollback of these groups’ huge gains since 1980, but it’s not trivial.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/obama-and-redistribution/

Do the math.

Who Benefits from the ACA Medicaid Expansion?

A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.

Medicaid does not cover many low-income adults today. To qualify for Medicaid prior to health reform, individuals had to meet financial eligibility criteria and belong to one of the following specific groups: children, parents, pregnant women, people with severe disability, and seniors. Non-disabled adults without dependent children were generally excluded from Medicaid unless the state obtained a waiver to cover them. The federal government sets minimum eligibility levels for each category, which are up to 133% FPL for pregnant women and children but are much lower for parents (under 50% FPL in most states). States have the option to expand coverage to higher incomes, but Medicaid eligibility levels for adults remain very limited (Figure 1). Seventeen states limit Medicaid coverage to parents earning less than 50 percent of poverty ($9,545 for a family of 3), and only eight states provide full Medicaid coverage to other low-income adults. State-by state Medicaid eligibility levels for parents and other adults are available here.



The ACA expands Medicaid to a national floor of 138% of poverty ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three). The threshold is 133% FPL, but 5% of an individual’s income is disregarded, effectively raising the limit to 138% FPL. The expansion of coverage will make many low-income adults newly eligible for Medicaid and reduce the current variation in eligibility levels across states. To preserve the current base of coverage, states must also maintain minimum eligibility levels in place as of March 2010, when the law was signed. This requirement remains in effect until 2014 for adults and 2019 for children. Under the ACA, states also have the option to expand coverage early to low-income adults prior to 2014. To date, eight states (CA, CT, CO, DC, MN, MO, NJ and WA) have taken up this option to extend Medicaid to adults. Nearly all of these states previously provided solely state- or county-funded coverage to some low-income adults. By moving these adults to Medicaid and obtaining federal financing, these states were able to maintain and, in some cases, expand coverage. Together these early expansions covered over half a million adults as of April 2012.

Eligibility requirements for the elderly and persons with disabilities do not change under reform although some individuals with disabilities may become newly eligible under the adult expansion. Lawfully residing immigrants will be eligible for the Medicaid expansion, although many will continue to be subject to a five-year waiting period before they may enroll in coverage. States have the option to eliminate this five-year waiting period for children and pregnant women but not for other adults. Undocumented immigrants will remain ineligible for Medicaid.

- more -

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/quicktake_aca_medicaid.cfm

Editorial

Report Card on Health Care Reform

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Republican leaders in Congress regularly denounce the 2010 Affordable Care Act and vow to block money to carry it out or even to repeal it. Those political attacks ignore the considerable benefits delivered to millions of people since the law’s enactment three years ago Saturday. The main elements of the law do not kick in until Jan. 1, 2014, when many millions of uninsured people will gain coverage. Yet it has already thrown a lifeline to people at high risk of losing insurance or being uninsured, including young adults and people with chronic health problems, and it has made a start toward reforming the costly, dysfunctional American health care system.

EXPANDING COVERAGE Starting in 2010, all insurers and employers that offer dependent coverage were required to offer coverage to dependent children up to age 26. An estimated 6.6 million people ages 19 through 25 have been able to stay on or join their parents’ plans as result, with more than 3 million previously uninsured young adults getting health insurance. The law requires private health insurers to provide free preventive care, without co-pays or deductibles. Some 71 million Americans have received at least one free preventive service, like a mammogram or a flu shot, and an additional 34 million older Americans got free preventive services in 2012 under Medicare.

<...>

The law appropriated $11 billion over five years to build and operate community health centers, a major factor in increasing the annual number of patients served to 21 million, a rise of 3 million from previous levels. Some $5 billion has been put into a reinsurance program that has encouraged employers to retain coverage for retirees and their families; 19 million people benefited with reduced premiums or cost-sharing.

<...>

BETTER QUALITY OF CARE One of the most promising aspects of the health reform act is its focus on improving quality. The percentage of Medicare patients requiring readmission to the hospital within 30 days of discharge dropped from an average of 19 percent over the past five years to 17.8 percent in the last half of 2012, an improvement due in large part to penalties imposed by Medicare for poor performance and financial incentives paid by Medicare to providers to encourage better coordination of care after a patient leaves the hospital.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/report-card-on-health-care-reform.html

Here's a summary of the NYT report:

That includes:

• Some 6.6 million people ages 19 through 25 who have been able to stay on their parents' insurance plans and more than than 3 million young adults getting health insurance.
  
  
• 17 million getting some kind of free preventive service, like flu shots, and 34 million Medicare recipients getting free preventive services in 2012;
  
  
• 17 million children with pre-existing conditions being protected against being uninsured;
  
  
• More than 107,000 adults with pre-existing conditions finally having insurance under the federally run insurance program;
  
  
• 21 million received care from expanded community health centers, 3 million more than previously served;
  
  
• $1.1 billion in rebates, an average of $151 per family paid by insurers that failed to meet the benchmark of 80 to 85 percent of premium revenues on medical claims or quality improvements;
  
  
• Since 2010, more than 6.3 million older or disabled people have saved more than $6.3 billion on prescription drugs;

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/25/1196892/-An-Affordable-Care-Act-report-card-three-years-in

There is a reason Republicans want to repeal this law.

[zeemike]

16. Vial?...Really?

OK then.

[ProSense]

21. No, vile, and that was only one word in my response. n/t

[zeemike]

22. But clearly the most powerful.

But if that is how my response made you feel about it I can't help that.

[George II]

43. But.but.but..he only did 99.5% of what we want - where's the other half %? Seriously, excellent...

.... post.

Unfortunately some people are too busy whining and gnashing their teeth to the point where they can't see the positives that have been accomplished.

Doesn't the saying to, "Rome wasn't built in a day"? From my perspective, when Hillary takes office "Rome" will be just about ready for the ribbon cutting ceremony!!!!

[cheapdate]

24. Barack Obama nominated Elizabeth Warren...

to oversee the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau. He nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan to serve as justices on the Supreme Court. He selected the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council Frances Beineke to serve on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Commission. He appointed Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy. Fuel efficiency standards were doubled, and the EPA finally finalized the rules on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

I think your cynicism is over done.

[zeemike]

26. Well I am cynical for sure.

But whether it is overdone history will say.

But please understand this....I am not blaming Obama although you may think that....I blame the system that can and does capture any honest man and turn him or her into a tool for the system...Jimmy Carter was the first time I realized that...cause there was no doubt in my mind he was an honest and good man, and yet he could do nothing.
It is not Obama that is the problem...it is us really...we allow ourselves to be punked, pissed on and distracted from things that matter by the shiny things they dangle before us...or the latest outrage on the TV.

WE need to grow up...WE need to take back this country to a democracy and get rid of the plutocrats and crony capitalism and corruption...and while I have no plan we can follow I know for sure that pretending everything will be all right will do nothing...except perpetuate it.

