Greenwald: Obama's deficit commission "stacked with conservatives and corporatists"from both parties

[DrSteveB]

" Key Democratic House member Chris Van Hollen pointedly refused to vow that Democrats would vote against Social Security cuts when pressed by MSNBC's Cenk Uygur, and several progressive pundits -- including TPM's Brian Beutler and Ezra Klein -- this week documented what has been clear for some time: that the Commission is stacked with ideologically conservative and corporatist appointments from both parties likely to recommend cuts in Social Security."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/04/simpson/index.html

Meanwhile, the more pro-Obama Jonathan Chait of the New Republic is in favor of Social Security cuts while slamming liberals for opposing such cuts: http://www.tnr.com/blog/77241/simpsons-gift

Are you guys with Chait or Greenwald/Hamsher/ etc. regarding their views on Social Security?

[girl gone mad]

1. Have the corporatists been right about anything in the last 3 decades?

I didn't hear a peep out of those clowns about the impending financial crisis or the impending collapse of any of our economic bubbles. No, instead the morons pick what's likely our least imperiled institution and endlessly cry doom over it. They clearly have no shame.

[msongs]

2. so, HOW did these people get on that commission??? oh, wait.... nt

[glitch]

5. They've been very right. Far right even, and it's worked out well

for them (temporarily at least) to the exclusion of everything and everyone else.

[DJ13]

3. "stacked with conservatives and corporatists"

Most appointed by Obama himself.

Are we sure he's on our side?

[LWolf]

49. I know he's not. It's been clear since he started appointing people to his cabinet. nt

[johnaries]

4. I don't trust anything that those 2 PUMA's Greenwad/Hamsher say.

They spin to the point of lying.

[glitch]

7. Your loss. Wish you weren't trying so hard to take us with you. :( nt

[johnaries]

52. I'm just trying to expose people to the truth. If you don't want to

believe it, that's a loss for all of us.

[sabrina 1]

59. Truth?? There is not much truth in your comments. Either you are

unaware of the facts, or you have bought the lies that are being told about SS and think they are the facts.

[DrSteveB]

11. PUMA is a pro-Hillary organization. Greenwald did not take sides on Hillary vs. Obama

Therefore, you did not seem to have give a lot of thought to your comment.

[KittyWampus]

16. WRONG. PUMA was a Ratfucking outfit designed to split the Left. Their support of Hillary

was beside the point.

[Radical Activist]

25. lol ouch

Why not tell us how you really feel?
:toast:

[QC]

17. Glenn Greenwald is an enemy of the people.

Jane Hamsher is Satan's handmaiden.

[Bluebear]

28. I happen to know that neither of them eved had The Bam. nt

[Political Tiger]

30. You got that right! n/t

[Lorien]

54. Conservatives and corporatists are the enemies of the people

and anyone who sides with them and defends them are Satan's whores.

[Individualist]

66. DLC is the enemy of the people and the party.

[Ignis]

27. Make sure you attack the person, not the message!

:eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

32. Yep. Just the usual baseless and often false attacks. Zero analysis.

Funny that Hamsher has been regularly attacked by Hillary supporters for her biased purges at FireDogLake. And TBogg at FireDogLake was a huge Obama supporter during the primaries.

[johnaries]

53. I've already proven the message wrong, and so have many

others - yet Greenwald and Hamsher keep repeating the lies.

Remind you of anyone?

[Lorien]

56. Really? Links?

cough them up.

[Ignis]

69. Ah, so you get a free pass on logical fallacies. Got it.

I'd love to see your proof, however, since you've gone to all the work.

[Lorien]

55. It's a tried and true GOP tactic. nt

[sabrina 1]

31. So, do you have an explanation for why a Democratic president

stacked a Commission with rightwing republicans and blue dogs most of whom are in favor of cuts to SS to make the American workers pay for the debts THEY ran up?

The OP was not about petty blog wars, it is about the facts of this commission.

I just wondered what your opinion was of those facts?

[Ignis]

43. Ooh, ooh, I know the answer!

"The commission hasn't presented any findings yet, so don't rush to judgment."

:rofl:

Who writes these talking points, anyway? Can't the DLC afford better spin?

[sabrina 1]

47. I know, it's not like we didn't hear them before, over and over

again.

