Hate to say this but in my opinion Cenk is way better than Big Ed on TV

[bigdarryl]

I think Big Ed is better at radio than TV Cenk is calm explaining the issues he doesn't yell and act over the top like Ed does. Ed to me sometimes looks like he's trying to hard on TV.Cenk also is right about a lot of issues. Tonight he predicted Obama and the Democrats will compromise Social Security.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. It's only a compromise if it's not what you wanted anyway

Obama's had a fetish for attacking Social Security since he got elected. It's sick.

And I agree about Cenk vs. Ed.

[Tx4obama]

4. Please post some links that contain quotes of Obama attacking Social Security. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Want to bet $20 on it?

Nobody appoints the two most accomplished attackers of Social Security to run a "Deficit Commission" unless they... want to attack Social Security.

But let's put some skin into the game. If Obama does not propose slashing Social Security by the end of his current term of office, I'll send you $20 and loudly proclaim my loss on DU.

However, if Obama does propose slashing Social Security,m you do the same.

Deal?

[Tx4obama]

12. I asked for links with quotes. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Find a quote by Hitler that he wanted to invade Poland

Prior to invading Poland.

[Tx4obama]

20. No, it is up to YOU to provide the Obama quotes, because...

it was YOU that said: "Obama's had a fetish for attacking Social Security since he got elected".
I am the one that called you out on that INCORRECT statement, so it is YOU that needs to show us some 'quotes' that show him attacking Social Security.
I know that you will not post any links, because your statement is false and President Obama has NOT been attacking Social Security.

Happy New Year :)

[MannyGoldstein]

22. He appointed Simpson and Bowles to the 'Deficit Commission'

No coincidence that he picked the two sworn enemies of Social Security who've come the closest to gutting the program.

Your refusal to take me up on my bet speaks volumes.

Perhaps you'll wait for the formal declaration of war: people heedful of history will see the battleships and drawn guns coming, and choose to understand.

[Tx4obama]

25. You still have not provided any quotes showing Obama attacking Social Security. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

26. You'll find no quotes from the Japanese before Pearl Harbor

But had we been watching their warships, we'd have known.

Actions speak louder than words.

And you still haven't put your money where your mouth is. Why?

[Tx4obama]

28. YOU have NOT shown proof that Obama has attacked Social Security since he got elected, YOU lose n/t

[boppers]

33. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

Your turn.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. You just helped to confirm my point

Thank you.

[boppers]

40. Hey, you could provide a similar mountain of evidence, if it was available.

Why haven't you, then?

[MannyGoldstein]

48. You provided a mountain of evidence that I'm right

Nothing in there about the Japanese publicly announcing an attack on Pearl Harbor. Or am I missing something.

[boppers]

52. You have not posted a mountain of evidence to back up your Obama claim.

See how that works?

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Bush was correct for not heeding warnings for 9/11?

Because bin Laden had never specifically said he'd hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings?

OK, got it. I disagree - as you know, I think that people should prepare when there are ample signs of attack - but I understand your position.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[vaberella]

46. Where are the quotes? How is that proof? n/t

[rapturedbyrobots]

38. how did public quotes become the gold standard?

didn't wikileaks just show that most of what is said in public by officials is absolutely worthless? yet you continue to believe that if it isn't reported it is 'incorrect'. its not incorrect, it's unproven. there's a difference. and only time will tell. so take the bet, put your money where your faith is.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. Why would a Deficit Commission even be talking about SS anyway?

SS isn't adding anything to the deficit.

[boppers]

34. Overall debt was adding to deficit costs.

SS is supposed to be deficit neutral, but the Social Security trust fund invested in T-bills (one issue), and the trust fund itself, by law, is part of the national debt.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Obama and the Republicans don't want to repay the t bills

Only reason I can think of.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Yeah, that's what I think too.

Plus, keeping the rabble insecure is a win-win too.

[vaberella]

5. Since he got elected?! When did this happen?

Or is your continuous post that SS is not going bankrupt your estimation? That's what you call an attack?

[MannyGoldstein]

11. $20 bet is open to you, too.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[Hoyt]

19. I'll take your bet -- in fact, double it. I'd also like to see some links.

Appointing tough folks to a deficit commission makes sense to me if you really want to do something about our financial situation. Proposals are just that, unless enacted. I guess the recommendations like a Public Option, $100 Billion cut to military budget, increasing benefits for low income SS recipients and increasing the cap were all a cover-up to "slash" SS.

If you have some quotes from Obama on slashing SS, show them. In fact, I'll bet th3e same amount that you don't have any that clearly show that as his intent.

Also, I'd rather the proceeds of both bets go to charity or DU.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Bowles cut a deal with Gingrich to cut SS under Clinton

Fortunately, Congress refused. Simpson - well, do I need to extol his virtues?

These aren't "tough" people, they're sick. They want enormous tax cuts for the rich, shared sacrifice for the rest. They know that the public option is off the table, that's why they recommended it.

