During the past few days, DU has been interesting...

[MineralMan]

A deal of some kind is being worked out to raise the debt ceiling. It's a necessary thing to prevent the US from defaulting on its obligations, so it's created a lot of maneuvering and posturing from both parties. That's only natural. Everyone wants to get whatever they possibly can from a piece of crisis legislation.

What has happened, however, on DU has been depressing to me. Despite no actual statements from the White House, some pundits in the media declared that cuts to Social Security and Medicare were imminent, and that recipients of those programs would be direly effected. One of the principal sources of this bit of propaganda came from a Washington Post article published on Wednesday night. A careful reading of that article demonstrated clearly that it was not based on any real information, but was, instead, speculation by the writer of the article, bolstered by the usual "anonymous source" who generally is used to support something unsupportable.

Despite the White House stating clearly that the article was incorrect, those who wish to think the worst about the Obama administration posted again and again regarding this questionable story. Bloggers who make a practice of attacking the Obama Administration opined on the issue, expanding the direness of this questionable information and adding their own speculations and doomsaying. Still, the White house denied that any such thing was part of their plan.

Since negotiations with Congress can be sensitive at times, the White House was not making public announcements about details of their plans. You don't expose your cards unless the game requires it. That's a basic in poker and politics alike. But the speculation continued. It ramped up daily to reach a peak this weekend. We still don't know what the White House plans. Nor should we, to be quite frank.

Now, Speaker Boehner appears to be stuck in a difficult position and is backing down from some things. Why? I do not know, but I suspect that calmer heads in the Republican party are starting to worry about their positions and the next election. But, I can't be sure about that, so I won't go any further in speculating.

The bottom line is that more meetings are happening today. Again, we will not know what is being brought to the table in those meetings by either side. We can only speculate, and that's where the trouble starts in the first place.

Here on DU, we're shouting at each other. Those who support the Obama Administration in general are duking it out with those who dislike the Obama Administration in general here on DU. Claims are made by both sides. Most of those claims are unsupported by facts. We do not know the facts about what is going to happen. We simply don't. We'll find out, though.

In the meantime, many of us have sent our emails to the principals involved and to our representatives. That's as it should be. But, we're doing ourselves no favor by fighting among ourselves before we even know what the real plans are on the Administration's side. I'll also briefly mention the well-known concept that there are those on this forum who make it their business to stir up discord among DUers. I don't know who they are exactly, and they often sound a lot like other people who have sincere opinions, but they're certainly here.

We're going to have more information today or tomorrow. I, for one, have sent my emails to those who matter, stating my position. Now, I'm going to wait to see what transpires. I'm only going to pay attention to actual statements from principals in this thing. If information comes from "unnamed sources," I'm going to ignore it until real information is available.

See you tomorrow. We can discuss it all then. I'm going to be looking at other stories and other issues today. Not this one.

[gateley]

1. K&R -- YOU'RE the adult in the room, MineralMan! :-)

Oops, my rec was for naught. :eyes:

[MineralMan]

6. Don't worry about recs. They've become essentially meaningless

these days. It's the discussion that matters, not the recs/unrecs. They don't matter at all, except in those few cases where someone posts to explain. And that's very rare. This is a discussion forum, not a popularity contest.

[gateley]

21. Yes, but a stellar piece like yours deserves to be seen and

many would welcome and agree with your views. Just don't want it to disappear.

But anyway, thanks again for a rational, reasonable post. :hi:

[MineralMan]

111. Posts that get lots of discussion are always seen.

Eventually, the recs and unrecs balance themselves out, especially those that are made without comment. Some of the very best discussions on DU end up with 0 recs. When that happens, you know that people are actually discussing an issue, and that it's an issue that deserves discussion.

If you're not aware of this, the Top Tens Page includes a list of threads that is "On The Fence." Those threads are close to evenly balanced between recs and unrecs, and are often the most interesting threads on DU at a given time. Whenever I only have a short time to spend on DU, I go to that page and pick threads to read from the On The Fence list.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

[gateley]

178. No! I didn't even know that existed -- thanks so much!! nt

[calimary]

164. True but I still think your work is worth recommending.

:yourock:

[NYC_SKP]

2. Times change, don't they? During the last Democratic Presidency, hardly anyone used the Internet.

A few of us had 28kbaud modems, then 56- woo hoo!

We had broadcast and some cable outlets for news, and the print media.

Now news and faux news, thoughtful editorials and utter trash, all travel equally well to each of us.

At the speed of light.

Interesting times, times to be very discerning.



In other news, I'm going to a San Francisco Giants game today.

If anyone else is going, please let me know, I'll be easy to find.

:P


`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

[MineralMan]

3. That's true. I remember spending a lot of time in the Compuserve

Politics forum during those days. Sounded a lot like DU, to tell the truth, but with both parties yelling at each other. We didn't have access to the range of news and commentary, though, that we have now. Today, just about anyone with any sort of opinion has a platform where he or she can blurt it out. Times have indeed changed.

[Shagbark Hickory]

5. The more things change, the more things stay the same. nm

[InkAddict]

4. Give some thought to this long road of grief and loss a lot of

Americans feel - some rally briefly, some fight out their denial...in the end there is nothing certain except death and taxes, perhaps not even the person personified by Lady Liberty. It's like this:

Sorry, that it's a .pdf

http://www.jenniferallenbooks.com/grief/pdf/longroad.pdf

[NNN0LHI]

7. Recommended

[MineralMan]

9. I appreciate that. Thanks.

[NNN0LHI]

138. You are welcome, Sir. And this place has always been interesting to me

Just some times are more interesting than others.

Don

[kenny blankenship]

8. Oops!

Obama Staff Chief: President Wants $4T Debt Deal
AP July 10, 2011

White House chief of staff William Daley says President Barack Obama isn't walking away from a $4 trillion debt-reduction plan that Republicans and even some Democrats don't like.

Daley says Obama will press congressional leaders at a crucial meeting Sunday evening to accept that deal, even with the tax and entitlement program changes it includes...


He wants to cut New Deal/ Great Society programs. Deal with it.

[MineralMan]

10. Really? We shall see, I'm sure.

Changes do not necessarily mean cuts. Read for meaning. Words matter. We have zero details about what President Obama has in mind. All we have is speculation. We shall see.

[lame54]

75. we don't know because he won't talk to us...

if it is not true that SS and MC are on the table - he needs to come out and kill that rumor

[MineralMan]

79. So, you want him to show you his cards? Is that it?

Good luck with that. My best advice is not to pay attention to rumors. That's the point of this original post. Rumors are just that - rumors. We'll find out what is in his plan shortly. If you're concerned, like we all are, communicate with your legislators and tell them. That's what I have been doing throughout this. I express my concerns and explain what I think should be done. I don't address rumors. I address facts.

[bahrbearian]

151. He showing them to Boner, why not Us?

Because we won't like what he shows us, and Boner says it not enought, come back when you can give me more.

[MineralMan]

172. No, I don't think he is. Boehner folded a hand today.

[bahrbearian]

174. He didn't lose a thing by walking, Obama showed his cards

Now they come back and ask for more. Obama lost when he put SS and Medicade on a "Budget Negotiation Table' this isn't poker, nobody folded,nobody won the pot. You don't play poker by showing your cards, you shouldn't even negotiate that way.