The Fisa Bill
The MCA
The Health Care Bill
War Funding
Holding War Criminals Accountable
Holding primaries to get rid of the Blue Dogs and DLCers. What a 'retarded idea that was'.


Etc. Etc. each time it was the same old 'let's wait until we see what they do before getting all emotional and hysterical over it'.

Iow, leave them alone while they figure out how to get away with one more attack on the American People's rights. Yes, let's wait until it's a done deal.

But hey, why should they change their old talking points, as we can see, they work although for a dwindling number of people.

I guess I won't get an answer to my question which was on the actual topic. Just as Cenk didn't get one from Chris Van Hollen. And if that doesn't wake people up, nothing will. They are going to screw the American Workers once again, and they are going to try to do it without having to bother listening them 'whining' about it. In secret, and in a sneaky up-or-down vote by a lame duck Congress. So Jane Hamsher was right after all.

[johnaries]

51. He didn't. Do some research.

[sabrina 1]

58. What do you mean 'do some research' and 'he didn't'?

HE appointed the Commission after saying over and over again that such Commissions are merely 'stunts' to bypass the legislative process. He used the words 'a stealth way to get around the legislative process' and promised 'sunshine' from his administration.

Then, he appointed Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles as co-chairs of this commission. By February Obama himself had nominated six commissioners. By the time all 18 were nominated, it was clear that the Commission was stacked with people who have political agendas and with only, maybe, three who might fight against the gutting of SS.

So, what exactly does your comment mean? HE DID set up this unnecessary Commission, and then appointed members. I think it is you who needs to do some research.

[KittyWampus]

6. Greenwald and Hamsher are known rabble rousers who get off and agitating the reactionary screamers

on the Left.

They know exactly how and what to say to get a reaction.

That they are so often as successful as they are is an indictment of how gullible too many Liberals really are.

[DrSteveB]

9. So you agree with Chait that there should be Social Security cuts?

?

[Ikonoklast]

12. Why does it have to be 'either/or'?

Both can be wrong on this issue, easily.

[KittyWampus]

15. Presenting a false choice is part of the game and similar to what Greenwald and Hamsher do.

Fun, isn't it?

[sabrina 1]

38. You mean Greenwald and Hamsher are recommending stealing

from the American Workers' SS fund?

What is it you disagree with in this article. You've got several comments slamming insignificant and powerless bloggers, but you have not once addressed the facts presented in the article.

Are YOU in favor of SS cuts? Because that IS what they are planning to do, and what Van Hollen refused to address. Didn't you see his interview with Cenk Ungar?

You seem more involved in petty blog fights, than in the threat to the American Worker this Commission represents.

It isn't just these bloggers, it is Galbraith, Baker, Krugman, and every single economist in the country who knows anything about the economy and the SS fund.

I am interested in YOUR opinion, I already know Greenwald's and this is a discussion about the Commission, not the blogger.

[DrSteveB]

18. But Chait is not a PUMA. How can he be wrong?

?

By the way, I don't want any type of cuts to SS. Do you?

[DrSteveB]

22. Well tell us. Should there be any form of SS cuts?

Or not.

[Ikonoklast]

41. Yes, means testing.

That is a 'cut', but only for those that can afford it.

[Chan790]

45. Means testing is a false flag tool.

The only purpose of its' proposal is and remains a means to undermine SS by turning it into something more easily attackable as an entitlement program like welfare, thus rendering it more easily repealed in full without massive public revolt.

[JanMichael]

68. Thanks for explaining that. It's scary that so few people remember...

...why means testing was not used. If it is used then you are 100% correct that it will be labeled "welfare" and eventually dismantled.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katandmoon]

10. Actually Greenwald just holds Obama to the same standards he held Bush to. That tends to make Obama

look very bad, so I understand why you're trying to discredit Greenwald.

[KittyWampus]

14. Actually, Greenwald picks and chooses what information he presents and HOW he presents it.

[EFerrari]

21. That's right, he does. It's called "composition". Greenwald also

maintains an open forum where you could go and discuss his choices with him.

[sabrina 1]

35. Well, he certainly didn't make up the facts he presented in this

article. This Commission is a threat to the American's Retirement funds. And there is no way he could have ignored it or made it look like anything other than what it is.