As to the evidence: Obama continues to parrot the fringe-right lie that FDR did not start Social Security for retirees, he refuses to say he'll fight against cuts (but loudly proclaims he'll fight against privatization), and Timmy Geithner is spreading wild rumors about SS's insolvency.

Little matter: I expect that this bet will be won at the State of the Union Address, and I'm fine with the proceeds going to charity. But I sure as Hell hope that I lose.

[Hoyt]

23. I doubt he will say that in SOTU. He might say we have to look at all options -- and I agree.

Don't think it will happen -- tweaking maybe, including increasing the wage cap.

Personally -- although I disagree with many of recommendations as they stand -- I think the Deficit Commission came up with some quite useful conclusions. And, for the deficit hawks, the Commission carries some weight because it was filled with appointees who are known for being callous asses. Thus, when some rethugs ask for eliminating the $100 B in military cuts proposed by the Commission, it will be easy to say, "fine we can do that by increasing taxes 3.234681% in the upper tier." When some Congressman says we need to "slash" SS, others can say, "following the Commission's findings, we can easily avoid the slash by increasing/removing the wage cap."

In any event, I don't expect Obama to come out in support of "slashing" SS.

We do need to address the general deficit. And that means looking at options. Some options will get looked at and quickly removed from further consideration. Although it might not be directly related to the general deficit, we need to look at SS to make sure it is not endangered long term.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. You agree that SS can be cut - even though there's no problems with it?

Seriously?

[Hoyt]

32. No, that's not what I posted or think. I'm willing to listen to options.

And, SS ain't the only aspect where I want to hear options -- Military, corporate taxes I(especially breaks for offshoring), adding a public option to health care reform, laws that foster corporate responsibility, and a bunch more.

There are certain combinations of many factors that might make for a better situation for more folks in this country.

Put it all on the table and let's see what comes out. I think our problem is we've been looking at these issues in isolation -- let's look at them as a system. For example, they can cut my projected SS benefits, if they come up with some solutions to other problems seniors have. If they aren't going to do anything or just make things worse, protecting SS at current levels ain't gonna do much for either of us.

We can always throw a beach-fit if they propose something that even approaches your fears.

[Exilednight]

43. Why would you want to hear about an option social security when there is nothing wrong with it? n/t

[Exilednight]

42. All options does not include social security. If you believe social security is in trouble ........

then you are buying into the right-wing myth.

About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.

But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

[Hoyt]

50. Thanks for your assessment, but even Krugman acknowledges the fund will be "exhausted" at some point

And, there is evidence it may occur faster than we think unless our economy makes some miraculous recovery. In any event, I think lower income folks might need a boost and I'd like to see the cap increased.

But, let's say it won't be "exhausted" until 2037 -- would you want to be 38 years old and know that when you reach 65 (or 70) the fund will be exhausted unless somebody does something like raise the wage cap.

Again -- SS is part of our system and should be discussed openly. If you are right about it's condition and future, there is nothing to worry about. If you are wrong, or short-sighted, then I suggest we start discussing it now while we still control part of the decision-making process.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Please show where Krugman thinks it will be exhausted at some point

To be exhausted in 2037, we'd need to have annual GDP growth of 2.1%, far lower than the 3.% average since 1960, 3.1% in the decade prior to the recent crash, and even way lower than the 2.5% this year - and this year sucks.

The Trustees have many people bamboozled with their unrealistic growth projections.

[Hoyt]

56. Maybe you should read the article/editorial written by Krugman.

"The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 . . . . . ." And that is using old economic assumptions that seem overly optimistic to me. So, if you want to assume the economy will return to historical growth, go ahead. I prefer to look at things far ahead of when it is EXHAUSTED -- meaning ZERO funds remain and drastic action is needed. Let's hope the tea-baggers aren't in control with drastic action is required.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. In that quote, he does not say he thinks it will be exhausted

He say's the program's actuaries do.

I've been reading Krugman for 15+ years, and I don't recall him ever suggesting that SS will go "bankrupt".

[vaberella]

45. You make a claim. I ask you to post the facts of this claim and you turn into a bet.

What sort of childishness is this? Don't say shit if you can't provide the facts to support your thoughts. It's just irritating.

[MannyGoldstein]

55. It demonstrates that you don't believe what you're saying.

The fire alarms are going off and the walls are getting warm and I'm saying it's time to leave the building. You're suggesting we wait to see actual flames.

[molly77]

51. Obama had a fetish for attacking social security?

Or clinton retreads who make up his administration? Fire the retreads and start all over. WE did not want the clintons in the WH again. DNC is corporatist. Worse than the traditional republican party.TPTB wanted hillary to win.

In the '08 primaries , Obama was attracting thousands to his rallies. hillary could be seen in small diners shaking hands with people who barely looked up from their meal, Chris Mathews referred to her as the inevitable next US president.

Framing works sometimes...but in the case of dem. and repub. hatred for hillary...they just could not pull it off.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Your brain is better than both.

[vaberella]

6. Agreed. I stopped listening to both. They're screaming from soapboxes.

And have more than not, been wrong.

