Obama's speech angered me. I have done an about face on politicians since 2003.

[madfloridian]

Why did I pick 2003? That's the year hubby and I first became involved politically. I actually believed in and trusted a politician. We spent a lot of money thinking we could actually make a difference.

I have since learned better.

Today's speech was politics, pure and simple. It had no heart. There is no excuse for the stress our own party is putting on seniors by including benefit cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

Either they don't realize the harm being done by implying that these programs should be "shared sacrifices"....implying they are equal to the harm corporations have done in this country....or they just plain don't care.

And if they don't care, that means they don't care about the votes that might be lost by taking such implausible positions. (Please note: I am not saying I will not support Democrats) Have they thought about how it looks to seniors in both parties for a Democratic president to so eagerly put these programs on the bargaining table? I think not. He could get a lot more points for defending them whole-heartedly.

It's all a big game to our party now. The centrist think tanks have joined the right wing in pretty much completely damaging the word "liberal", which they use to refer to all of us who question their policies. Their policies are stealthily moving right, and we are supposed to pretend we don't notice.

The think tanks are changing their names, but their policies have remained the same. The head of the Third Way brags of leading an anti-Social Security group in the 90s.

From blog archives, about 1994, though no date is given...there is a scathing review of Jon Cowan who helped start the war between the generations over Social Security. He is now the same Jonathan Cowan who is president of the Third Way which is the new policy shop for Democrats. He appears to have the ear of the president.

Here are some comments from that long ago blog post. It appears Cowan and his buddies have managed to make seniors appears to be greedy old coots. It started in the early 90s with his group called Lead or Leave.

Lead or Leave, and the Sell-out of my generation

Handsome Strangers

Nobody knows where they came from. From out of the TV sets of America, in the summer of 1992, a couple of goofy white guys in T-shirts rode down on the hearts and minds of a nation.

They came not with a message, but with a sound-bite. They carried cellular phones rather than revolvers. And their bandoleers were stuffed not with bullets -- but with money. Lots of money.

They called themselves "Lead...or Leave." The sum total of their wisdom could be reduced to a phrase or two. "Generation X has a problem," they said, "and that problem is the national debt. We gotta cut social spending... and cut it right quick. Or there'll be a revolution of angry young taxpayers. You Greedy Geezers better take notice. Your days are numbered."

Just a little more about how such "grassroots" groups arose even back then. The blogger points out that "Two guys who moved in some pretty powerful circles in Washington. These two guys just woke up one day and decided to found a "grassroots" organization? I don't think so."

Anything they do or participate in gets trumpeted by their PR machine to the high heavens. And when I say PR machine, I mean machine. From the beginning, Lead or Leave retained the services of public relations firms. In the early days it was a company called Fenton Communications. Now it's a group called Millennium. These services are not cheap, which is why most actual grassroots organizations can rarely afford the price of such manipulators of the American conscience. Lead or Leave put them to good use. They have appeared all over the network media, radio, and print as "spokesmen" for young Americans. Anything they say, no matter how outlandish or unsubstantiated, has been faithfully reproduced from coast to coast.

The blogger points out that the group leaders Cowan and Nelson were obviously part of a bigger picture. He goes on to point out some of the funders, big money people who do not care for Social Security.

Many of the ideas that permeate Lead or Leave's literature can also be found in the literature of the Concord Coalition, to whom their direct ties are numerous. Concord members on their advisory board include Richard Dennis (who is a major funder of libertarian causes), Clyde V. Prestowitz, Jr., and Paul Tsongas. Pete Peterson, a Concord Coalition founder, though not a Lead or Leave board member, is doubtless much enamored of them. Cowan and Nelson certainly mention him and his organization constantly in their work. And the Concord Coalition's World Wide Web site on the Internet is linked directly to Lead or Leave's new site. It seems obvious that there is more than a casual connection between the two groups.

Now Jon Cowan's voice is being heard even more loudly. The president's words today echoed these sentiments of shared sacrifice and the meme of everyone has to hurt.

All they have done through the years is change the name of the groups involved. The goals appear to have been reached.

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[VeryConfused]

2. Where are your posts holding the GOP accountable?

it looks like you are giving the GOP a free pass in all of this, which is very helpful to them.