[Mojorabbit]

150. Well he has a history of caving

and this is one area I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I also have written and called. It is too important and I don't have faith in any of them. I don't think there is a thing wrong with venting of views on the subject. After all, that is what a discussion board is for. I am not the least bit threatened by opposing views nor am I under the impression that my venting on this board will make a bit of difference in DC.

[JoePhilly]

13. and thus ... MineralMan's point is proven. nt

[NYC_SKP]

15. Cut New Deal/Great Society programs? Where does it say that in your article, pasted in full here:

Obama Staff Chief: President Wants $4T Debt Deal

WASHINGTON July 10, 2011 (AP)

White House chief of staff William Daley says President Barack Obama isn't walking away from a $4 trillion debt-reduction plan that Republicans and even some Democrats don't like.

Daley says Obama will press congressional leaders at a crucial meeting Sunday evening to accept that deal, even with the tax and entitlement program changes it includes, rather than shorter-term proposals that cause less political heartburn.

Daley tells ABC's "This Week" that Obama wants lawmakers to "step up and be leaders."

House Speaker John Boehner said late Saturday that House Republicans wouldn't accept tax increases in Obama's plan. Officials have been negotiating for weeks to allow the nation's borrowing capacity to rise before an Aug. 2 deadline.

ETA: I read "tax and entitlement program changes", which could include tax increases on the top earners (yay) and raising the SS cap or other tweaks (another yay). While I don't anticipate he'll be able to raise the cap during this term with this congress, I think "Cut New Deal/Great Society programs" is a bit of a leap.

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

17. I'm not sure how "changes" got transformed into "cuts."

I guess that's my point in the OP.

[kenny blankenship]

I bet there's a lot of stuff you don't get.

[MineralMan]

33. I see. Well, no doubt you're correct.

I'm certainly not right 100% of the time. Just ask my wife. You have a nice day, now.

[kenny blankenship]

26. The article quotes the President's Chief of Staff, saying the President will press Congress

to take the deal "even with the tax and entitlement programs changes it includes."

Now if you're going to be coy and hide behind the word "changes" and argue that doesn't mean cuts, then I'm just going to have to apply the same "logic" to the word taxes in that sentence, and conclude that it doesn't mean revenue increases. Without any cuts or increases it's a little hard to see how FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS can be subtracted from projected debt reduction.

Go ahead, be coy. Hide.

[KittyWampus]

29. The Republicans WALKED AWAY FROM THAT DEAL. Now Obama is rubbing their faces in it.

[kenny blankenship]

32. Or he's wanting them to take the deal and agree to not hijack the govt over debt ceilings

again for a longer period of time.

If they end up doing a lesser deal than the "grand bargain", we do this ALL OVER AGAIN in less than 2 years.

[jaxx]

42. Since when did change mean cut?

Only in the minds of the pundits who stir the pot.

[girl gone mad]

133. Since people learned to use basic common sense.

The type of reductions in outlays Obama is seeking cannot be achieved without significant cuts. The euphemisms in play are irrelevant.

[hfojvt]

35. entitlement program changes could easily mean cuts too

Obama has not mentioned raising the cap since about March 2008. And lord knows that raising the cap would violate Obama's "Bush promise" ('read my lips, no new taxes') to not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year (unless they smoke). As we saw in December, the Bush promise trumps any other promise.

[Autumn]

67. I have a problem with how Obama frames it. There was an article

from the Hill today that said: "(Boehner) couldn't do revenues from wealthiest Americans, he walked away over that," the official said. "They are telling people we couldn't do entitlements, not true."

So, to me that means they are willing to do entitlement cuts, and Obama calls SS and Medicare "entitlements".
:shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

85. Indeed, they had an agreement but Boehner couldn't sell the tax increases to his caucus

Obama agreed to the deal Boehner brought with him. And you know that agreement didn't consist of only tax increases, or else Boehner wouldn't have brought it in the first place or put it in front of his caucus.

What it shows is that Republicans are more willing to defy their leadership when they feel that their party's principles & achievements are being traded away. There were some rumblings about resistance from Democrats on entitlement cuts, but they were perfectly set up by Obama for the fait accompli just as in the Public Option swindle. They weren't being allowed to know what was in the Grand Bargain before it would be announced. They grumble about not being allowed to know what's in the deal, but it all comes to nothing. Aside from Sanders and Whitehouse declaring their opposition to cuts, where is hte resistance? Pelosi grumbles about Social Security being cut through new, Enron-inspired CPI chicanery, but immediately lets her terms for accepting these unacceptable cuts be known.

[KittyWampus]

25. Obama is smacking Boehner in the face. Just because you can't understand the basic dynamics

doesn't mean Obama "wants to cut New Deal programs".

It really means you have a really limited grasp of the situation.

[roxiejules]

72. It was Candidate Obama who

put Social Security on the table during the 2007 primary season against Clinton.

Sen. Barack Obama yesterday slammed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for "ducking the issue" of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and signaled that he will take a more aggressive approach to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/27/AR2007102701332.html

It’s astounding to see a Major Dem (Obama) pimping Social Security as a big, troubling issue. It’s astounding to see one Dem attacking another because she won’t go along with that plutocrat claim—especially when he’s been reciting the old chestnut about college kids. This claim has been the tool of plutocrats over the course of the past twenty-five years. Now, we see a Major Dem pimping this line—and criticizing Clinton’s troubling “character” because she won’t go there with him.

By the way, tell us again: Which of these two is the “liberal?”

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/10/29/171748/53

"All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It’s a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders." - Paul Krugman

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/why-barack-why/

[Palmer Eldritch]

92. sorry, Kenneth. The word cut doesn't appear in that statement.

No matter how much you want it to be there.

[KharmaTrain]

11. DU's A Political Water Cooler...

I've come to expect this place to fly in all directions when any major story breaks. This is especially the case with something as politically charged as these negotiations. Then add the prevailing opinions that this administration negotiates from a position of weakness and any words about this topic feeds all types of speculation and angst. But I see that as a healthy thing. Sure, there are those who get all ferklepmt and those who want to score political points will do so...but the speculation can also bring out some greater understanding of the complicated games being played.

[rbnyc]

120. +1 (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. An easy way to avoid all the speculation is for the bosses to have their meetings open to the public

You know, let the people know whats actually going on. Transparency. Democracy.

[Autumn]

23. Transparency? nah, that was

campaign speak.

[KittyWampus]

30. Apparently you don't understand what Representative Govt is and how it works.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Like the Mafia?

Private sit downs of the Capos to decide how to spend the peoples money and get more out of them?

[KittyWampus]

78. I didn't know the Mafia elected their leadership.

[EFerrari]

95. "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this government."

Barack Obama

[Palmer Eldritch]

93. This is a Republic. We elect Representatives to negotiate for us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. Terrific. So, why not do it in public view so we can see if they're doing it right?

How can we decide who to vote for if we can't see what they're doing?

[Palmer Eldritch]

126. Like it or not, people are willing to make better deals when they don;t have to fear it will show up

in an Attack Ad come campaign season.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

131. Tough. They work for us not the ad agencies.

[azul]

149. We are the ones paying their salaries.

We need to set less corruptible, more open terms of employment.

[pipi_k]

14. This is why

I'm largely staying out of threads that have anything to do with Medicare/SS.

Can't even count how many I've hidden in the past three or four days. Over 40 for sure...maybe close to 50 or 55.


It's crazy. Nowhere has any Democrat (as far as I can tell) actually said that there would be cuts to Medicare/SS.