[hlthe2b]

15. Seems like the role of a pundit, isn't it?

I think it comes with the turf that they will be wrong on occasion. That said, Cenk has always been more well informed on the issues, IMO, than Ed. Ed has his place, though. I don't think we are likely to clone more Rachel Maddows (or Keith Olbermanns, for that matter) I'm just glad to finally have some progressives on tv. I think those who dislike either or both should keep in mind how bad the situation was a few short years ago in that respect. :shrug:

[vaberella]

44. Dunno...when I started informing myself on some issues.

I realized that Cenk and Ed have been grandstanding and either minimalize the issue or exaggerate. So then I avoid listening to both. I didn't think they were pundits. I had at first saw them as Rachel Maddow people---people with some clue and were bringing that information to the public. However, now I realize they have their own agenda and make it a point to run on that. If that's progressies I'm not sure. I'd rather take quality over quantity.

[SidDithers]

47. +1...nt

Sid

[bigdarryl]

3. why doesn't MSNBC hire Cenk in that 7:00PM slot

why in hell does Tweety's show is repeated at 7:00PM

[jillan]

7. And I have really enjoyed having Nicole Sandler fill in for Randi Rhodes.

It's kind of nice getting a break from the usual.

Nicole set up that website for the 99ers - that was fantastic.
http://helpthe99ers.com/?author=1

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. I like her as well. Her voice is soothing and she is very smart.

However, nothing can top my girl, Randi. She's the best. She, Hartmann, and Stephanie.

[zaj]

8. Ed Schultz is ignorant

He is a busy guy who's successful. And the tone of his show makes it feel like he's constantly under-prepared. He's only "OK" at speaking his own talking points. He regularly seems like he didn't fully prepare to even read his own prompter. And he's wildly unprepared to discuss the follow-up rebuttal and continuing discussion on the fly.

We are all caught off guard without knowing what to say next... and we will try to get through the moment. His show is a hour filled with that awkward tone.

[old mark]

10. I enjoy him more than Ed...Ed is a little too zealous to be amusing, which

is really all I look for on MSNBC - some interesting political stuff with few republicans and a little humor.


mark

[hlthe2b]

13. Cenk has come a long way... He, like Ed, used to be a RETHUG

and in the earlier TYT days, had real difficulty not coming off as extremely sexist. That said, I do like him and I do think he does well on tv. I haven't had much chance to watch him, though. I note there are some detractors on the thread. I haven't had the opportunity to see whatever it is that has them concerned.

[Pisces]

14. Don't trust johnny come lately dems, who conveniently make their money on controversy. They are

quick to bash the President because it gets higher ratings. they make money off of being shock jocks. No thanks.

[hlthe2b]

16. I can understand your wariness, but...

I will just point out that both had their conversion more than a decade ago. For what it is worth.... It may be closer to two decades, for both, but I don't have time to research it right now. 'Not trying to put either up on a pedestal because I do not consider myself more than a very occasional listener/observer of either one, but......

[OhioBlue]

31. that explains it...

for me both of them can turn me off with their approach, even if I agree with them, they can both seem overly dismissive and sarcastic. And... I absolutely hate Bid Ed's stupid polls of the day. johnny come lately dems trying to make money by being shock jocks explains a lot.

[jenmito]

24. Nope-Cenk yells just as much and is just as ignorant as Ed. n/t

[Whisp]

30. they are both newstertainers, I could do without them.

[zulchzulu]

35. "...he predicted Obama and the Democrats will compromise Social Security."

Cenk can kiss my ass. Ed should be on ESPN doing kickball scores. They both suck.

[sallyseven]

49. I agree. I cannot stand Cenk

and can barely tolerate Ed. Cenk and his smirk are intolerable for me. I only watch Keith now and Rachael is barely interesting to watch. I am not stupid but she seems to think her viewers are.Don't lecture me over and over again.

[burning rain]

41. I agree, only, I don't hate to say it.

Cenk's a lot more interesting than Edward Shoutypants (who, however, does have a good heart). Normally at 6pm I watch St Amy, but I've been watching Cenk these couple days and catching the DVR'd Democracy Now! later. Cenk has certainly left a hostage to history with his Social Security prediction. Bold move. Certainly, it doesn't seem an act of good faith from a Democratic point of view to have made Al Simpson, avowed enemy of seniors, and Erskine Bowles, also a nasty fiscal conservative, co-chairs of the deficit commission.

[DutchLiberal]

58. That's because Ed is merely a left-wing O'Reilly: all style, no substance...

He's a tool. Cenk is not.

[Ramulux]

59. Cenk's the best

He speaks the truth every time hes MSNBC, I cant believe that they still allow him to come back after some of the things he has said. No one else sticks it to the pathetic mainstream press like him.

[Raine]

60. I LOVE Cenk but I like Ed too along with

KO & Rachel ... good group. :thumbsup: :-)

[jefferson_dem]

61. Cenk is unwatchable to me...

A loud-mouthed tool.

Which makes him worse (barely) than Big Ed.