What is YOUR explanation for a Democratic president going back on his opinion that Commissions like this one are 'stunts' and a 'stealth way to get around the legislative process'? Then even worse, stacking it with Rightwing Republicans and Blue Dogs like Max Baucus? (there he is again. I guess he did a good job on bailing out the Health Insurance ind. and killing any competition for them)


Your focus on the messenger doesn't give anyone any idea of where you stand on 'The American Worker V Corporate Thieves'?

Or would you rather we didn't talk about these things until AFTER they make off with more of the people's money?

[Lorien]

57. *crickets*

[EFerrari]

19. Ain't it the truth. Greenwald didn't move his positions when Obama came in. n/t

[QC]

20. Someone forgot to tell Greenwald that all criticism of the government was supposed to cease

at noon Eastern time on January 20, 2009.

[Bluebear]

23. Greenwald never truly loved him.

:cry:

[Radical Activist]

26. Demanding well-reasoned honest criticism

instead of manipulative, misleading spin is not the same as silencing criticism. I share KittyWampus' concern about the gullibility of those who immediately accept every criticism of Obama from the left without critically examining the argument.

[Luminous Animal]

33. How about you make the effort to expose Greenwald's spin? Just because...

you make the accusation doesn't make it so.

[EFerrari]

36. LOL. There's goes yet ANOTHER irony meter. n/t

[sabrina 1]

60. Why don't you take apart Greenwald's article and show us

where he is wrong? I, eg, HAVE studied the argument, I have posted several OPs on this subject AFTER researching it, and I agree with Greenwald now from my informed position on the topic.

But you just stated you share someone's 'concern' about someone elses 'gullibility' and wrongfully claim people have not examined the 'argument'. But you have offered not a single rebuttal of the facts presented.

I will check back to see your rebuttals, because quite frankly this tactic of attacking the messenger has grown so old it is entirely ineffective and just wastes everyone's time. It also leads people to believe that those using it have some kind of agenda other than honest discussion of the facts.

Thanks in advance for your rebuttals of Greenwald's article. Most of us come here for discussion of issues. What you just posted is NOT called discussion, it's called a failed attempt to distract with no substance.

[Radical Activist]

64. Fine. Greenwald has at least 4 misleading statements in just the opening paragraph.

I wish this were only about one article. It isn't. And my experience is that people who buy into a certain narrative about Obama will ignore any facts that don't support it.

But fine, you baited me. I'll deal with just the opening paragraph of this column. It has enough baseless assumptions that I won't need to go any further.

Greenwald wrote: "Its work is done in total secrecy."

I clicked on his link. The article says a woman wasn't allowed in on a particular day because space is reserved for the PRESS and “only open to the public via live webcast.”

ZOMG!!!! They reserve space for REPORTERS and the meetings can only be seen by ANYONE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION!?!?!! TOTAL SECRECY!!!

You didn't notice that? You didn't follow the link? Do you like being lied to?

Greenwald wrote: "The whole point of the Commission is that the steps which Washington wants to take -- particularly cuts in popular social programs, such as Social Security -- can occur only if they are removed as far as possible from democratic accountability."

Or they might be trying to get a few Republican votes right after election day for things like tax increases on the wealthy or cuts to defense spending. These things have been discussed by commission members MORE OFTEN than cuts to social security. But those actions would be popular with progressives. They're ignored and a false impression is created that it's only about cutting social security. Again, manipulative, dishonest spin.

Greenwald wrote: "It is filled with behind-the-scenes political and corporate operatives who steadfastly refuse to talk to the public about what they're doing."

Really? Then why do I keep reading outrageous quotes from Simpson? Why is he talking to bloggers from FDL? Why do I frequently read quotes from other commission members? Obviously they ARE talking to the public. Also, when did elected public officials become "behind the scenes political and corporate operatives?" Almost the entire commission is made up of members of Congress, which by definition, means they're in the public eye, not behind the scenes. Six of them are Democrats and three of those are some of the most liberal in DC.

So there you have it. Greenwald is bullshitting you at least four times IN JUST HIS OPENING PARAGRAPH! Is that enough to make you think twice? I'll bet not. I bet you'll come back with a lot of talking points you recycled from other blogs that don't directly refute anything I wrote.

[sabrina 1]

67. Thank you for your response, I appreciate it.

First, I don't 'buy into any narrative' on the president. I judge him by his words and then his actions.