But that's not good enough. People are making assertions based on what hasn't been said. What the....????

There are no real facts. Only assumptions. From both sides.

[MineralMan]

16. Yup. You can see an example upthread, where the word

"changes" is morphed to "cuts" by a poster. Sometimes I despair.

[pipi_k]

55. I'm not at all surprised, to tell the truth...

although it IS frustrating as hell.

I mean, even without all this Medicare/SS drama going on, the usual day at DU consists of people posting stuff, and then others jumping in to accuse them of saying things that were never said.

Honestly...make a statement, and there will invariably be people who will read between the lines (or through their own filters) and think something else completely was said. Or meant. Even if it was never said at all.


Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[TheKentuckian]

142. Because there is no mechanism for "changes" that aren't cuts.

Yeah, the TeaPubliKlan House was all for raising the cap or any such answer but couldn't swallow the tiny income tax increase to previous levels, that's the the ticket.

The only plausible discussion would be cuts unless you arguing that the TeaPubliKlans would accept positive fixes and what they would be horse traded for.

The fantasy presented is built on a foundation of sand because it cannot make sense in the present context.

[EFerrari]

114. If you've hidden all those threads, how do you know what Democrats have said?

If you want to save time, go search what Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse and Nancy Pelosi have said. There is a House group that went to the mattresses on Friday but I don't remember which one. There are plenty of facts out there, no matter how many times MineralMan posts that we don't know anything and can't know anything and should just wait until someone from on high hands down the Final World.

[azul]

152. Taxpayers form fund to privatize oversight of government to Wikileaks?

To drain the swamp and to expose the massive media failure and corruption?

That Wiki advert was pretty effective.

[pipi_k]

181. OK, let me clarify...

I read the first ten.

They were all the same.


There's nothing to make me believe the next 40 or so after that were any different. So I've been hiding them.

Occasionally I will open one up to see what's being said. Same old bullshit...

The anti-Obama crowd are saying one thing. The pro-Obama crowd are saying another.

Then there are the middle-of-the-roaders who advise caution, and even they're getting a hard time.

That's how just about every issue goes here.

Hell, I've even gotten involved in issues like that myself, but usually it's topics that are largely a matter of opinion. What people think about this or that.


This time it's people insisting that their opinions/wishes/fears are FACTS.

I don't have to read every single post in every single thread to know that's what's happening.

[KittyWampus]

18. *IF* Obama was the party introducing S.S. into the bargaining mix it effectively woke up seniors

and a lot of middle class voters. That's for sure. Which is a good thing.

Especially since Weiner's implosion took the conversation away from Ryan's disaster budget that was killing the Republicans.

I'd rather see Democratic voters agitating against cuts to SS & Medicare than to remain silent.

But you can do that without trashing Obama & Democrats at the same time.

Further, we now see Boehner walking away from the proposed 4 Trillion $ Deal.

And now Obama is SMACKING HIM IN THE FACE saying he needs to keep going with a grand deal. LOL!

Republicans will not make a deal at all. They will push default.

And THEY ALONE WILL OWN THE CONSEQUENCES.

[LiberalAndProud]

157. I agree with every word you wrote here.

[NV Whino]

19. Poker?

I thought they were playing chess.

[MineralMan]

31. Nah. Poker's the most like political negotiations.

Chess is a game of strategy. Poker's a game of negotiating. There are no negotiations in chess - just strategy. The whole game is visible all the time in chess. In Poker, it's all a negotiation, with each party having partial knowledge of how the cards are distributed and a plan. Sometimes you bluff. Sometimes you lay back and encourage the other party to risk more than they would risk normally. Eventually, you have to show your cards to win, unless everyone folds.

[johnaries]

104. I've been thinking how much this resembles poker, myself.

A lot of bluffing going on, especially on the REpublican side. Obama called their bluff.

[MineralMan]

161. Yup. And they haven't seen his hole cards yet, either.

Poker. An interesting game. I'm not very good at it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Things are almost never what they seem to be.

That's why I rarely panic over what comes from unidentified sources appearing in the "news" (and why I generally avoid getting into arguments on DU). I really don't know what's going on right now, so I'm not going to have a preemptive stroke over it.

Of course I do not like the idea that SS/Medicare/Medicaid are being used as bargaining chips. I'm not far from retirement myself and I, like millions of others, have paid into those funds for many years and am counting on receiving the benefits to which I am entitled. But at this point the way to deal with the *possibility* that this is being done is not to go all verklempt on DU but to write to ones' congresscritters and the White House (on real paper, not easily-ignored email or useless online petitions) and remind them in no uncertain terms that these programs are, indeed the third rail of politics, that there is still plenty of amperage in that rail, and that they will get their sorry asses zapped if they touch it.

In the meantime I will sit back and wait to see what develops. It's easier on my nerves that way.

[KittyWampus]

34. IMO, it's a good thing people woke up and paid attention.

Talk about cutting SS and Medicare got people's attention.

I'd rather people be paying attention and start agitating against any potential cuts than not.

Though I wish there would be less of a circular firing squad.

All I know is a few weeks ago the Republicans were taking major hits from Ryan's Budget which proposed Medicare cuts.

I'd like to see things go back towards that dynamic. If introducing S.S. into the mix (whoever brought it up) does that, I'm all for it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. Paying attention is very important.

I'm glad people got stirred up enough to remind the clueless fools in D.C. that this is a big deal. I'm just not ready to panic yet.

Maybe that was the whole point of these leaks - to get the masses ready to sharpen their pitchforks and light their torches. Remind the GOPers that the third rail is still plugged in.

[closeupready]

22. Principals.

you're welcome. ;)

[MineralMan]

37. Thanks. I made the correction. It's not a normal mistake for

me. I appreciate the heads up.

[lunatica]

24. I agree that taking 'anonymous sources say' with more than a grain of salt is wise

We're being manipulated way too easily by the media and the trolls. This is election campaign season and the lines are drawn and the propaganda is being catapulted. We should wise up to election strategies by now, especially since it happens every other year now.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. "Despite no actual statements from the White House"

Obama's been using this "cut" vs. "slash" game ever since his Deficit Commission voted to recommend a 22% benefit cut on the average recipient. It's good to see that the press is finally catching on.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0707/Briefing-room-word-games-What-s-a-slash-versus-a-cut-in-Social-Security">Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

"So, a reporter asked, what does “slash” mean?

“Haven’t you got, like, a dictionary app on your iPhone?” Carney replied.

Q: Well, it’s a word that you use instead of “cut.”

Carney: “Slash” is, I think, quite clear. It’s slash. It’s like that. (Carney makes a slashing motion with his hand.) It’s a significant whack.

Q: So it means a significant …

Carney: I’m not going to put a numerical figure on it.

Q: So it means a significant cut.

Carney: I think slashing is a pretty sharp, direct …

Q: It’s not the same thing as cutting – the point is, it’s not the same thing as “cut.”

Carney: It’s slash. (Laughter.) And I don’t mean the guitarist. (Laughter.)

Q: A pledge to not slash benefits is not the same thing as a pledge to not cut benefits.

Carney: I’m not – again, we’re talking about a policy enunciated by the president back in January, and that is …

Q: This is a diction you guys have chosen.

Carney: No, no, I get that, and we did choose it, and the president used it. But I’m not here to negotiate the semantics …

Q: Just so everybody understands – just so everybody understands, when you say “slash,” you don’t mean “cut.”