[OnyxCollie]

32. President Obama's Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan,

Last edited Mon Apr 1, 2013, 03:18 AM - Edit history (4)

during her stint as Solicitor General, wrote a brief to the SCOTUS urging them to deny a hearing to Don Siegelman, while the DoJ suggested that Siegelman be given an additional 20 year sentence.

Siegelman Judge Asked To Recuse As Kagan, Rove Oppose Reviews
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/siegelman-judge-asked-to_b_534628.html

Both Leura and Bill Canary have issued statements denying wrongdoing. To defer to Alabama's two powerful Republican senators, the Obama administration has so far continued Canary in office after she served during the two Bush administrations as the president's top prosecutor in Alabama's middle district, covering the state capital region.

~snip~

A bipartisan group of 91 former state attorneys general from more than 40 states formed an unprecedented coalition to file a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court arguing it should hear Siegelman's case because his actions did not constitute a crime.

But Kagan, now widely reported as a leading candidate to ascend from her post as Justice Department solicitor general to become her friend Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy, urged the high court in November to deny Siegelman a hearing. Kagan used technical legal arguments devised with the assistance of DOJ's trial prosecutors.

~snip~

Kagan's stance already has created strong skeptics in progressive circles in Alabama, and is certain to irritate Siegelman supporters around the country if she is nominated to the Supreme Court. DOJ has requested that Fuller resentence Siegelman, now 64, to an additional 20 years in prison.

I guess that's why Don Siegelman didn't get a pardon.

(For those needing a refresher, Don Siegleman was a thorn in the side of Big Oil.)

ExxonMobil’s Alabama Paydirt
http://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/exxonmobils-alabama-paydirt/

The State of Alabama believes that it was victimized by ExxonMobil. According to the state’s complaint launched by the Administration of Governor Don Siegelman, ExxonMobil committed fraud and underpaid the state in a contract dispute over natural gas pumped from Mobile Bay. Alabama won that litigation, and a jury awarded the state a judgment against ExxonMobil of roughly $3.6 billion. Not chump change, even for ExxonMobil. And for Alabama, an immense sum of money (roughly a third of the state’s annual budget).

But ExxonMobil appealed, secured a stay, and ultimately took the matter to the Alabama Supreme Court. Thursday, the state’s High Court handed down its decision, by a vote of 8-1. The Court sided with ExxonMobil and against Alabama. The punitive damage award was rejected, and Alabama was left with a compensatory award of $51.9 million, a pittance.

~snip~

Nevertheless, there is something very foul and unseemly in the air surrounding this decision. It expunged the punitive award altogether. And the decision was 8-1. Every Republican justice sided with ExxonMobil and the court’s sole Democrat sided with the state. This serves to underscore and highlight what really looks like a partisan and political divide. That also is extremely telling.

Leura Canary, the US Attorney (and Good Bushie) that Obama kept on is the wife of Bill Canary:

William Canary is a campaign partner of Karl Rove’s and worked with Rove in Alabama Court politics starting with 1992; Toby Roth, the former chief of staff to Governor Bill Riley was a third member of their team. The Rove-Canary-Roth team scored a series of quite astonishing successes, and in the end it totally transformed the Alabama court landscape, starting with the state’s Supreme Court. I have no reason to link Rove, Canary and Roth to the specific litigation between ExxonMobil and the State of Alabama in particular. But in broader terms, the ExxonMobil decision should be counted the ultimate triumph of the Rove-Canary-Roth game plan. It got the oil and gas community exactly what it was aiming for from the beginning: the elimination of punitive damage awards in commercial cases.

Obama appointed the former 9/11 claims czar to be the bp oil spill claims czar.

Ken Feinberg, BP Not Independent According To Judge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/ken-feinberg-bp-not-indep_n_817933.html

NEW ORLEANS — The administrator of the $20 billion compensation fund for Gulf oil spill victims is not independent from BP and must stop telling potential claimants that he is, a federal judge said in a ruling Wednesday that may spur more people to sue rather than settle.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said claims czar Ken Feinberg and any of his agents must change the way they communicate with people seeking money from the fund. The ruling came just hours after Feinberg released details on how final payments would be determined.

~snip~

Feinberg was appointed last June by BP and the White House to oversee the fund. His Washington law firm was paid $850,000 a month for its work through the middle of January, and now Feinberg is discussing with BP how much he should be paid going forward.

Barbier said: "The court finds that BP has created a hybrid entity, rather than one that is fully independent of BP."

Feinberg Says Judge Should Stay Out of BP Oil Spill Claims Fund
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-12/feinberg-tells-judge-to-stay-out-of-bp-oil-spill-claims-process.html

The attorneys general of four Gulf Coast states had asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans to monitor fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg to ensure fair and prompt payment of thousands of oil spill damage claims, as required by law. On April 7, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood asked Barbier to intervene, conduct an independent audit of Feinberg’s Gulf Coast Claims Facility and hold public hearings on the findings.

“The court does not have the power under the Oil Pollution Act to impose upon the GCCF the monitoring sought by the attorney general,’’ David Pitofsky, Feinberg’s lawyer, said in court papers filed yesterday.

~snip~

Hood said he analyzed recent claims-payment data and accused Feinberg of using “economic duress to manipulate financially desperate claimants’’ into accepting quick, inadequate settlements that would prevent them from later suing BP for damages.

Hood claimed Feinberg’s fund has paid “barely 3 percent of interim business claims and 9 percent of individual interim claims’’ for economic damages resulting from the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. He said the claims facility imposed “unreasonable’’ documentation requirements and then used claimants’ inability to provide the records as grounds for denying legitimate claims.

BP increases monthly fee for claims czar Kenneth Feinberg's law firm to $1.25 million
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/03/bp_increases_monthly_fee_for_c.html

Documents provided by the administrator of BP's claims fund for Gulf of Mexico oil spill victims show the oil giant agreed to increase his law firm's monthly compensation from $850,000 to $1.25 million.

The documents furnished Friday to The Associated Press include a letter from former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey to claims czar Kenneth Feinberg. Mukasey stated his belief that the extra money was warranted because Feinberg's duties had grown. Mukasey was asked by Feinberg to weigh in on how reasonable his compensation was.

The pay hike, detailed in a Tuesday letter from Mukasey to Feinberg, is retroactive to Jan. 15 and runs through the end of 2011.

~snip~

Feinberg has said he believes the Gulf of Mexico should largely recover from BP's oil spill by the end of next year, and he doesn't think the entire $20 billion will be needed to compensate victims. Only half of that should suffice, he has said.

"He has performed poorly, and I'm being polite, and yet they are giving him a raise," said Orange Beach, Ala., Mayor Anthony Kennon, whose community was hard hit by the oil spill. "The real question is, how does BP view his performance? They are giving him a raise, so they must think it's good. That speaks for itself."

Feinberg says 100,000 claims lack proof
http://louisianarecord.com/news/233695-feinberg-says-100000-claims-lack-proof

Gulf Coast Claims Administrator Kenneth Feinberg told a group of foreign journalists yesterday that close to 100,000 claims submitted as a result of the BP oil spill “lack proof.”