[madfloridian]

4. The president is a Democrat.

We had Democrats controlling all 3 branches until last year. And we keep going right.

A free pass is what the president just gave them to cut Social Security.

[VeryConfused]

8. First off you didn't give me a link showing even one post calling out the GOP

secondly the GOP has controlled the Supreme Court (the third branch) the entire time the President has been in office. As for going to the right, we have DADT gone, we have infrastructure projects being done, we have seen consumer's rights strengthened, the poor get health insurance and Wall Street get regulated. You have a weird definition of "going right"

[kickysnana]

13. The only reason the SC is stacked is because the Dems let it be.

The only thing we demanded of the Dems when we were not in total control was that they block extremist judges which they could easily do but they didn't do that.

[VeryConfused]

17. I disagree, the liberals are to blame

Such as when the let Bush get close enough to steal the 2000 election. In the end of the liberals worked as hard as their right wing counterparts in getting their party elected the GOP would never have had a chance to pack the court.

[Flubadubya]

39. Oh dear, another liberal hater/blamer...

just what DU needs more of... NOT!

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Hydra]

45. So where did Alito and Roberts come from then?

And yet another person pushing the "We sabotaged ourselves" meme. Gore won in 2000. No Republican has won the WH since 1992. Reagan won the WH by bargaining with the Iranians to keep the hostages...can we consider Treason to be rigging the vote?

[Fuddnik]

79. Or Scalia and Thomas?

Thanks Biden. He was Chair of the Judiciary Committee at the time. With Dem majorities.

[Rex]

76. Liberals don't have a huge power base to draw from like the GOP does.

The LIBERALS let GWB steal the election? Bullfuckingshit. What a bullshit post. :eyes:

[VeryConfused]

183. Ralph Nader

How quickly (or is it conveniently?) you forget

[Rex]

188. Wrong liberals didn't vote for Ralph, how quickly we lie

or just don't know the truth. Funny that.

[VeryConfused]

190. Really? You are trying to claim that liberals didn't vote for Ralph?

that is some reach. funny how you then have the nerve to try and accuse me of lying:eyes:

[Rex]

223. Oh so you can do it, but I cannot.

Hey, can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. So you can dish it out, but cannot take it. Typical. :eyes:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

84. Yay, another liberal basher. Do you work for this White House?

[VeryConfused]

184. Do you work for the GOP? what kind of question/accusation was that?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

85. Why is it that big, bad libruls are expected to do all the heavy lifting...

in the Democratic party? The Sensibles don't miss an opportunity to tell us we don't matter, then blame us when things don't go their way. If the results weren't so tragic, it would be amusing.

You are indeed, very confused.

[VeryConfused]

185. Forget heavy lifting, how about just not helping the GOP

[WorseBeforeBetter]

192. A Democratic president is embracing Republican policies...

who's really helping the GOP?

I phone bank. I canvass. I donate. I use vacation time to drive like-minded voters to the polls. I've strained relationships with friends, family and co-workers over politics. No offense, Oh Confused One, but you can kiss my raging liberal a$$.

[VeryConfused]

193. The President wants to raise taxes on the wealthy

how is that a "Republican policy"???? Why not join me here on planet earth?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

194. He talks a good game.

I'm not sucked in by it.

[VeryConfused]

195. You talk a good game

but I am not about to get sucked into either

[WorseBeforeBetter]

196. Endless wars, widening gap between rich and poor,

crumbling infrastructure, high unemployment, possible cuts to the social safety net, lip service toward labor, massive transfer of wealth during the well-orchestrated Wall Street "collapse," bullshit "evolution" on marriage equality...get your head out of the sand.

[VeryConfused]

199. On second thought you don't talk a good game

Obama winding down the GOP's wars = endless war
Paying billions toward infrastructure = crumbling infrastructure
Republican caused unemployment = President Obama's fault
Possible cuts = definite cuts


Your talk isn't even good as it is all fantasy rather than reality

[WorseBeforeBetter]

221. "An arbitrary cruelty."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1471690

I don't view this as a "game," so I'll take what you said as a compliment.