Carney: We have said that to address the long-term solvency of the problem – of the program, because this is not an issue that drives short- or medium-term deficits, that we would look – the president is interested in looking at ways to strengthen the program and enhance its long-term solvency that protects the integrity of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.

Q: Which is not the same thing as not cutting benefits."

[woo me with science]

44. Pelosi has also clearly indicated that chained CPI is being considered.

She not only has acknowledged that chained CPI is on the table, she
described Friday afternoon her potential "line in the sand" conditions for implementing it:

"But she reiterated that any savings from changing the CPI would have to go back to the Social Security Trust Fund." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20077942-503544.html)

In other words, she is on record discussing possible terms for implementation of this policy that supposedly isn't even on the table.

[woo me with science]

45. Delete - wrong place

[Palmer Eldritch]

98. Why do you keep spreading this disinfo?

She never said it was part of the plan.
In fact, she said it was very likely it would not be.

The only thing she said in your precious article is that the chained CPI is not a benefit cut and you just assume that means it's part of the plan.

Your assumption <> the Truth

[woo me with science]

117. No, you are wrong.

You are ignoring what she said, conveniently.

[Palmer Eldritch]

182. Please post the quote where she says it's part of the plan.

Not the quote where she says it's not a benefit cut.

[woo me with science]

183. WTF?

That wasn't even the quote I posted. Are you even following this conversation?

The quote I posted had nothing to do with her saying whether it is a benefit cut or not. I posted that she cautioned that the money saved by CPI cuts would have to go back to the SS fund.

In other words, she is discussing terms for including it in the deal.

In other words, chained CPI is on the table.

Which CPI adjustment do you think she is talking about? The one that is part of the plan, or the one she is working on privately as a personal hobby?

You know, if you are not even going to read what I post, then I don't have time for this nonsense.

[kath]

128. But it IS a benefit cut, so she's using lying weasel words.

[Marr]

28. I seem to recall Obama's most faithful supporters urging people to ignore the public option rumors

as well. 'Don't get worked up', they said, 'it's only paranoid speculation'. But it wasn't just paranoid speculation-- it was representative of information gleaned from trial balloons and common knowledge in DC. When the announcement suddenly came that the public option was out, all those voices that had previously called for calm were urging everyone to accept reality, be adults, and move on.

The fact is that we've had non-denial denials from the White House (a cut isn't a slash?), and we've seen Congressional leaders prevaricate while the rank and file are getting mobilized around the idea that he White House is about to sell them out. We know that the White House has put Social Security and Medicare on the table during a deficit discussion, and if you think they'd poke that beehive just to make a few little accounting tweaks that could just as well be done 15 years from now, you're a lot more optimistic than I am.

[MineralMan]

41. As I said. We're going to find out, sooner rather than later.

As for the public option business, it was clear that was a non-starter from the very beginning. I never had any hopes for it during the entire process. There was zero chance of a public options at that time. Zero. We barely got the hash-up of an HCR bill that we got through the Senate. But, we did. It's helpful to some, and will be helpful to more as it is implemented through 2014. It's hardly what I'd prefer, which is a single-payer, single-pool taxpayer supported health system. But, you can't get what won't pass. You can get what you can get or you can get nothing at all. I'm not a big fan of nothing at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. "Any bill I sign must contain a strong public option". Ring a bell?

He also said mandating the purchase of for profit insurance as a solution to our health care crisis was as stupid as trying to solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house. He verbally gutted Clinton for supporting mandates, said she was going after your wallet. Then, instantly, he supported mandates upon election. A non starter? Well, the man who said he's start it refused to even try. And why did he do that? Because people sat quietly and trusted a politician to do the right thing rather than the easy thing.

[Marr]

86. Exactly.

I should've read your post before I bothered responding. You said it better than I.

[Marr]

84. What?

Obama said he wouldn't sign a bill without a public option (which was a fig leaf itself, of course, and a huge compromise from the Single Payer approach his supporters wanted). He mocked Clinton during the campaign for supporting mandates. He ended up pushing mandates and ditching even that compromised public option.

My point is that if past performance is any indication, the ugly rumors turn out to be true, and simply waiting for the official announcement and trusting in Obama's good faith negotiation is a sucker's bet.

[MineralMan]

105. This discussion is not about the health care reform bill.

We've talked about that at length in other threads.

[Marr]

121. Of course, it's about keeping our mouths shut until our millionaire politicians make decisions.

And since your whole point is that we know nothing, I suggest looking to past performance as an indicator of what's likely to happen.

[MineralMan]

123. I suggested that we will know more tomorrow, and that we should

have some actual stuff to discuss. We discussed the public option when it was an active issue. It is not an active issue at this time. Unfortunately, it was impossible to get it through the Senate, so it was dropped in favor of passing an HCR bill of some kind. The bill is not satisfactory, but it helps more people than no bill at all, so I accept it. If we play our cards right, we should be able to do much more down the road. Of course, we do have to use the best possible strategy in the next three elections to ensure that we can do anything at all.

That's my focus. Public option? That's old news. We have some new stuff to deal with now, and we'll know what we're actually dealing with shortly. Right now, it's unclear in the details.

[Marr]

130. I understand your point, but I consider misguided.

I have to assume that part of the WH's calculation is the public response to the negotiations, as it's presented in the media. Sending letters to politicians is fine, but I see no reason to stifle our responses to the facts as they've been presented, whether that presentation turns out to be true or not.

[MineralMan]

132. OK. I'm just another poster here.

My responses have been based on the facts as known at any given time. I'm looking forward to having more of them. In the meantime, I'm ignoring distortions, speculations, and downright lies. I always try to do that.

[boston bean]

38. Is Tim Geithner an anonymous source?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/43701982#43701982

[MineralMan]

43. No. He's not. What did he say, exactly?

I have a work project I have to complete today, so I'm not watching the Sunday political shows.

Again, we're going to find out more information today, tonight, and tomorrow. Since it's too late to influence the situation at this point, I believe I'll wait to see what transpires. I sent out my emails on Thursday and Friday. Today? I'm trying to earn a living and post in this thread from time to time.

So, instead of posting a question about the anonymity of Geithner, why not post what he said? That seems an appropriate thing to do, don't you think?

[boston bean]

48. I gave you a link to watch. you can click on that or not. i'm not your transcriptionist.

[MineralMan]

73. I don't have time to watch it today.

Gist it out for me. Be helpful. What did he say?

If you don't want to do that, it's fine. I'll continue waiting for information from today's meetings.

[boston bean]

140. would probably take the time it took you to type 5 replies to this thread.

and a hell of a lot less than it took you to write your OP.

Watch it when you have enough of your preciuos time to give and get back to me after that.

[rosesaylavee]

40. K&R

[woo me with science]

46. What an odd premise.

It's good to write our representatives about this, but it's somehow inadvisable to discuss it at DU?

:wtf:

[EFerrari]

82. Shut up and wait for Important People to tell you what to think, will ya?

[Bobbie Jo]

118. Indeed. St. Jane will issue her decree shortly, just sit tight.

[EFerrari]

119. MoJo has done a miraculous job with this Debt Ceiling Explainer

considering we don't know anything and can't know anything and shouldn't talk about it until we do.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/whats-happening-debt-ceiling-explained#37

[ZombieHorde]

144. My intrepration of the OP was we should being asses to each other.

I could be wrong.