United Press International reported today Feinberg’s statement that he cannot pay “80 percent of the remaining 130,000 claims because they lack adequate documentation.”

~snip~

Even BP has voiced complaints about the GCCF. As plaintiff lawyers and Gulf Coast politicians claimed that Feinberg was too slow and stingy about payments, BP has said the GCCF has been overly generous.

In February, Barbier ruled that Feinberg “cannot be considered ‘neutral’ or totally ‘independent’ of BP.”

Since the Gulf is already fucked, might as well sell the rest of it off.

Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil and Natural Gas Exploration and Development
November Sale Will Offer All Available Unleased Areas in the Western Gulf of Mexico, Only Latest in a Series of Recent Major Offshore Oil and Gas Sales

http://www.doi.gov/news/mediaadvisories/tomorrow-obama-administration-to-offer-more-than-20-million-acres-in-western-gulf-of-mexico-for-oil-and-natural-gas-exploration-and-development.cfm

WASHINGTON – Tomorrow, as part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to continue to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will hold an oil and gas lease sale that will make more than 20 million offshore acres available, and represents all unleased areas in the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. The Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale builds on two major Gulf of Mexico lease sales in the past year alone, a 21 million acre sale held last December and a 39 million acre sale held in June.

“At President Obama’s direction, his Administration continues to implement a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy strategy, expanding domestic production, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and supporting jobs,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. “Developing public energy resources in the Gulf of Mexico continues to generate much needed revenue for local communities while helping to power our nation and fuel our economy.”

BTW, welcome to DU.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Dragonfli]

34. Sacrilege! You are only supposed to post positive spin in the altar threads!!!

[center][/center]

I am getting dizzy... where is a fainting couch when you need one...

I also resent that you are intolerant of cloth based minorities, It's not easy being green, Kermit was a visionary!

when you disparage one you disparage the entire drawer! They are born in pairs because they are made of love, you are a monster!

[ProSense]

40. Throughout

"Sacrilege! You are only supposed to post positive spin in the altar threads!!!"

...history, bogus criticisms have been less than a dime a dozen: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595882

[Dragonfli]

44. perhaps, perhaps also throughout history there have been and will alway be

talented spin doctors to lead true followers to the bitter kool-aid that is what will set their souls free.
The prophet says it's freedom, but it looks more like stillness followed by decomposition, it is a matter of faith, so their stillness may provide freedom after all, and decomposition, a method of glorious transformation into beautiful non-corporeal bodies that will last forever, who knows.

I still think there is a lot of talent in this room, I give respect where respect is due, keep going, I am getting dizzy, perhaps the Kool-aid is sweat nectar after all

[ProSense]

47. Or

"perhaps, perhaps also throughout history there have been and will alway be talented spin doctors to lead true followers to the bitter kool-aid that is what will set their souls free. "

...perhaps throughout history there have always been people who can't stand the fact that their bogus anti-everything nonsense is irrelevant?

[Dragonfli]

57. You can do better than that, you're a PRO at this sort of thing /nt

[ProSense]

59. Spare me

"You can do better than that, you're a PRO at this sort of thing"

...the amateurish nonsense. "Pro," how clever. Keep trying little engine.

[Dragonfli]

63. OK, consider your self spared, I find you just as tiresome as you find me

[Cha]

60. Well said, ProSense. Bogus Anti-Everything Venomous

Dripmeisters are completely Irrelavant.

[ProSense]

69. Health care law,

bogus! Wall Street reform, pfft! Ending Iraq war, Bush did it! Getting bin Laden, assassination!

Obama accomplished nothing!

[Cha]

70. Yeah, they have a haterade Venomous Drip for

for Everything. Jane Hamsher and Grover Norwquist meet in the middle.

[Marr]

110. Until a corporate Democrat loses an election, of course.

Then we're so potent that we can destroy the party by not turning out.

[OnyxCollie]

56. An altar thread.

That's why I feel like Godzilla smashing through a miniature Tokyo stage set.

All the structures are made out of balsa wood.

[Dragonfli]

58. Some balsa, but to be fair the villains are made of straw, poppits of "haters"

to be poked at with voodoo needles because arguments to dispel the "haters" doubts, do not appear to exist.

[ProSense]

39. That's the problem with

digging up old news stories, a lot has happened since then. For example, Elena Kagan is a Supreme Court Justice: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022575460

BP to get record US criminal fine over Deepwater disaster (four BP staff will be arrested)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014306178

BP banned from any future federal contracts by EPA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021893827

BP appeal over 'absurd' Gulf oil spill payouts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21814732

BP Ignored Halliburton Blowout Risk Warning, Witness Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/bp-ignored-halliburton-advice-on-well-witness-says-correct-.html

Time will tell if the critics are right, but it's looking good for them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595882

[OnyxCollie]

45. Weak sauce.

So Elena Kagan is now a Supreme Court Justice. Big fucking whoop.

Supreme Court rejects bribery appeal from former Alabama governor
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/04/news/la-pn-supreme-court-rejects-bribery-appeal-from-former-ala-gov-siegelman-20120604

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday turned down former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman's appeal challenging his bribery conviction, leaving in place rulings that say prosecutors and jurors can decide when a favor based on a campaign contribution amounts to a bribe.

Don Sielgelman is still rotting in prison.

The Rule of Fours says that four Justices must agree to hear a case. Where was Kagan?

Supreme Court Lets Stand Telecom Immunity In Wiretap Case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=260709

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is leaving in place a federal law that gives telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.

The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers. The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.

Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.

Bp was not "banned." Bp was "temporarily suspended."

From your link:

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that it has temporarily suspended BP Exploration and Production, Inc., BP PLC and named affiliated companies (BP) from new contracts with the federal government."

Why did Obama keep US Attorney (and Good Bushie) Leura Canary? Since the DoJ was politicized during the Bush administration, why didn't Obama replace ALL the US Attorneys when he took office, like Clinton did?

Weak sauce.

[ProSense]

46. "Weak sauce"?

You're posting a bunch of tired old crap and think this it's relevant?

[OnyxCollie]

48. Everybody knows

"tired old crap" like SCOTUS decisions have no relevance.

[ProSense]

49. Actually

"Everybody knows 'tired old crap' like SCOTUS decisions have no relevance. "

...everybody knows tired old crap can't influence Obama's re-election.

[OnyxCollie]

50. If you are unable

to come up with a cogent response, ask your mom or dad, or some other responsible adult, to help you.

[ProSense]

51. You mean

"If you are unable to come up with a cogent response, ask your mom or dad, or some other responsible adult, to help you."

...like your last response?

[OnyxCollie]

53. You've got nothing, ProSense.

Aside from threadbare talking points and non sequiturs.

You're boring me.

[ProSense]

54. A lot more than the tired crap you're posting. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

10. Went in fully informed. And, continuing to kick the asses of the haters who choose to be blind.

Deaf, dumb, and blind, to be concise.

K/R

[Comrade_McKenzie]

12. Wasn't duped at all. Proudly voted for him.

And nothing he has done really bugs me at all.