[lark]

201. You know this how?

By President Obama's agressive actions in raising taxes, hold the Dems feet to the fire to do that? If so, you are in some alternate reality and no wonder you are confused. What he's actually done is LOWER taxes on the rich and raise them on the pooor - that's the actual result of his actions. He's a total hypocrite and right winger, in case you've missed any of the bills he actually did sign and have only heard a few of nicer sounding talks.

[madfloridian]

234. Heh heh, the Sensibles in the Sensible Center, as the DLC called itself

and as the Third Way calls itself also.

And you are exactly right...tell us we don't matter, then tell us to fix things.

[BuelahWitch]

122. Why don't YOU call out the GOP?

:eyes: Pot meet kettle!

[VeryConfused]

186. I call out the GOP all the time

but thanks for the baseless attack, only proves my point

[rhett o rick]

129. You arent just confused. You are trying to start a liberal vs. whatever the hell you are, fight. nm

[dameocrat67]

133. What makes you assume that a socalled dem that picks

lieberman as his vp would have governed differently from Bush or Obama.

[lark]

203. Everything he's done since then

He's the real deal, not just smoke & mirrors like O.

[girl gone mad]

142. You want our votes?

Earn them. We are not obligated to vote for a candidate who does not sufficiently represent our views.

I do not disagree that you are VeryConfused.

[chervilant]

148. hmm...

Your nickname is quite accurate...

[Enthusiast]

159. You are "very confused"..............

:rofl:

[iamthebandfanman]

178. so you do believe the election was stolen,

but liberals are to blame for that?


hey, atleast you didnt take the cheap and lazy route and go right for blaming ralph nader for the massive amount of fraud that took place in florida. kudos to that.

[VeryConfused]

187. If the Nader voters had voted for Gore, Bush would have

never been able to steal the election

[BlueJac]

212. I disagree with you.........

plain a simple, how did you get here?

[FiveGoodMen]

215. Your name is appropriate

[kenfrequed]

220. BS argument

While I might nto always agree with Madfloridian (usually I do) the castigation of the left is getting really friggin tiring. WE DID turn out in 2008 and the rewards were heaped upon disloyal blue dogs and blockers and people that afforded the republican minority cover for their fillibusters.

THAT is BS.

Evan Bayh organized the Senate Blue dogs in December of 2008, a month before President Obama took his oath of office in an inaugeration that was a sign that he had the will of the people behind him. He could have run the tables after that and he played it safe and put TARP at the top of his agenda. Meanwhile Bayh backstabbed the hell out of his own party again and again and again.

Every time I bring up Bayh's treason (or better yet Lieberman's) I get cricket noises from the Nader haters and Liberal blamers. I guess absolute loyalty is only demanded from the left, whereas when conserva-dems screw us it is just an example of "independent thinking" or "supporting the constituents of their purplish state."

[Hawaii Hiker]

126. And Obama has nominated pretty much all moderates to the courts, ZERO liberals

ALTHOUGH i do give him an A for Goodwin Liu...He would have been an outstanding judge on the 9th. circuit, but republican bastards filibustered him...

[MNBrewer]

47. What difference would that even make?

Yes, the Republicans are awful, TERRIBLE!!! Does that make Obama one wit better than he was before I said the Republicans are awful?

[Marrah_G]

127. If you read Du for any length of time you would know that MF is about issues

No matter which party is doing the fucking up.

[JDPriestly]

136. The Republican base is seniors and not all of them are rich.

Don't worry. They will set the Republicans straight.

We are the fools who trusted Obama. He was a Wall Street lackey from the get-go.

And forcing us to entrust our money to the Wall Street mafia is what this is about.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

137. Cracked Mag on Why is gay marriage such an important issue right now?"

"Why is gay marriage such an important issue right now?" The answer is, "So you don't notice the banks stealing your tax dollars."
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-pro-gay-marriage-arguments-fighting-with-crazy-people/

[Enthusiast]

158. LOL

If Obama had not agreed to extending the Bush tax cuts we wouldn't even be having this deficit crisis.

[AlabamaLibrul]

161. "The poor get health insurance" lol n/t

[Dept of Beer]

176. Yes, make sure he/she signs the party loyalty papers.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Dems controlling "all 3 branches?"

I'm sure you did't mean what you wrote? Did you ?