[TNLib]

47. K&R

I agree no one knows what's going to happen. It's ashame that our politics isn't more transparent so "We the People" Know what is really happening.

[Bonobo]

49. Is the concept of floating balloons unfamiliar to you?

It's not that hard to understand. You float a balloon to measure the amount of resistance.

He floated and there was massive resistance.

He made sure to maintain plausible deniability so he could cut either way.

He weighed the resistance and decided against going to the right.

So, it is a good thing that so many people reacted so swiftly and vociferously.

[WingDinger]

51. Isnt that how you set a trap as well?

[Bonobo]

56. I am not sure I understand how that would work.

It seems to me that floating the idea that SS is now "on the table" greatly weakens us positionally.

It should never have been thrown out there. We gave a little ideologically speaking and it is hard not to see it that way for me.

[WingDinger]

60. He suckered them into negotiations that had a trial baloon floated that he was SERIOUS.

That he wanted to deal with the entire issue. Get a fresh start. They balk. They refuse his grand scheme. They seem recalcitrant. Obama says he tried the grand scheme. Now, they had better vote on a clean fix. Oh, we'll talk later, but now, you pukes better save your sorry asses. Obama already intent on rolling medicare and such issues to conglomerate, and deal with them within the framework of Obamacare will allow cuts, only in method of paperwork etc, not benefits. He suckered them into the business jets thingie, and showed them as petulant. He has maneuvered them into a position where he can begin to lecture them to timidity. With the public increasingly sharpening their butterfly ballet styluses. And then, suddenly, all of DU erupts in retraction and apology. Seen it all before.

[Marr]

87. Another bit of twelve-dimensional-chess rationalization. n/t

[WingDinger]

91. Also garden variety hard ball politics, and used by THIS pres, before.

[Marr]

97. Oh neat. Was that to get the Bush Tax Cuts extended or the

health insurance bailout?

[WingDinger]

176. I'm all for shoving.

[Palmer Eldritch]

99. Every unsubstantiated rumor is a Trial Balloon to those who lapped it up.

Keeps you from ever being wrong.

[shanti]

110. that's how i see it too

they were just testing the waters, and found them too hot!

[WingDinger]

50. Wrote a song about it. Asking meekly EXACTLY where did Obama go wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1445906


Many were equivalent to teabagger social conservative mirror issues. All posturing, and no meat.

[loveandlight]

52. what you said, yes

Could not be better thought out and stated.

[MineralMan]

66. That's very kind of you to say.

[loveandlight]

53. what you said, yes

Could not be better thought out and stated.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. This is a discussion board. Without discussion, Skinner goes

wanting. I personally do not go to a coffee house and tell people to stop using coffee. I figure the owners want people drinking coffee, and it is their place of business.
And this is not the first thread of yours I have seen on the subject, the first one said you were not going to speak of it at all until all the facts are in. So interesting, that. You keep discussing how others should not be discussing. Seems your point of view is expressed in a wrapper that says others should not express their own point of view, on a discussion board.

[pipi_k]

58. Discussion is good...

But going after each other like wild animals...

not so much.

and there's always a disturbing amount of that, even without the Medicare/SS drama.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Ah, but the OP says not to discuss, and the OP is in fact

'going after' those who want to discuss, or who do not agree with him. It is several paragraphs on the subject of 'I'm not writing paragraphs on this and you shouldn't either'. The OP is free to not join in where he does not wish to be. Calling out those who are discussing the issues on a discussion board as if that was simply not done here is an act of aggression. The OP delivers his point of view while saying others should not do so. The post is about DUers, not about the issues. Which we are really not supposed to do at all. We are supposed to discuss issues, we are not supposed to discuss each other.
There are many issues of great interest to me that I never talk about on DU, because I do not enjoy the 'how' of the discussions here. I do not post OPs about how I am not discussing that issue, I just don't discuss it. Works like a charm.

[pipi_k]

116. I got a whole different message...

What he ultimately said was:

"The bottom line is that more meetings are happening today. Again, we will not know what is being brought to the table in those meetings by either side. We can only speculate, and that's where the trouble starts in the first place.

Here on DU, we're shouting at each other."

He's not saying "Don't discuss it".

He is (IMO) saying we can discuss it without shouting at each other. Or being nasty.

Or, let me put it this way...we should be able to discuss it without shouting and nastiness.

But we're not.

And that is the problem. Discussion based on speculation...OK.

Shouting and nastiness based on speculation. What's the point in it?

[suffragette]

106. + 1,000

[XanaDUer]

57. Why are we not allowed to discuss politics on a political discussion board?

nt.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. Discuss, yes - of course.

Fly off the handle? Call names? Make unfounded accusations? Jump to unsupported conclusions? Freak out? That's not "discussing."

Way too much freaking out on DU these days...

[XanaDUer]

62. There's always been freaking out on DU

remember the Columbia disaster in 2003?

We here at DU are like ladies at high tea compared to discussions I have with relatives. (about politics)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

63. The good thing about online discussions, no matter how heated,

is that people can't throw folding chairs at each other.

[XanaDUer]

64. You got that right.

nt.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. If that was the subject of the OP, I'd agree, but it is not.

The OP is not about how DUers of all sorts could be kinder to one another. That would make a great thread, but this is not that. This characterizes others while suggesting they should not respond. If the point was to encourage not silence, but kindness, a rewrite is in order, big time.

[EFerrari]

88. Exactly. And it is almost impossible to discuss the OP

if you disagree with it without discussing the poster, which as you point out, we're supposed to try to avoid.

[MineralMan]

112. What did you want to discuss about the poster? I'm here.

I'm not that interesting, frankly, but I'll be happy to discuss myself with you, if you wish. I doubt anyone will find it interesting, and I'm not anonymous, as a visit to my profile will establish. So, you can find out just about anything you want about me very easily. I don't know why anyone would want to. I'm just an old fart living in Minnesota.

I'll be happy to answer any question you might have, as long as it does not violate DU rules. Also, I will not post my personal information on DU. It's pretty easy to find, if you're interested. But, hey, ask away. Here I am...

[EFerrari]

129. I really don't find people who try to shut down discussions very interesting

but thanks anyway.

[MineralMan]

134. Ah, I see. Well, since this thread is just chock full of discussion,

I guess I wasn't trying to shut anything down, as if I could in the first place. I have no power to shut down anything, except maybe my air conditioning. Certainly I can't shut down anything on DU.

So, you don't actually want to discuss me? That's fine. I'm not that interesting, really. I'm surprised you brought up the idea of doing that in the first place. So, I offered to answer any questions you might have. If you have none, then I'll be off to do something else. Bye.

[MineralMan]

137. Who said you were not? Not me, certainly.

I control nothing at DU. I can't allow or disallow anything at all. In fact, there's a lively discussion going on right now in this thread, and I thank you for participating in it. I posted my thoughts to begin this thread. That is all. You shouldn't listen to me if you think I'm telling you not to discuss things. I can't do that, so you've misunderstood me, it seems.

[XanaDUer]

154. Huh?

Seriously, you need to cut back on whatever the fuck you're smoking!

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

171. You asked why we were not allowed to discuss politics on DU.

I responded. You seem not to have reread the post to which I was replying. I have no control over what you do on DU. Have a nice day.