[rhett o rick]

67. Nothing? Not even the Patriot Act and continued domestic spying? nm

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Barack Hussein Obama will go down as one of the greatest presidents this country has ever seen!!!

[ProSense]

17. Maybe it has something

"Barack Hussein Obama will go down as one of the greatest presidents this country has ever seen!!!"

...to do with the caliber and determination of his critics.

While the New Deal did much to lessen the worst affects of the Great Depression, its measures were not sweeping enough to restore the nation to full employment. Critics of FDR's policies, on both the right and the left, use this fact as a reason to condemn it. Conservatives argue, for example, that it went too far, and brought too much government intervention in the economy, while those on the left argue that it did not go far enough, and that in order to be truly effective, the Roosevelt Administration should have engaged in a far more comprehensive program of direct federal aid to the poor and unemployed. But the New Deal's greatest achievements transcend mere economic statistics, for in a world where democracy was under siege, and the exponents of fascism and communism flourished, the New Deal offered hope and restored the faith of the American people in their representative institutions. It also transformed the federal government into an active instrument of social justice and established a network of laws and institutions designed to protect the American economy from the worst excesses of liberal capitalism.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideasroosevelt-historyfdr/new-deal

<...>




http://books.google.com/books?id=vC5HJloBWugC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false

Report: Wall Street’s Opposition to Dodd-Frank Reforms Echoes Its Resistance to New Deal Financial Safeguards

Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as ‘Exceedingly Dangerous,’ ‘Monstrous Systems’ That Would ‘Cripple’ the Economy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.

In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.

“The business community’s wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and author of the report. “If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.”


<...>

In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDIC’s authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.

- more -

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

by Richard Kirsch

It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.

Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.

My enjoyment of the MLB playoffs last month was interrupted by ads run by Karl Rove’s Crossroads front group against upstate New York Rep. Scott Murphy, who was defeated last Tuesday. Rove’s ads rained accusations on Murphy, including the charge of a “government takeover of health care.” Some might have thought that once the public option was removed from the health care legislation, Republicans couldn’t make that charge. But it was never tied to the public option or any other specific reform. Republicans and their allies, following the advice of message guru Frank Luntz, were going to call whatever Democrats proposed a government takeover.

There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”

<...>

President Obama and Democrats in Congress understood the historical importance and profound moral underpinnings of the new health care law when they enacted it earlier this year. And they knew that the right-wing attack had soured the public in swing Congressional districts and states on reform. They stood up then. They will have to stand up again, understanding that if they give way to Republicans, they lose more than the expansion of health coverage. They lose the best opportunity in half a century to prove to Americans that government can be a force for the common good.

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/why-republicans-are-so-intent-killing-health-care-reform

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Unemployment dropped by 40% and GDP grew 9%+ per year during FDR's first term

I think that's a little different than what we have today.

[ProSense]

30. Why

"Unemployment dropped by 40% and GDP grew 9%+ per year during FDR's first term"

...the exaggeration?

Unemployment climb during the first half of FDR's first year, dropped in the second half, and then in 1934, it steadily climbed back up to nearly 22 percent at the start of his second term.



My point is valid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595882

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Ok. When did FDR first take office?

What was unemployment at that point?

When was FDR's second inaugural? What was unemployment at that point?

What's the % drop from first inaugural to second?

Bonus question? What did FDR do in his second term that caused unemployment to go up, that Obama's been insisting on doing since at least his second year in office?

[ProSense]

33. It went

"Bonus question? What did FDR do in his second term that caused unemployment to go up, that Obama's been insisting on doing since at least his second year in office?"

...from 25 percent to 17 percent to 22 percent then down to 15 percent, and then climbed back up to 20 percent in his second term.

As We Inch Our Way Toward a Recovery, This is No Time for Caution
by David Woolner

Roosevelt historian David Woolner shines a light on today’s issues with lessons from the past.

While most economists would agree that it is important for the Obama administration to work toward bringing the long-term deficit under control, a look at the past reinforces the notion that in the short term what we need now is more stimulus, even if this means increasing the current government deficit.

FDR’s initial response to the Great Depression provides an interesting case in point, for Roosevelt came into office as something of a fiscal conservative. In keeping with the fiscal orthodoxy of the time, he called for a balanced budget during his campaign, was reluctant to deficit spend once in office, and even pressed for the successful passage of the 1933 Economy Act as one of his first major pieces of legislation-an act which cut federal spending by nearly 250 million dollars during the first months of his administration.

The unprecedented nature of the economic crisis facing the nation, however, soon led the President to seek additional expenditures in support of recovery programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which taken together soon outstripped any reductions achieved in the Economy Act. Still, FDR’s desire to avoid excessive deficits and to work towards a balanced budget remained. As a consequence, the initial New Deal efforts to stimulate the economy were not as aggressive as many economists now feel they should have been. This argument becomes even more compelling when one takes into consideration the fact that much of the deficit-as is the case today-was due to the fall off in tax revenue that came with the down turn in the economy. In fact, when we factor in the tax increases that FDR instigated as a means to keep the deficit somewhat under control, we see that the Roosevelt Administration’s fiscal polices prior to 1935 were not all that different from those pursued by Hoover between 1929 and 1931.

Further evidence of FDR’s inherent fiscal conservatism can be seen in his decision to cut federal spending at the start of his second term-a move which resulted in the so called “Roosevelt recession” of 1937-38 and which led to the first increase in the unemployment rate since his assumption of office in 1933. Stunned by this unfortunate turn of events, FDR began to heed the advice of those who advocated the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes. In 1938, therefore, the President would submit a budget that called for an increase in federal spending but without any concomitant increase in federal taxes. The resulting deficit, the President argued, was necessary to enhance “the purchasing power of the nation” so as to expand the economy-and the tax revenues that would flow from it-and reduce unemployment.

- more -

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/we-inch-our-way-toward-recovery-no-time-caution

Presidents make mistakes.

Again, the point I made is valid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595882

[MannyGoldstein]

41. So from 25% to 15% - a 40% drop

Fits and starts along the way. But still an amazing drop.

Yep, presidents make mistakes. As FDR said:

"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another."

And that was the genius of FDR. He tried things. When they failed, he moved on. FDR tried austerity in 1937. It didn't work. So he turned to serious Keynsian pump priming just one year later, and that worked out pretty well, no? After that, FDR permanently shed his economic conservatism and became a Liberal - for the same reason that Elizabeth Warren (and I) eventually became Liberals - because Liberal policies work better. Plain and simple.

And then when we entered the war, even more-serious pump priming took place, and fixed the economy - we enjoyed 35 years of an excellent, growing economy where the 100% did better.

And this is what frustrates me mightily about the current White House - it chooses to ignore history and its own failures. We know from history that austerity, belt-tightening, "responsible cuts" or whatever the Very Serious People are calling it these days doesn't work for the 99%. We know this both from history, and from looking around the globe at what's happening today (e.g., Iceland vs. Europe). Yet Obama keeps insisting on austerity. So this depression continues for the 99%.