Wow.

[madfloridian]

59. We did. Obama had the House and the Senate of his own party for two years.

And they kept going right. They lost one branch, and a lot of power in the other. Some think it was because they tried to be so much like the other side.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

62. Actually they controlled the legislative and executive. The 3rd branch would be the judicial. I know

what you're trying to say though.

I'm not sure how it's phrased but I've heard both houses of congress or something along those lines. Maybe somebody can correct me.

[Bobbie Jo]

63. Just to clarify....

I thought "branches" referred to branches of government (executive/legislative/judicial)
We "controlled" 2 of those...

I thought the legislative branch was composed of 2 "houses."

Again, just for clarity.

[JDPriestly]

138. And they did not change the tax code.

They could have repealed the Bush tax cuts right then and there. But no, they waited for the Republican House to take over. That was a Democratic cop-out right there.

No, this is about Democrats, not about Republicans. The Democrats have betrayed us. Wall Street paid them off.

[butterfly77]

61. Don't you mean..

republiCONS pretending to be Democrats,and they are lining up more. When they so called Dems begin running they seem to never be asked questions that many consider to be liberal to put them on the record and these questions should be asked over and over again..

[julian09]

112. Control of the senate was held by the minority republicans

with their constant filibuster rules on everything. Stupid people don't know why we couldn't get any thing done, pay attention, then complain. Dems still have senate, they won't cut SS. Medicare needs to be dealt with, if you want it for longer than ten-twelve years.

[JDPriestly]

139. If they had felt voter pressure, the Demconservatives would

have changed their tune.

We have to be more vocal, louder, more demanding. This Social Security deal is absolutely a Wall Street hit job. That's all it is. A hit job on the most vulnerable in the country.

The worst of it is that they are doing this across Europe too, starting in the financially vulnerable countries and toppling every system that builds community, one by one.

This is about destroying families and communities and the whole fabric of our society, not just about attacking the poor and the elderly.

[MadMaddie]

116. We all know that Blue Dog Dems sabotaged the Senate

They went along with the Repugs in stopping critical bills.

Nancy Pelosi excelled at her job but the Senat stopped pretty much everything....300 plus bills sat at the door of the Senate....blame Harry Reid and the Blue Dems if someone is to be blamed.

[kickysnana]

9. Your name is very appropriate. welcome to DU.

We do hold Democrats accountable here and lets face it we have no influence on the GOP they want us dead so all we can do is hope that our Dems will do the right thing and so far they don't seem to be able to do that.

[VeryConfused]

12. I don't accept that excuse. The GOP is doing horrible things yet

around here they are given a free pass. Hell I doubt the average DUers is as aware of the GOP's wrong doings as the average voter, but is well versed in the wrong doings (real or perceived) of the President and the Democratic party.

[Dappleganger]

27. You believe the GOP is given a free pass on DU?

Child, pull up a chair and listen for a spell. You may learn something.

[VeryConfused]

32. Maybe you should check out the greatest page once in awhile

and then you would actually learn something. It's clear from that page that bashing the President and the Democratic party is far more popular than calling out the GOP

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Nay]

162. Are you on crack?

We KNOW the republicans are assholes -- they've proven that over the past 30 years. We're democrats, and are desperately trying to keep the dems from going over to the dark side. We don't have much, if any, influence over pubs, but we can sure try to put dems on the hot seat for the shit they're pulling. And that's what we do here. Now, why don't you go on over to the pub websites and get them to change their minds about robbing you blind, if you are so adamant about pubs?

[spanone]

68. you are more than very confused.

[rhett o rick]

130. So do you hate liberals or all of DU? Make up your mind. nm

[JDPriestly]

141. Very Confused, you have only been here for a few months.

You haven't posted often.

Stick around a while.

This is an unusual time because we are having to deal with the double-cross of Obama.

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with Obama's gift of Social Security money to Wall Street. And that is what this will be revealed to be. Wall Street has run out of fools stupid enough to trust them with their money, so now it wants the money that is now invested in Social Security to be handed over to it.

And nobody with any common sense wants that. Obama is playing Wall Street's tune. He always has. That's no Democratic tune you hear from the White House. That's Obama's "I want to go work for Morgan Stanley when I graduate from here," love song.