Eg, in the campaign, he opposed these kinds of commissions and he gave very good reasons for his opposition. He rightly called them 'stunts' and pointed out, exactly what Greenwald's article makes clear, that these commissions 'are stealth ways of by-passing the legislative process'.

That is the Obama I supported. Then he changed his mind, set up a commission and loaded it with very wealthy anti-SS advocates and let them blame SS on the deficit, even agreeing with that lie, until public reaction made it clear that we ARE paying attention.

I can post links to all of the above, and have in the past. So my question has been, why has Obama done this? He slammed both McCain and Hillary for supporting these secretive Commissions and said his administration would bring these issues into the sunlight and let Congress debate them openly as they should.

Second, I do not look to bloggers for information on these isssues. I researched the SS issue by going to the SS site itself, reading Trustee reports to find out how it is functioning, and reading Economists like James Galbraith, who spoke before the Commission and Dean Baker and others along with the history of how SS has functioned since its inception.

That didn't take very long and none of my information came from Greenwald or Hamsher. What I discovered was that SS is solvent, this year it will still have a surplus, it has over 2.5 trillion dollars in the Trust Fund backed by U.S treasury bonds. It has three sources of income. The Govt has never failed to honor those bonds when needed.

But most of all I discovered that the SS fund has NOTHING to do with the deficit, so WHY ARE THEY TALKING about it in a commission that was supposed to deal with the Fed. Govt Budgetary problems?

The only way SS has anything to do with THAT topic is, it is ONE OF the Fed. Govt CREDITORS. The Govt has many debts, and SS is only one of them.

So, WHY is this Commission lying and pretending that cutting benefits will help solve the deficit when that could not be further from the truth? Cutting benefits may very well INCREASE the deficit because all it will do is further impoverish recipients leaving them with less money to spend, and the saved money CANNOT BY LAW pay off any part of the deficit. It will simply increase the already very secure Trust Fund and sit there until the Fed. Govt borrows even more, increasing their debt.

This should make every single American ANGRY. Angry that they are being cheated out of their own money, it is THEIR fund, not Alan Simpson's or President Obama's. The American Workers own that fund and SHOULD have a say in what happens to it. But they don't.

As for secrecy, you should have read further. It IS operating in secrecy. Even the linked article points out that they have only recently opened their MONTHLY meetings to the public and even that was done reluctantly.

It is all the other meetings that are held in secret that are the problem.

the real work of the Commission’s three working groups (on mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and taxes) is happening behind closed doors. When Social Security Works, a Social Security advocacy organization funded by Atlantic Philanthropies, asked the Commission to live-stream those meetings, they said “no,” Alex Lawson, the group’s communications director, told me. A few weeks ago, one commission member, North Dakota senator Kent Conrad, defended the working group’s secrecy, saying he didn’t think opening the meetings was a “good idea because people need to have the opportunity to put out ideas, without them being…people need to have a chance to lay things out, put things out there, so that they can be considered.”

Outside groups and members of Congress are pressing the commission for more openness—but, in general, the media aren’t following their lead. Last week, Nieman Watchdog published a piece by Social Security Works co-chairs Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson urging the media to start asking the tough questions about the Commission’s work. Altman and Kingson argued that the president and Congressional leadership:

have delegated enormous unaccountable authority to 18 unrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individuals. The 18 individuals are meeting regularly, in secret, behind closed doors until safely beyond this year’s mid-term elections. Their proposal will be voted on without the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and without the opportunity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the House and Senate.

All bloggers are doing is reporting on these facts. I do not use Greenwald who I read only when I see a link to his articles, for research on anything. We are all capable of doing our own. But HE is not the problem and your focus on him is misguided and a distraction. I read this OP and agreed with it BASED on my own research.

Anyhow, thanks for the response, I prefer discussions that stick to the issues as that is how I learn about them ....

Edited to add that Greenwald is talking about people like Pete Peterson, Grover Norquist and other rich Republicans who have advised the Committee. Do you approve of such people being given the power to influence what happens to SS? I am outraged that we democrats did our job of GETTING RID of these people, only to have them be invited back into positions of power when there are so many Democratic voices who are not permitted to take part in these debates. Aren't you?

[bobbolink]

24. So, you would like all the "reactioinary screamers" to go away?

That could be arranged, you know.