I'm finally getting to read Krugman's "End This Depression Now!". Great book. I recommend it if you haven't read it.

[ProSense]

42. Yes,

"And that was the genius of FDR. He tried things. When they failed, he moved on. FDR tried austerity in 1937. It didn't work. So he turned to serious Keynsian pump priming just one year later, and that worked out pretty well, no? After that, FDR permanently shed his economic conservatism and became a Liberal - for the same reason that Elizabeth Warren (and I) eventually became Liberals - because Liberal policies work better. Plain and simple. "

...FDR tried a policy in his second term, and unemployment climbed back up to 20 percent. He turned it around with the help of a 76-seat Democratic majority. Could you imagine what Elizabeth Warren could do with a 76-seat majority? Such a majority in the last half of the President's first term would have passed this:

The Jobs Program That Wasn’t

Macroeconomic Advisers on the American Jobs Act, proposed a year ago:

We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

-The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
-Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
-Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline

Of course, it that had happened, Obama would be more or less a lock for reelection. Instead, having blocked the president’s economic plans, Republicans can point to weak job growth and claim that the president’s policies have failed.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/the-jobs-program-that-wasnt/

President Obama is in the third month of his second term.

The economy is recovering and Republicans are determined to destroy it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022505883

Paul Krugman Destroys GOP’s Talking Points On Government Jobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022304886

[sheshe2]

18. Duped no not ever!

I made my decision long before the 2008 election. I stand by this President.

I always will. He fights for us!

[stupidicus]

19. most people weren't

much like they aren't deterred from criticizing him when he deserves it by either the things they will commend him for, or because of his intolerant and quite impotent defenders getting their knickers in a wad over his being rightly criticized for this and that. This is how we know that crew is really no longer "liberal" as defined by an above average level of "tolerance".

There's nary a thing I've criticized him for that I wasn't aware would likely be available for it, before I cast my vote for him.

The only dupes I know are those just decribed, that defend him tooth and nail across the board, or in the alternative, stupidly think that they can criticize this and that, but determine for others what is worthy of it -- under penalty of such things as being assaulted with charges like "Obama-hate", etc.

I can only speak for myself of course, but I find that kinda stuff so devastating that I'm really surprised that all BHO criticism hasn't been ended around here. NOT. I'm guessing the only reason it hasn't had that result is because most of us that have fallen victim to the blatant and subtle insults haven't been duped by them or those that issue them, and chose to mock them instead.

[ProSense]

20. I definitely

most people weren't

much like they aren't deterred from criticizing him when he deserves it by either the things they will commend him for, or because of his intolerant and quite impotent defenders getting their knickers in a wad over his being rightly criticized for this and that. This is how we know that crew is really no longer "liberal" as defined by an above average level of "tolerance".

There's nary a thing I've criticized him for that I wasn't aware would likely be available for it, before I cast my vote for him.

The only dupes I know are those just decribed, that defend him tooth and nail across the board, or in the alternative, stupidly think that they can criticize this and that, but determine for others what is worthy of it -- under penalty of such things as being assaulted with charges like "Obama-hate", etc.

I can only speak for myself of course, but I find that kinda stuff so devastating that I'm really surprised that all BHO criticism hasn't been ended around here. NOT. I'm guessing the only reason it hasn't had that result is because most of us that have fallen victim to the blatant and subtle insults haven't been duped by them or those that issue them, and chose to mock them instead.

...detect "knickers in a wad," "insults" and attempt to "mock."

[stupidicus]

25. that's understandable, and some would say predictable

customarily and generally only the guilty try to deny ownership of it by deflection or projection.

In this case I'll just assume that you're okay with baseless insults, and think they should result in no negative emotions or expressions thereof at all, despite that generally being the goal and result of insults and insulting, and so much so that you'd merely selectively parrot the content of the grievance in an effort to "mock" the aggrieved.

I could of course speculate endlessly as to what could possibly motivate one to do such other than the aforementioned guilt, but as an Occam's Razor kinda guy, that would be particularly irritating, like shaving against the grain or something. It could result in a figurative ingrown hair and the resulting inflammation that I'm not sure our short but loving relationship could endure.

Carry on. I'll wait with bated breath for your next example ("much more&quot of what BHO's gotten right that incontrovertibly proves he's never gotten anything wrong, which appears to have been the case made here. Did someone call you a dupe for your avid support throughout this SS/chained cpi, etc, debate or something, overwhich you've been pretty much wrong from start to finish in terms of such things being "on the table"? Hell, there appears to be some uncertainty left on MediCare, given the lack of a commitment, unless it's been offered in the interim

In previous efforts to negotiate a grand bargain with House Republicans, Obama had supported raising the Medicare eligibility age. The White House has since said that Obama would not support that proposal. Harkin said Obama didn’t explicitly rule out raising the Medicare age, but implied that the policy has fallen out of favor.

“I didn’t hear a commitment, but I spoke about that,” Harkin said. “He didn’t make a commitment, but he seemed to indicate that yes, there are other ways of solving the entitlement problem without doing that.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/287691-senate-dems-challenge-obama-on-chained-cpi-in-social-security#ixzz2PB2Bbdoo

Perhaps it's time you learned that "two rights" I presume those things you posted were, don't necessarily justify or provide enough compensation for all the real or potential "wrongs" he may leave us with, no? And should social safety net cuts get off of the table into legislation he signs, that's a sin with a life of its own anyway, leaving all else in a mitigation role. Just putting them there is a sin to many, which is something the dupes can't seem to understand. That complaint isn't going to go anywhere, because it happened.

That's why they've been so intolerant, etc, to those who've expressed concerns/complained about it. You should also maybe learn there's diff between having ones knickers in a wad about things like that, and being insulted for expressing concerns or complaining about it, and having ones kinickers in wad over the expressions of those concerns that can't be alleviated and complaints that can't be delegitimized period in such an infantile manner.

Have a good night.

[ProSense]

27. Hey,

"That's why they've been so intolerant, etc, to those who've expressed concerns/complained about it. You should also maybe learn there's diff between having ones knickers in a wad about things like that, and being insulted for expressing concerns or complaining about it, and having ones kinickers in wad over the expressions of those concerns that can't be alleviated and complaints that can't be delegitimized period in such an infantile manner. "

...you voted for him. No one is insulting you so stop playing the victim. Other people have a right to react and to their opinions. You're the one hurling insults.

[stupidicus]

71. really?

Since when did the truth become insulting?

Of course people have a right to their opinions and to voice them (react), which is what my commentary has been all about, both as an emitter and reciever. That says nothing however, about whether or not opinions and rhetorical "reactions" are legitimate and justified. There's been a concerted campaign to silence dissent around here with baseless charges/BS for a very long time now, which of course has resulted in a victim/victimizer relationship between many. The most egregious description of those like me of late appears to be "Obama-hater".

In the context of all that, you're also free to deny that the title you chose for this top post wasn't intended as a jab in this ongoing fight, but we all know better. As such, you're also free to lay claim to the role of "decider" in determining how insulting something is, how grievously it might be felt by its intended victims, and the appropriateness of the "reaction" to it.