[TreasonousBastard]

61. It still amazes me how the keyboard warriors manage to get all worked up...

about nothing, but I suppose it's no different than those bar arguments I remember with a bunch of guys who didn't know a damn thing yelling at each other. Always seemed the people who knew stuff didn't hang out in bars that much.

Amazing too is how the occasional reasonable post gets lauded as a work of genius and insight, which I suppose it is when compared to the mass of hysterical rants.

While I too shall sit back and wait to see what drifts up out of the swamp, having no control over it other than contacting the three congresscritters who are supposed to listen to me, I must disagree with this characterization of "anonymous sources." While often used badly, journalists do get a lot of the better stuff with people speaking off the record.

What would the 70's have been like without Deep Throat?

(Yeah-- the source and the movie.)

[MineralMan]

81. Unnamed sources have their function. The problem right now is

that there are so many of them being quoted. Far more than actually exist. Every blogger and would-be journalist quotes them, even if they've never spoken with anyone in power in their life. When Watergate was going on, legitimate, respected journalists used Deep Throat as a source, because they knew that person to have valuable information. All too often in today's media, "unnamed sources" don't actually exist. They're often used as a way to give credibility to the ideas of the writer, even though no source was actually consulted. It's a mistake to put trust in every person with a blog or access to sites like FDL and Huffington Post. It's especially a mistake to pay any attention to "journalists" who are writing for free somewhere. With professional journalists, you have someone who is employed by a news organization with a specific set of ethical standards. Some standards, as at Fox News, are spurious. Others, with outlets that are trustworthy, have very high standards indeed. Knowing the difference isn't always easy.

I can tell you this, though: A "journalist" with a pseudonym on some blog is not a reliable source, by definition.

[TreasonousBastard]

175. Oh. You included bloggers and assholes in there, and that...

expands the territory exponentially. Yeah, I consider anything said in the "blogosphere" as we know it to be just opinion and probably bullshit unless fully sourced. Reporters and some commentators blogs at major media excepted. I don't see much difference, except point of view, between Drudge and Huffpo. I'm not too thrilled with a lot of the "Alternative Journalism" I mistakenly asked for in my mailbox every day, either.

Reporters for established media have always had great sources who often remained anonymous-- cultivating them is at least half the job. And they have editors, institutional memory, and established standards helping keep them honest, although all that good stuff is becoming too expensive in these lean times.

[MineralMan]

180. I included blogs because they are often quoted here on DU

as though they were legitimate sources...even blogs where the writer doesn't even use his or her real name. They're quoted here and copied and pasted all over this planet. Yes, legitimate news media has some standards. Not as strong as they once were, but still there. The blogosphere has few, if any, standards, and yet many people treat a blogatorial the same as a well researched and well reported news story. Never mind that the blogger has no sources other than the very media he or she condemns. A few words from a legitimate source, and the blogger is off on a conjectural journey that far too many readers cannot tell from real journalism.

There is an important place for editorial writers, of course, and those who have earned their editorial chops are widely respected and careful. But, the typical blogger on, say FDL or, deity help us, HuffPo, has no such chops. Yet, their mewlings are treated as equal to those who have earned respect through years of careful research and writing.

If there is one thing that causes me great pause in today's political reality, it is the proliferation of editorial writers without any portfolio at all The worst of these do not even reveal their identities. Anonymous writing is little more than rumor-mongering.

[Zorra]

69. The following may be one of the very valid causes of concern for some folks here.

It is basically an example of a chronology of headlines outlining the pattern and process of promises, bipartisan compromise, capitulation, and renewed promises, all of which are, IMO, a primary factor that causes many of us to be skeptical of the words and actions of the President. We simply don't know what to believe; and experience has shown that we are justified in our skepticism.

Yes, we will see how the current issue regarding the budget resolves, and hopefully, all cause for concern by skeptical Democrats will be eliminated when all is said and done.
---------
Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That’s right.
snip---
OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.
http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_tax_reform.htm

Obama says he'll tax the rich, roll back Bush cuts and aid middle ...
articles.nydailynews.com/2008.../17910293_1_tax-cuts-middle-clas..

Obama May Not Repeal Bush Tax Cuts - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/.../main4631105.shtml?... - Cached
Nov 25, 2008

Obama Is Against a Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts
Published: September 7, 2010 NYT

Obama set against Bush tax cuts
www.washingtonpost.com › Print Edition › Business
Sep 8, 2010

September 9, 2010 3:53 PM
White House: No Veto Will be Needed Over Bush Tax Cuts - cbsnews

The White House says it is confident Congress can find the votes this year to pass legislation extending the Bush tax cuts that does not include an extension of those cuts for the wealthiest Americans, something Republicans are calling for.

They are so confident, in fact, that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today there is no need for the president to consider vetoing any potential bill that would give in to the Republicans' preferences.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015994-503544.html

Bush tax cuts: Obama will negotiate - Nov. 3, 2010
money.cnn.com/2010/11/03/news/.../bush_tax_cuts.

President Obama ready to deal on Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44990.html Nov 11, 2010

Obama Confronts Resistence From Democrats Over Deal to Adopt Bush ...
www.bloomberg.com/.../payroll-tax-holiday-on-the-table-as-negotia..Dec 7, 2010.

Poll: Obama Supporters Overwhelmingly Oppose Tax Cuts Deal | TPMDC
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../poll-obama-supporters-overwhel... - Cached
Dec 7, 2010 – Throughout the 2008 campaign, President Obama repeatedly stated that he would not extend the Bush tax cuts for Americans making more than ...

Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts - Political Hotsheet ...
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html - Cached
Dec 17, 2010 – President Signs Into Law $858 Billion Compromise Bill

Obama: 'I refuse to renew' Bush tax cuts for rich - The Oval ...
content.usatoday.com/communities/.../obama-i...bush-tax-cuts.../1 - Cached
Apr 13, 2011 – The great tax cut battle of 2012...

Obama Won't Extend Bush Tax Cuts Again: Pledge To House Dems ...
www.democraticunderground.com › Discuss - Cached
Jun 2, 2011 –

Obama shifts debt-talk tactics, drops call for end to Bush tax ...
thehill.com/.../168629-white-house-shifts-from-including-bush-tax-Jun 27, 2011

[LiberalAndProud]

162. This is an excellent illustration of the progression of events.

And it is not an isolated series. We saw the AHCA pattern, even to Nancy Pelosi riding in to save the day, only to repeat the President's talking points after the "Meeting". I even remember thinking that Bernie Sanders, at least, would represent us. Didn't he say he would?

But do not be alarmed, we are being hysterical based on rumor and speculation from anonymous sources with nefarious partisan motives. Do not let experience be your guide. It's just a coincidence.

[madamesilverspurs]

70. Thanks for this.

A voice of reason in the midst of screeching hysterics is most welcome, I assure you. As a recipient of both Medicare and Social Security, I am well aware of areas in both that need to change. There are redundancies that need to be eliminated, as well as some rules that unnecessarily create additional costs. Also needed are improvements to the mechanisms that assess appropriate benefit delivery, tied more to need than to convenience. It makes no sense to panic over something that could very well change things for the better.


-

[MineralMan]

76. Like the Medicare Advantage programs, maybe.

While I'm sure there were some good ones, I watched my parents, who are now 86, struggle to get care under one of those programs. They switched the next year to a straight supplement, and are getting the care they need without begging for it. My dad just had a pacemaker implanted a couple of weeks ago that will extend his active life for a few more years, barring other problems. He had a hip replaced at 85, and was back on his tractor on the citrus farm they own in a couple of months.

