Pelosi turning her back on defending Medicare and Social Security?

eom

But I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell you that you misunderstood, or hate America, or aren't telling the truth.

We need to keep our heads in the sand, where it's safe.

Use the contact info, dammit!

your comments to your rep reply

It is distinct from the one she uses for constituent response.

This is why a friend of mine no longer reads the news.

article. Even in the Charlie Rose piece Pelosi states that she supported the framework, but not the Social Security part.

Here's what's at the end of the HuffPo article:

"Clarification: The headline has been clarified to reflect Pelosi's stated support for defending Social Security."

The entire piece reads like shit-stirring.

Reconsideration of Simpson-Bowles in any way whatsoever is really, really bad.

is agressively fighing the Ryan Plan.

Remember the health care bill increased access to Medicaid for 16 million people.

Pelosi Floor Speech in Opposition to the Ryan Republican Budget
http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/press?id=2556

You are taking all the fun out of the fear-mongering and shit stirring. Just an FYI.

Julie

to be an agressive campaign being mounted against Democrats, even moreso than Republicans.

Strange.

If Dems refuse to defend, then where are we?

...but why is necessary to spin that Pelosi isn't defending the programs to mount a calling campaign?

Doesn't hurt to call, but it would be great if instead of calling about spin, people would put the same amount of energy into calling her to support the Progressive Caucus' budget.

Yes, it is a good idea to call about the progressive caucus budget as well. In fact, you can kill two birds with one stone. Tell her that the progressive budget eliminates any need to compromise on SocSec or Medicare.

Ah, election year activities! Always such fun.

Eridani stands up for true Democratic Ideals on this Forum; she has done it for years, here, consistently, and she has also always been the one who reports and alerts her fellow Washingtonians on matters which surely must concern us, prodding us all, by her efforts, to become active, participate in the political process, and be aware of anything that's going on within our party.

For you to make such an underhanded insinuation in this thread, a thread where once again, we are being called to action, to actually DO something as members of an organization that appears to be slip-sliding away, right before our very eyes, only demonstrates the very reason the thread was necessary in the first place.

Deflection, lists, and avoidance aren't going to change this game.

"Opposing Ryan is no excuse to accept Catfood nor is the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act"

...referring to the Affordable Care Act?

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

Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002599800

HHS announces new Affordable Care Act options for community-based care
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002616136

The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/

Wendell Potter Agrees: Big-Profit Health Insurance Almost Dead
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002390746

Indications of possible compromise are recent as of March/April this year. The way to make compromise not possible is to give our leadership holy hell about it in advance. That's why the contact info in the OP.

the video shows her several times saying that she supports Simpson-Bowles.

Actually on my reading of it, I am not sure that the Social Security provisions are not the best part of it. It talks about "changing the bend points" and I am not sure what that means. I would need to get into more detail about how Social Security works. At first blush though, it seems to me what Simpson-Bowles proposes would be benefit cuts for the rich and the upper-middle class more than anything else. IF, and it is a big IF, that is what it means, then it is not that bad in my eyes. Not as bad as it is hyped.

However, on the revenue side, it includes the same type of crap, on Federal Income Taxes, that the Ryan plan does. And THAT. to me, is totally unacceptable. Their FRAMEWORK is "closing loopholes" and "lowering rates". That may be acceptable for corporate taxes, which are so full of loopholes that many corporations are paying zero or negative, but not for personal income taxes. My basic framework on taxres is

1. increase the rates (especially at the top that Reagan lowered from 70% to 28%)
2. increase the number of brackets (which Reagan got rid of, thereby reducing the progressivity)
3. increase the standard deduction
4. get rid of schedule A, except for catastrophic medical expenses

Lowering rates should not even be considered. It is completely and absolutely and irrevocably unacceptable. It should only happen over the dead body of the Democratic Party.

A nice balsamic vinaigrette does NOT redeem a poison ivy salad.

From where are these "reports and comments" coming from?

Until I get it from her mouth, I don't believe any of this.

Sounds like something a mitten's or repuke operative would "leak".

I'm not jumping on the "bashing Pelosi band wagon".