I've done nothing here but "react" to the jab you threw.

Now, let's move on to the "much more" BHO has done of the positive kind that will distract us from what he's willing to do to the safety nets. Surely your quiver is bursting at the seams with those arrows of righteousness, no?

[ProSense]

72. Really?

"I've done nothing here but "react" to the jab you threw. "

...here's your first comment in the thread:

most people weren't

much like they aren't deterred from criticizing him when he deserves it by either the things they will commend him for, or because of his intolerant and quite impotent defenders getting their knickers in a wad over his being rightly criticized for this and that. This is how we know that crew is really no longer "liberal" as defined by an above average level of "tolerance".

There's nary a thing I've criticized him for that I wasn't aware would likely be available for it, before I cast my vote for him.

The only dupes I know are those just decribed, that defend him tooth and nail across the board, or in the alternative, stupidly think that they can criticize this and that, but determine for others what is worthy of it -- under penalty of such things as being assaulted with charges like "Obama-hate", etc.

I can only speak for myself of course, but I find that kinda stuff so devastating that I'm really surprised that all BHO criticism hasn't been ended around here. NOT. I'm guessing the only reason it hasn't had that result is because most of us that have fallen victim to the blatant and subtle insults haven't been duped by them or those that issue them, and chose to mock them instead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595951

[stupidicus]

73. thanks for assisting me in validating my point

I'm sure it's been rather clear to the discerning and educated reader (on the ongoing conflict between the purists and those playing jurists with BHO) that the selection and use of the "dupe" description in this top post wasn't intended to take any owndership of it, but rather to deny any and all ownership of it and to pin it on the opposition you've so tirelessly and stridently been combatting, because it could have been titled in one of numerous neutral ways.

why you're whining about getting the "reaction" you sought will have to remain a mystery, unless of course you think that all the positive reinforcement you also no doubt sought as a leader in this ongoing civil war around here shouldn't be adulterated by my observations and comments. That would merely be further confirmation of the "sit down and shut up Obama-haters" BS that has pervaded/permeated this board since well before the election when the conflict over his intent to put the safety nets "on the table" first arose, and the "name-calling" etc commenced by his disciples. That's how we know who/what camp is properly designated as the victim and victimizers.

For me to call you or those in your camp dupes (even as a failed master of subtlety) for having voted for BHO would have necessarily made me one as a BHO voter, which is why I noted to you as I recall months ago, that all the talk about us being "divisive/trying to throw the election/trolls/etc" because of our concerns/complaints about the safety nets "being on the table" before the election was hopelessly flawed, and could ONLY be seen as the method and means of censorship.

As "we" know, there are a great many "victims" around here of all that, but feel free to be of the "opinion" that it's just the product of our imaginations, much as you're free to deny that the title and content of this top post had anything to do with the ongoing battle over what is or isn't allowable as expressions of concerns about and criticisms of BHO. It's not my fault the Ministry of Tooth is getting bit in the posterior now that "on the table it is", leaving all prior rhetorical abuse wholly unjustified.

I must admit though, it is kinda amusing to see the "dupes" that were totally CONvinced BHO would never do such a thing despite the abundance of material that would lead one to a different conclusion under those circumstances, now trying to retain their superiority bona fides with examples of BHO's successes none of us criticizers ever denied or failed to acknowledge. That leaves nothing for the namecallers/victimizers but being wrong on the issue and the namecalling. It's even more amusing under these circumstances, to have them whining about the undisputedly abused, noting their prior and seemingly ongoing abuse.

you have a good day

[ProSense]

74. Oh, so

"why you're whining about getting the 'reaction" you sought will have to remain a mystery, unless of course you think that all the positive reinforcement you also no doubt sought as a leader in this ongoing civil war around here shouldn't be adulterated by my observations and comments. That would merely be further confirmation of the "sit down and shut up Obama-haters" BS that has pervaded/permeated this board since well before the election when the conflict over his intent to put the safety nets "on the table" first arose, and the "name-calling" etc commenced by his disciples. That's how we know who/what camp is properly designated as the victim and victimizers."

...it's my fault you hurled insults?

[stupidicus]

88. the truth is never insulting

it just hurts the guilty, who consequently and almost always subsequently dodge and deny as you have here, and usually in the same obvious way.

that's why everything I've posted to this point remains largely unaddressed and completely intact/unrebutted, other than the one who's long been the one insulting others (and only to have the cause for all the insulting shown to be BS, with the safety nets being on the table) whining about the real or percieved slights/insults associated only with their being an unapologetic and continuing insulter.

Apparently you don't wanna take ownership of your prior insults and being so grossly wrong, no?

And worse, you obviously don't wanna take what you've so readily dished out, even if it is only in the form of recalling this sordid history of baseless and dishonest insulting on the part of many in the "purist" crowd..

Let's recap.

One side engaged in endless insulting over issues they were shown to be completely wrong about, and continues to publicly throw jabs day in and day out, whereas the other side merely truthfully and accurately conveyed this history which has yet to be and cannot successfully be contested.

and the continual dodging only represents a tacit admission/concession that is so.

thanks for cooperating so thoroughly in my effort here. Rightwingers aren't the only ones that serve as the best witnesses for their own prosecution.

[ProSense]

89. Here's

"Apparently you don't wanna take ownership of your prior insults and being so grossly wrong, no? "

...reminder that should help you to stop projecting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602171

[stupidicus]

90. thanks for tacitly conceding the validity of my observation and remarks again

but you could quit your obvious lying.

I take ownership of everything I've posted here, which is:

If not for/ but for the endless lying and insulting of the "purist" crowd (of which you've been a member and strove to be a "leader&quot and their failed efforts to deny and/or defend BHO's long known efforts to undermine the social safety nets, I'd not have anything to post on the matter, whether you find that undeniable truth insulting or not.

It's rather obvious you're completely unarmed here, which is why lying and dodging is all you're doing.

I must admit though, given that you're BS here is exactly like the bully whining about getting its nose bloodied a bit when it wouldn't have happened but for their bullying behavior, I am a tad surprised you're continuing to assist me in making this all the more clear this way.

It appears as if your only true stregth lies in the "last word" effort that really is just one more tightening of the noose around your neck.

PLease keep up the self-defeating behavior and kicking this post back up where the readership can increase, making your humiliation all the more known and understood.

[ProSense]

91. Wait

"thanks for tacitly conceding the validity of my observation and remarks again but you could quit your obvious lying."

...here's my previous response:

Here's

"Apparently you don't wanna take ownership of your prior insults and being so grossly wrong, no? "

...reminder that should help you to stop projecting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2602171

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2608038

Your current comment is fairly disingenuous, despicable and hypocritical.

[stupidicus]

92. yes, your continual tacit concessions

that you've been dodging from start to finish here certainly satisfy that self-description of yours.

that's precisely why everything I've posted remains largely unaddressed, wholly intact and unrebutted.

that you are guilty of all of the above is pretty much common knowledge around here anymore, so as already noted, I'm most willing to keep your advertizing of it alive with more "bumping".