Many of the the HMO-style Advantage programs are well-known for denying coverage for needed procedures.

That was one of the things President Obama wanted to cut to improve quality of care and save tons of money. I'm sure that's still in the plan.

I'm on Medicare and Social Security myself, so I'm affected by all of this. I'm paying close attention to factual information, and ignoring speculation.

[elleng]

74. Thanks, MM.

YES

[MineralMan]

77. You're welcome. It's just my Sunday morning musing. I'm glad

you found it useful.

[elleng]

101. Useful and calming, MM. Sanity helps.

[Itchinjim]

80. knr

[TBF]

83. You're complaining about speculating, but if we don't say anything

then you'll say "you never said anything before this passed". So, myself and many others will speak out when we see the atrocities being contemplated on either side of the aisle.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

89. It's a very passive-aggressive MO...

I'm amazed more haven't caught on.

[Palmer Eldritch]

100. Is speculating now equivalent to "making shit up"?

I thought speculating was supposed to be based on some factual basis.

[MineralMan]

109. Sometimes speculations are based on facts. Other times, they're

just "making things up," as you say. Telling the difference can be very, very difficult.

[MineralMan]

103. You appear to be missing the part where I said I've

communicated my concerns and ideas to those who will be deciding these issues. None of those people appear to be on DU. I have expressed myself very clearly on what I think will be the best path. Now, my ideas may not be the ones that are adopted. I will have to wait and see. But, I've made my positions clear in those communications.

Here on DU, it's another matter. I like to discuss politics and, if you look at my profile, you'll see that I'm pretty active in doing that. However, I don't like discussion speculations about issues, particularly when those speculations have a distinctly partisan feel. I'd rather discuss actual facts, and what is known, rather than someone's fantasy about what's going on.

When we find out what the actual proposals are from the Obama Administration, there will be plenty of stuff to talk about. So far, we do not have that information. I expect that we will, starting tomorrow. We're going to hear some actual proposals now. I'm glad of that. We can discuss them.

[Palmer Eldritch]

90. Clarity amidst the obscure. Thanks for telling the truth.

[spanone]

94. k&r...

[nolabear]

96. K&R and thanks. I like a good debate but DU gets hysterical at times and I hate to see that.

High emotion just doesn't help in the long run. Keeps me from participating much, as I am a realistic Obama supporter (i.e. with some measure of disappointment but some measure of understanding as well) and that kind of discussion just can't happen. But I do still check in for leftie news and then run off when I just can't see the point of the fight.

Appreciate the Sunday morning judiciousness.

[johnaries]

102. THANK YOU! Very well said. I can't think of anything to add. KNR.

[MineralMan]

107. Thank you for saying that. I appreciate it very much.

[Hamlette]

113. Why the Dems can't win messaging wars: this exchange from John Cole's blog said it all to me:

followed by:



As John pointed out, and with which I agree, this is not to dis on Chris Hayes. I like him. And I do NOT want us to be lock step republicans, that's not what I advocate. But we are the party of logic and reason and we should stop to evaluate situations and statements before we knee jerk in a way that might leave hard feelings in our own tent, oh, and give the enemy ammunition.

It's an election year (almost) damn it. Hasn't half a year of the GOP in charge of the house taught us anything? This debt ceiling debate would not have even happened if we still had the house.

It's not that we gave them ammunition, its just that we depressed ourselves and as Nate pointed out, we didn't turn out which made the difference.

If the idea of Bachmann or Romney in the WH isn't enough to freak you out and stop nit picking our own, you've not been paying attention.

[MineralMan]

115. You make a very good point, and one I agree with.

We have what I believe to be a crucial election just around the corner. There's a lot of work to do, it seems to me, to try to recover what we lost in 2010 so that we can prepare the way to increase our majorities in 2014 and 2016. Those three elections will present every Senator for election. By design, it will take six years to rebuild the Senate the way we want it, while reinforcing the House. Why aren't we talking about strategies for doing that here on DU?

[TBF]

122. I think you'll find that in GD: P -

I stay out of there because it's not really of interest to me. I always go vote for the most progressive folks on the ballot (and in TX that can be a challenge...), but I don't spend much time on it.

Ending capitalism is more important to me, so I stay in this general forum most of the time. I think you'll find more of the strategy/elections stuff in GD: P or perhaps a Barack Obama group.

[MineralMan]

125. I'm not really interested in GD:P, but thanks.

I really have to stay in one place if I'm to get any work at all done. So you'll continue to find me in GD.

[Edweird]

124. I don't consider Nancy Pelosi an 'anonymous source', but whatever works for you I suppose.

[MineralMan]

127. Nor do I. I read what she said very carefully, and understand it..

Now, I'm waiting to see what comes from today's meetings. We should have some good information later tonight or tomorrow. We'll see what the principals in all of this say. They're the sources that interest me.

[Enthusiast]

135. One 'fact' that you left out

is that Obama created a deficit commission. He appointed anti-New Deal zealots Simpson and Bowles to head this commission. Ignoring this will not change the facts. The appointment of these two reveals how Obama really feels about these "entitlements".

If Obama is actually anti-New Deal, as I suspect he is, we want to know it right now so we can mount a primary challenge. Why? Because if Obama is really anti New Deal, he has more in common with the Republican Party. We don't like Republicans.

[MineralMan]

139. Yes, he did appoint that commission. He is not bound by anything

they said. In fact, they did not say anything official in the first place. Their report was not ratified. Many commissions are impaneled. This one couldn't even manage to issue an official report, and President Obama would not have been bound to it in the first place. So, I guess I don't take your point. Appointment of a commission does not signify agreement with the commissioners. It's just a commission, with no particular power. There have been hundreds of them.

[Enthusiast]

156. Whether he is bound or not is not my point.

He didn't create the deficit commission for no reason. No one does anything in a vacuum.

What was President Obama's MOTIVE for picking such vociferous anti-New Deal zealots? I mean he just as easily could have put the far more moderate Jan Schakowsky in a leadership position as one would expect from a real Democratic president. If, that is, they actually favor a traditional Democratic Party view of social security and medicare.

I would really like to hear your explanation for these odd appointments.

[MineralMan]

163. I'm not competent to explain it, to be quite frank.

I'm just a web content writer in St. Paul, MN and a DFL precinct worker. So, I can't help you with that one. I can tell you that no official report came from that commission. The people who voted against the report were also selected by President Obama. What do you make of that? If you have an answer, then you understand this stuff far better than I do. All I can tell you is that no report was issued by that commission, nor did President Obama say he supported any of the recommendations in the proposed report. That proposed report contained all sorts of recommendations, not just recommendations on Social Security and Medicare. What about those?

You see, none of that report matters. In fact, there is no report from the commission.

[LiberalAndProud]

136. If we felt no alarm, would so many write to the representatives?

I tend to think that even if the reported rumors were not true, it wouldn't serve our interest to stand silently, passively by with perfect faith in Obama's actions and motives. What purpose does that serve except to make Obama's supporters more comfortable?

Do I have perfect belief that Obama is using our social programs as bargaining chips? No. But you'll pardon me if I am skeptical that he is not. We are better served by vigilance. I am sorry that some here take that as a personal affront to Obama. In some cases, I'm sure it is personal. Not, however, in mine.