Are we all that easy to be duped?

There's a whole cadre on DU who have made a profession of duping.

The OP provides a link to a video of Nancy Pelosi saying she would support Simpson-Bowles. I know it's hard to hear Dear Nancy saying she would support cutting Social Security benefits, but there it is. Mocking those of us who prefer to live in reality doesn't help. We should all be together on this and stop the continual Democratic Party's slide to the right.

into RW talking points and literally filling in blanks and making inferences as fact in support of some agenda. Boggles the mind.

Simpson-Bowles was a commission that generated a document that was rejected. Support of a committee to look at the deficit and make recommendations then suddenly gets juxtaposed into rote support of the rejected recommendations, which is nothing more than pure spin.

I agree that the party needs to move more and more left but that requires more progressives in congress and that is the essence of the problem. Nancy Pelosi is not my congressperson, Chakah Fattah is, so I am not as personally wrapped up in her as you appear to be.

--from bringing it back again and again until they get what they want? Why are you recommending that we stop fighting the war after a victory in a single battle?

about. I hear her saying that. That is NOT acceptable. Everything else you are saying is irrelevant. If it's spin, talk to Nancy Pelosi about it, as she is the one who said it. People are reacting to WHAT SHE SAID.

Cenk played the video clip on his show late last week. I'll see if I can find it and will post here.

unless it has been selectively edited, it comes right from her mouth.

Q: Would you vote for Simpson-Bowles?

Pelosi: Yes.

Maybe, that was edited. Maybe it really went like this.

Q: Would you vote for Simpson-Bowlse?

Pelosi: Hell no, absolutely not. Not ever.

Q: Do you support the Buffet Rule?

Pelosi: Yes.

Then all you have to do is edit out the middle two lines and you have a video of Pelosi supporting Simpson-Bowles.

considered insane? Now it's become downright centrist.

Way to go.

...and .... cue the crickets.

Can you be specific?

Thanks in advance.

Wake up and Occupy, America.

DU Rec.

Rotating Villain

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now THAT article should be an OP.

Thank you, Glenn Greenwald. And thank you, bvar22, for posting it.

It is LONG past time for Democrats to call out and put a stop to this crap from our party.

...but goes a LONG way to explaining WHY there are always just enough defectors from the Party
to continually advance the Agenda of the 1%.

It also brings into question those election season claims of
"They voted with The Democratic Party 91% of the time.".
That is not enough.
The 9% (or even 1%) of the times they voted against the Democratic Party need to be examined and explained.

It helps explain those mysterious Out-of-Character votes that regularly stun DUers
and precipitate the traditional threads of,
"I can't understand that vote.
They are usually so reliable."

I used to believe that a politician's voting record was the End ALL Argument touchstone,
but not anymore.
After watching this game for several decades, my cynicism has been hard earned.
How many times have we almost had enough votes,
but had the agenda derailed by that inexplicable vote of somebody who "votes with The party 91% of the time?"


Hey! You almost won that time.

Time to expose it. Again.

ie, the ones that would most help the 99%.

for the feckless and the criminal. How many times have we seen the Blue Team Defense Legion spring into action with these ridiculous stats to "justify" their client's votes? Another tactic; Remember how Senator Clinton worked for almost four years pushing "bankruptcy reform", and once it was a done deal she failed to actually cast her vote? "Can't blame me, I didn't even vote on it."

How do so many middle and upper-middle-class politicians enter office only to become 1%ers after a few terms of "lucky" investments or government contracts being awarded to the spouse?

Presumably you thought that Rachel Carson was a silly alarmist twit for warning about avian extinctions due to overuse of pesticides. After all, lots of those extinctions never happened. I'm sure you would argue that people getting upset enough to get laws passed regulating pesticides had nothing to do with the recovery of some of those bird populations.

No? In that case, I certainly hope you see the analogy with defending our lifeline New Deal programs.

Pelosi doesn't represent anyone but herself.

people. Everyone needs to call her, but I doubt she'll listen, from past experience.

They do, however, care a whole hell of a lot about cuts to Social Security and Medicare.