[ProSense]

93. You make no sense. n/t

[stupidicus]

94. admissions as to your struggles with plain and simple english are welcomed as well

reading comp difficulties are likely the #1 explanation for the abundant ignorance of righties and lefties alike.

It's good to see that you've taken unqualified ownership of at least that much, although I doubt it fully explains your conduct here.

[ProSense]

95. LOL!

Drivel.

[stupidicus]

96. my my, the always stupid "LOL" dodge/defense

which is always particularly amusing coming from one whose only certified talent is the ability to "c&p".

[ProSense]

97. LOL!

"which is always particularly amusing coming from one whose only certified talent is the ability to 'c&p'."

Clearly, I have a talent for stimulating the active imaginations of those who cringe and panic at any positive posts about the President.

[stupidicus]

98. nobody has cringed or achieved a state of panic

other than you. that's no doubt the motivation behind your endless dodging

[ProSense]

99. No

"nobody has cringed or achieved a state of panic"

...you're in a panic. I mean, WTF is this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2610877

FYI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2610921

Me, I'm LMAO.

[stupidicus]

100. that should take an eternity, given the likely size of it

the better question is what do any of your responses have to do with the post it is in response to, from start to finish in both examples?

Oh that's right, nothing, which is why I'm happy to assist you in your quest to keep advertising yourself.

There are some things funnier than a dodger posting about the disingenuousness, etc, of others, but not in either of these threads.

[ProSense]

101. Wait

"that should take an eternity, given the likely size of it

the better question is what do any of your responses have to do with the post it is in response to, from start to finish in both examples? "

...what would "take an eternity"? Here's the comment you responded to:

No

"nobody has cringed or achieved a state of panic"

...you're in a panic. I mean, WTF is this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2610877

FYI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2610921

What would "take an eternity, given the likely size of it"?

"There are some things funnier than a dodger posting about the disingenuousness, etc, of others, but not in either of these threads."

Anyone following this back-and-forth is likely wondering why ProSense is debating stupidicus.

[stupidicus]

103. dodgers don't debate, they just change the subject

as has been the case from start to finish here

Celebrating old news because of the unpalatability of the new

how's that "BHO would never ever consider cutting SS you MORANS" thing working out?

in this case, it looks to me like you're sucking hind tit, given he's done little to nothing to bring peace to the world, but a great deal to ensure the continuation of the phony WOT, and all the human misery and hardship that comes with it. Nuclear arms reduction has to do with the means whereby we settle conflicts, not avoiding them or making them worse as he is with his WOT policies. That's the "opposite" of peace as most know, but I can understand why you struggle with that concept.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/04/02-8

ProSense (96,326 posts)
98. New

news:

HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523

"Celebrating old news because of the unpalatability of the new"

This is new too, from the neocons

Obama's 'nuclear zero' rhetoric is dangerous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-nuclear-zero-rhetoric-is-dangerous--and-unrealistic/2013/03/29/917f2036-987b-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html

Still, what's wrong with celebrating an achievement?

and it appears to me as if your posts are becoming increasingly populated with your critics, so I'd guess most of them are asking themselves the exact opposite, and have likely had the same experience I am here with you.

The only point you seem to have is really more of a goal -- to get to 100K posts, like quantity is a substitute for the quality they generally lack, because they largely consists of nothing but "c&p's", or dodging efforts like these that no doubt do the most padding of it.

[ProSense]

104. Hey,

you forgot the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022607435#post98

"dodgers don't debate, they just change the subject...The only point you seem to have is really more of a goal -- to get to 100K posts, like quantity is a substitute for the quality they generally lack, because they largely consists of nothing but "c&p's", or dodging efforts like these that no doubt do the most padding of it. "

That bit of irony and more from the imagination of stupidicus.

[stupidicus]

105. you're the one with a heavy reliance on links, "c&ps", etc

not me.

The only irony to be found here is with the one who's talked about how others are "wondering why I'm "debating" (dodging so much) stupidicus, when post padding is about the only plausible explanation for it.

I'd bet it's easy to get to that many posts when you practically live here, and most of your posts are comprised of a subject line, a C&P, and maybe a small snarky comment intended to change the subject.

Meanwhile, few to none here were duped into voting for BHO, but some were duped (by themselves) into thinking that BHO would never ever consider cuts to the social safety nets, and in their denial of their status as dupes, went so far as to belittle and insult those not dupes on that matter like them. Obviously the subject here was being "duped" by BHO, which you certainly appear to have been on that matter, so there is no subject change on my part, much less a need to remind myself with a link as to what this has all been about.

That would be you denying through endless dodging that you were duped on that matter, and more. I doubt there's a regular reader/participant here that doesn't remember that, or the manner in which you and others conducted yourselves in the midst of your being duped, and some still do with all the "obama-haters/ods sufferers, etc talk. All of his positive accomplishments may outweigh the negative in the end, but none of that will erase the way some of you were "duped" on the SS front and reacted to it -- lashing out at those who got it right instead of the one who put them "on the table" to begin with. That's what I find so amusing about your reaction here -- none of you were bashful about injecting what has shown to be utter nonsense into every post made here critical of BHO on these matters, going way back before the election.

you have a good night, and we're all still waiting for the "much more" we're all likely aware of already as well. Celebrating old news about his being an undeserving NPP winner hardly qualifies as a reason why you weren't duped, just why those that gave it to him were.

[ProSense]

108. Cool

"Meanwhile, few to none here were duped into voting for BHO"

...you finally figured out the OP.

"you have a good night, and we're all still waiting for the "much more" we're all likely aware of already as well. Celebrating old news about his being an undeserving NPP winner hardly qualifies as a reason why you weren't duped, just why those that gave it to him were. "

Celebrating achievements: winning a Nobel Peace Prize, ending the Iraq war, enacting health care reform.

Old news, still relevant and worth celebrating.

[spanone]

23. k&r...

[Hekate]

35. No regrets here

Thank you for your continued efforts, ProSense.

Hekate

[patrice]

36. Not I. Unlike some, I can see both sides. To me, his positives are weighted by what he had to

go up against in order to win them and that includes not only in the situation itself which he encountered, but also from a coalition, de facto or otherwise, of professionals on the Right and on "the Left" whose personal ambitions outweigh success ASAP on the people's issues so much so that 2010 (intentionally or otherwise) was added to PO's challenges, instead of as assets to the column that would have comprised successes on the very things that those same professionals attack him on now, which I guess doesn't matter that much, because if it weren't for their current list of accusations, there would be another list, different, but no less negative, though with the same ascription of evil corruption to the President's person.

[quaker bill]

37. The duping was on the other side

Obama ran as pretty much the same guy that has been running the country for the last 4 years. Romney ran as several different things depending on the audience preference. The entire extent of duping in 2012 was that many people believed something / anything Romney said. Fortunately, the severely gullible were outnumbered.