[Ignis]

29. Rabble rousers! *gasp* Why, when the status quo is SO great?

:eyes:

[katandmoon]

8. Having seen Van Hollen totally weasel on this issue, I'm with Greenwald.

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. And the corporate media have buried what should be the issue of November elections.

Unless Democrats rebuff the deal made to gut SS, the November elections are LOST.



:kick:

[Karmadillo]

37. Somebody email this to Obama!! Quick!! He needs to know!!

nt

[blueworld]

39. With Greenwald on this one, although frequently not on all

One of the things I wonder: if Obama & the wisdom of Washington is so sure the Catfood Commission's recommendations are for the common welfare & will help get them re-elected, why defer everything until later? That speaks volumes to me.

I think any cuts to SS & VA benefits are wrong, particularly in this economy where the greediest wallow in the mostest. However, if there must be a compromise, why don't we see some on the table? Taxes for the wealthy? Cuts to the Pentagon budget? Something other than continuing to smash the poor & middle-class? They must be afraid that what they're doing is best hidden until after the election. Ironically this gives people the freedom to expand their worries into nightmares & stay home in despair.

edit: typo

[sabrina 1]

40. Cutting SS benefits will do nothing for teh defiicit.

They know this, which is why they wanted to keep their discussions secret. They cannot defend such a suggestion and it should not ever, ever be on the table. The only thing cutting SS benefits will do is to encourage more borrowing and spending from the SS Trust Fund and running up more debt.

With a surplus already in the fund, cutting benefits will only increase the surplus which makes no sense at all. Taking money OUT of the economy is not the way to stimulate it. If anything, since the SS fund has such a large surplus right now, the way to stimulate the economy is to INCREASE benefits. And those workers currently collecting from THEIR fund (this must be remembered, the SS fund is owned by the American workers, not the Fed. Govt) paid into it and it is their money. They have already cut benefits, by not paying the annual cost of living raise for two years.

There is no compromise to be made with SS funds. They are not part of the Fed. Budget, did not cause the deficit, and therefore should not even be discussed by this Commission.

To fix the deficit, taxes will have to be raised on the wealthy, whether they like it or not. The Pentagon budget badly needs to be cut. The Bush tax cuts will have to be allowed to expire.

There are so many ways to take care of the deficit, but the one thing that will do nothing to help reduce it, is to cut SS benefits. I cannot believe that any Democrat is even considering that.

[Luminous Animal]

42. Kick.

[Doctor_J]

44. I admire Glenn's integrity, but we're 4 months away from impeachment

maybe he really believes that that would be good for the country?

[Chan790]

46. There will be no impeachment...

Republican lawmakers would burn in their beds within a week if they subverted the will of the people. Even Nixon likely would have survived impeachment proceedings prior to the "I am not a crook." speech for the same reason.

Or to put it another way "John Boehner likes living too much to not insure any impeachment proceeding fails narrowly."

[JVS]

65. There will be impeachment.

But the republicans will have to figure out how to do it in such a way that it splits the democrats apart. If they choose some kind of birther BS, they know that the 70% of the public that is sane will circle the wagons. FISA, the war, assertion of the right to assassinate US citizens, etc. offer a lot of opportunity to split democrats and prevent a wagon circle, but republicans might fear that their base is too supportive of the whole war and violation of rights thing for that dog to hunt. The safer bet for the repubs is to dig around for some kind of wrongdoing with bailouts/fannie may/ freddy mac/ AIG/ goldman sachs. Dislike and distrust of these institutions cuts across party lines.

[katandmoon]

48. Don't worry, the repugs won't impeach Obama for the nakedness Glenn has exposed.

They will impeach him or attempt to impeach him for being too liberal, essentially. Which of course is a laugh. Whereas Glenn exposes where Obama is as conservative and reactionary as the most criminal repug.

[Doctor_J]

50. I didn't say they would impeach him because of Greenwald

The point is, I hope Glenn is happy when the Prez is impeached, because that's what is going to happen

[Fumesucker]

61. And impeachment will explicitly be the fault of Obama and the Dems if it happens..

Their fault for selling out their base to chase will-o-the-wisp right wing votes via "bipartisanship" thus making sure the base is demoralized and depressed.

Actions have consequences.

[Doctor_J]

63. "Demoralizing your base" is not grounds for impeachment

and your attitude that Obama deserves it is revolting.

[Recursion]

62. Those damn "corporatists" again

Whoever they are, we are never safe from them...