[MineralMan]

141. Who is standing silently? Certainly not me. I've been communicating

with legislators and the Obama Administration regularly for the past 2.5 years. I don't communicate about rumors, though. I communicate about issues.

I assume that everyone on DU does something similar. Don't you?

[LiberalAndProud]

143. When reports surface that our social programs are being negotiated,

I am more likely to contact my representatives regarding that issue. If Social Security were in Al Gore's lockbox, I doubt I would even think to contact my Senator about Social Security. We cannot ignore "unnamed sources" when the stakes are so high.

Sure I'm skeptical of sources and understand that I don't know what the exact truth is, but I have become accustomed to political double-speak. You have to parse what they say to discern what they mean. Arlen Specter was a master at it. He could condemn torture and advocate for retroactively changing the law to protect the torturers all in the same breath. But you had to listen very carefully to understand what exactly he was saying.

Add to that, I was far more willing to believe that alarmists were mistating the facts when Obama was negotiating the AHCA. As it turned out, they were right and I was wrong. That kind of history tends to make me less trusting.

[MineralMan]

146. Double-speak comes from all sides. We all know that.

So, I'm interested in proposals that are written down and going to be voted on. I'm far less interested in the musings of random bloggers and erstwhile "journalists." I'm funny that way.

[LiberalAndProud]

153. That is where you and I differ, I guess.

If a proposal is ever written down prepared for a vote, it will be presented as a done deal. What you and I may think of said proposal won't matter. Our opinions become background static. You would have us wait patiently, ("No whispering amongst yourselves, please,") while our betters hammer out the details in some opaque setting. And then when they present us with the finished product, I suspect you will allow us to voice our opinion, "Tut, tut, I'm really not very happy about that." But it will be far to late to do or say anything, as it will be a fait accompli.

I suspect you are very happy with the Third Way of doing things. Pardon me if I AM NOT. Or don't pardon me. It's all the same to me.

[MineralMan]

160. I can neither allow or disallow anything you do. That's a very

important thing. I do not understand why people keep thinking I have the ability to control anything. Trust me. I do not. I can only control what I do.

As for the Third Way, the only thing I know about them is that they introduced a proposal for fixing the mess here in Minnesota. It was the stupidest proposal I'd ever seen. So, if that's what they're about, I'm not in support.

I have no idea why you think I support the Third Way, whatever it is. I don't support anything other than my own beliefs. I expect everyone to do the same. That's why the idea that I want to control what you do or think is so ridiculous. You have exactly the same amount of control over things that I do, which is none at all.

Good luck to you.

[LiberalAndProud]

165. Allow me to elighten you.

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

Of course I know that you have no more control than I do over the discussion on this board. But I don't post long OPs scolding people for having the discussion in the first place, or for not allowing for the possibility that anonymous sources may be real people in a position to know.

I understand that many people here are invested in Obama, and are made uncomfortable when some people insist on equating the man with the policies without allowing for political nuance or pragmatic considerations. I understand, because it makes me uncomfortable too. I don't like the way it makes me feel. But if we are to be honest with ourselves, comfortable does not necessarily equal correct.

And those people who genuinely criticize Obama from the left are most likely (not guaranteed), when the time comes, to fill in the Obama circle. If we blow off steam in the meantime here, that's to be expected when it appears that fundamental values might be betrayed.

I am editing this, because I want to point out that I am aware, yes, that there are those criticizing "from the left" that have not and never will support either progressive policy or Obama. They will exploit our disappointments to the degree it is possible. There is not a damn thing I can do about that if I happen to agree with the criticism.

[MineralMan]

167. You post as you see fit. I post as I see fit.

And there it is. We have different styles. We have different points of view.

You're welcome to post whatever you want in my threads. I will respond if I want to respond. That's DU.

[Taverner]

145. I dunno, I think a lot of us have the right to feel stiffed

I support the Obama Admin, but putting SS up for grabs makes me mad.

We had to fight for SS back when Reagan was president - he wanted to cut into it to pay for his dalliances in Central America

We had to fight for SS back when Bush was president - some of us worried he was going to go through with "no new taxes"

We had to fight for SS back when Clinton was president - if he was willing to gut welfare for political gain, why not Social Security?

We had to fight for SS back when Bush II was president - with his never ending list of new wars, and his desire to use his "man date" to "save" Social Security we all knew what was next

And now, we have to fight for it while Obama is president

[MineralMan]

148. Facts not in evidence. Which is the point of my OP.

Sorry, but you don't know that your last sentence is true. Not at all.

[Taverner]

155. You're right - I don't know that yet

Perhaps this is "rope a dope"

But when someone says something is on the table, as Obama has said, does one not have the right to be a little nervous? Especially considering every president before them tried to take SS money?

[MineralMan]

159. Stuff on the table can go either way. It just means that it's

open for discussion. Maybe what's on the table is an end to the cap. I don't know. None of us knows at this point.

[Taverner]

166. True, but based on previous behavior of Presidents

I think it's reasonable to be nervous...

[MineralMan]

168. It's reasonable to be nervous all the time when it comes to

politics. If you're not nervous, you're not paying attention.

However, I do not base my opinions about what one President will do on the actions of other Presidents. Each is unique.

[Maru Kitteh]

147. Happy to K & R.

It's always so refreshing to read level-headed analysis based in reality. Thanks for posting.

[annabanana]

158. k&r . . . . . . n/t

[guruoo]

169. knr - for

the adult in the room. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Warren DeMontague]

170. It's all academic, because you can't -much less shouldn't- negotiate with crazy terrorists. Right?

The GOP are crazy terrorists. A 'deal is being worked out'? Bullshit. There isn't going to be a deal. What they're going to do is see how much they can make Obama squirm, how many core Democratic principles they can get him to offer to toss overboard, and then they're going to trash the economy ANYWAY.

I don't think there's gonna be a deal, I really don't. What Obama should do now is explain to the country what that means, and our people in congress should put the debt ceiling up for a straight up or down vote. No 'deal', no cuts, no nothing. Just an increase, like was done some 8 or so times in the previous 10 years.

Then, when the GOP doesn't vote for it, the blame for the destruction of the economy can be placed squarely at their feet. That's the sort of hardball Obama should start playing. NOW.

[Rex]

173. Time will tell us all we need to know.

At this point, I have to agree with you on we don't know what will happen...but let us all HOPE it doesn't include cuts to SS and Medicare/Medicaid. There are a million other places to cut costs that makes a lot more sense and would have a greater impact on the economy then defunding Social Security. We could start with the military.

[mmonk]

177. Your man is off the hook for the moment because Boehner called

off the negotiations over tax increases.

[MineralMan]

179. My man? He's the President of The United States.

We've got a lot on the line with that man in charge of it. He's not my man. He's the President. I sure hope he does well. Don't you?

He's not my man. He's not any one person's man. He's the President. Have you forgotten that already. We just elected him a short time ago. I'm pulling for him. I'm not sure what you're pulling.

[eridani]

184. Nancy Pelosi is a DUer? Who knew?

She seems to be worried about SocSec and Medicare cuts.

[XanaDUer]

185. Yes, but is she posting about this on DU?

nt.

[eridani]

186. So, people who have actual power are worried about SocSec and Medicare--

--but little people who post here should not?

[XanaDUer]

187. Sorry

Sorry, I left the sarcasm tag off my previous post.

Ask the OP -

[eridani]

188. Way too many subthreads

Not always obvious who is replying to ehat.