[madokie]

38. I voted for him with eyes wide open

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Nope. I tagged him as just another 3rd Way politician when he promised to escalate the war

in Afghanistan. A promise he kept. But, the promise was a deal breaker for me.

[forestpath]

55. I feel duped as hell. I heard him say with my own ears at a rally I attended that he

would protect our social safety net.

Who knew that "protect" meant "cut" to him.

[Dragonfli]

62. Common mistake you made, not learning the the 3rd way euphemisms for cutting,

"protect" is a favorite, but "strengthen" is the more catapulted newspeak term for cutting.

I almost don't have the heart to to translate "difficult choices" from 3rd way to English, but there really should be updated versions of the newspeak dictionary every year so I suppose I should translate it even tho you will not enjoy it.

The key parts are, it will be "difficult", but they have "chosen" to achieve Pete Peterson's agenda that nobody but the wealthy elite want, they may have to make some token loophole tax cut sacrifices, that may inconvenience some of the accountants for about a year before they find tax legal workarounds, but that "difficult choice" must also be made so it can be called a "grand bargain" that both sides have "sacrificed" to.

These "difficult choices" are made by "courageous" "serious minded" Democrats that are brave enough to screw most of the voting public and reach across the aisle to get something done, no matter what it is, to make progress even if the Republicans are petulant obstructionist children, it will take a brave adult to give the crying brats the lollipop and everything else they demand in order to find common ground and a harmonious bi-partisan future.

I have been studying 3rd way newspeak for a while, soon it will by a second language to me that I will be able to speak fluently.

[forestpath]

65. Yes, in thirdwayspeak, "sacrifice" means it's the poor/middle class/elderly/sick who must suffer.

Also in thirdwayspeak "grand bargain" means it's the poor/middle class/elderly/sick who must suffer.

The thirdwayspeak dictionary is very short since everything they say means the same thing.

The irony is so many Democrats rightfully question why so many Republicans vote against their own best interests...when those who support the thirdwayspeakers do the exact same thing.

[ProSense]

75. So

"The irony is so many Democrats rightfully question why so many Republicans vote against their own best interests...when those who support the thirdwayspeakers do the exact same thing. "

...I take it you didn't vote for the President?

If you did, are you pointing out personal hypocrisy?

[Cha]

61. This is why I voted for Pres Obama.. 3rd way my Democratic Arse..

Updated and Expanded List of 212 Obama Accomplishments, With Citations http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

"Obama Ends ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/23military.html

"Obama Endorses Same-Sex Marriage Initiatives In 3 States" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/obama-same-sex-marriage_n_2020733.html
.
"Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries http://www.democraticunderground.com/11028481


President Barack Obama talks with Katerina Rodgaard of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, in the Blue Room of the White House, before making a statement on gun safety, March 28, 2013. Vice President Joe Biden hugs another event participant in the background. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/03/28/this-and-that-59/#comments

[Progressive dog]

64. No I wasn't duped

I never expected him to be perfect or to agree with me on all things. (Well that's redundant)

[MineralMan]

66. Well, I guess I was duped in the same way as Elizabeth Warren.

I'm in good company, it seems.

[LeftInTX]

68. Well, I sure wasn't duped into voting for Romney or McCain.

A vote for Stein would have also been a vote for Romney. I just can't get behind third party candidates in presidential elections, unless it looks like they will win. There is too much at risk.

[Rex]

76. Awww how cute.

More to come!

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. Never felt duped. I'm as proud of him today as I was when he announced his first run.

The important thing to remember is not to let the trolls get you down. They have only one pasttime, and it's bashing the president and his supporters. Remember, Jill Stein couldn't manage 1% of the national vote, that should tell you everything you need to know about DU's Obama hater brigade. They're small in number, but very vocal. Cut 'em a break, DU's all they got. No one in the real world gives a shit what they think.

[99Forever]

78. I love the smell of burnt ...

... condescending claptrap in the Springtime. Reminds me of a cattle pen.

[ProSense]

79. Clearly

"I love the smell of burnt ... condescending claptrap in the Springtime. Reminds me of a cattle pen."

...my point about "caliber" wasn't meant to include some critics: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595882

[99Forever]

80. You do realize by now...

... that almost no one but your band of believers ever clicks your blue links, right?


Naw, you sure don't.

Bwahahahahahahahahah.



Carry on.

[ProSense]

81. Then

"You do realize by now... that almost no one but your band of believers ever clicks your blue links, right? "

...how on earth did you find this thread and comment?


Bwahahahahahahahahah.

Bwahahahahahahahahah.

Bwahahahahahahahahah.

[99Forever]

82. Wow...

... I didn't realize you owned DU.

Golly gee willicers.

[ProSense]

83. LOL!

"Wow... I didn't realize you owned DU. "

You think posting a thread, comment or link is the same as owning DU? I started the thread, you clicked on it. Does that make you one of the "band of believers"? Or are you just curious about what I post or have to say. It's highly likely that the "blue link" you're avoiding is one you already clicked on since you apparently clicked on this one.

[99Forever]

84. Uh no...

... that "blue link" is on the forum page, not in one of your filibuster posts.

[ProSense]

85. Well,

"Uh no... that "blue link" is on the forum page, not in one of your filibuster posts."

...that clears it up. You're only interested in what I post and have to say when it appears on the "forum page."

[99Forever]

86. Actually..

.. I'm more interested in watching your posts get shot full of holes and then see you go off the deep end.

Fascinating.

[ProSense]

87. LOL!

"Actually... I'm more interested in watching your posts get shot full of holes and then see you go off the deep end."

You're interested, and you keep kicking the thread, makes me happy.

[nomorenomore08]

102. More of a vote *against* Romney, really...

[stupidicus]

106. as was the case for many

but for many around here, that makes you the enemy, because that's not paying the proper amount of homage to who is likely to be "the bestest pres ever!!!!!"

[nomorenomore08]

107. Unfortunately I think he'll go down as another Bill Clinton - brilliant man, mediocre president.

nt

[ProSense]

111. The good thing is

"Unfortunately I think he'll go down as another Bill Clinton - brilliant man, mediocre president."

...President Obama will have the distinction of reversing Bill Clinton's most damaging policies: DADT, DOMA and deregulating the financial sector.

On top of that, he succeeded in reforming the health care system.

[nomorenomore08]

112. Perhaps. He does have a whole term left, practically.

nt

[stupidicus]

113. or worse

[ProSense]

114. Wait

"or worse"

...how so? Clinton taxed Social Security benefits.

<...>

Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Let's see, under Reagan benefits of $1,500 would see about $750 of that taxed. At 15 percent, that would be about $112.

Under Clinton, the taxable amount rose to $1,275. At 15 percent, that would be about $191, an increase in taxes of about $78.

Boehner is never going to agree to the President's proposal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022623491

[ProSense]

109. No,

"as was the case for many but for many around here, that makes you the enemy, because that's not paying the proper amount of homage to who is likely to be 'the bestest pres ever!!!!!'"

...it makes you someone who voted for Obama.