And by the way, why don't you have much information in your profile? It's helpful for us oldtimers.

[chervilant]

149. OIC...

You've read EVERY BIT of the multitude of posts and comments on DU; you are CERTAIN that DUers give the GOP a pass; your critical thinking skills have sussed out that DUers NEVER address the mendacity of the GOP, because they've got Obama to kick around...

I could wade through the depths of your intellect without getting the tops of my toes wet.

[Enthusiast]

160. A free pass?

The filthy Republicans are not given a free pass.

[tekisui]

10. I think you overstate the significance of a poster on DU.

I think madfloridian is great. But, her "giving the GOP a free pass" is not "very helpful to them".

[VeryConfused]

14. Yes it is very helpful to them. It's certainly welcome news to them

that so many that wear the liberal label have completely forgotten about the GOP and all the horrible things they have done and instead have worked tirelessly to tear down all the elected Democrats.

[tekisui]

20. Criticizing bad policy is not "tearing down elected Democrats".

If anything, they have tore themselves down. Critics just point it out. I still don't see how one poster on DU is very helpful to repukes by not focusing on them.

[VeryConfused]

21. How is it not tearing them down?

when the attacks often use the same tactics and even the same talking points as the GOP?

[Dappleganger]

24. You are indeed, very confused.

[VeryConfused]

25. Yes by liberals tearing down Democrats

[Dappleganger]

29. Democrats who are pushing republican agendas.

You should read up a bit here before throwing around false accusations. It may give you more credibility.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

44. Madfloridian criticizes bad policy from the left, from the position

of those adversely affected. They deserve and have earned the criticism. It doesn't tear them down. It exposes them. And aside from that, I don't give a shit about a politician, their future or a party when they support policies antithetical to betterment of the people (especially to lower class) of this country.

When they work against our interests they should be torn down.

[VeryConfused]

46. Exactly what part of the speech was bad policy?

I didn't hear anything the President said that would fall into that category.

[lark]

205. Proving you agree with Repug policies & talking points

since that's all O spouted.

[plantwomyn]

211. The part about including Social Security.

Social Security has NO PART in the current or even near future debt of the US.

If you didn't hear anything that was bad policy you were not listening very well.

What Obama DO NOT say is the real problem. Obama seems unable to control the debate. Obama acquiesces to the republicans agenda and vocabulary every time.

Why didn't Obama just come out and say that the entire premise is a load of crap. Why didn't he ask about where Boehner and Cantor and McConnell et. all were the last 5 times the debt ceiling was raised without one dime of deficit reduction? Why is this time different than during the Bush administration they raised the debt ceiling by VOICE VOTE?

There should no more talk about reducing the deficit or the debt in order to raise the debt ceiling than there was during the Bush administration. But Obama acquiesces, puts everything we hold dear on the table and begs the republicans to be sensible even though they have prove they are incapable of being anything but partisan.

Obama said that "we're going to resolve this." But instead of doing so on OUR terms Obama is willing to do it on the republicans terms. I say bring the debt ceiling up for a vote in the Senate. Attach it to every single bill they vote on from now on. It has passed this way before and there is NO reason that it should not and cannot happen again.

The deficit should be argued during budget debates NOT during a vote to raise the debt ceiling.

And BTW you may want to re-evaluate your party affiliation if you believe that you have the right to demand that we all walk in lock step. Ain't gonna happen in the Democratic Party.

[Dappleganger]

23. The only democrats she is criticizing are those who are tearing down long-held democratic

principles.

[VeryConfused]

26. That's not the case. It does make a nice sounding excuse though

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[dana_b]

41. maybe someday you will be as upset

with the Dems who work against their constituents. I could really give a toss about the politicians - Dem, Repub or Repubs in Dem clothing. It's the policies that they create that hurt their constituents that concerns me.

[VeryConfused]

42. Maybe someday when the Dems are actually worse than the GOP

[Flubadubya]

51. I've got one right here in my district who is worse...

His name is Mike Ross and he's the bluest damned dog in the Congress.

It would actually be better if he just switched parties and caucused with his own kind... being a "stealth Republican", like a "wolf in sheep's clothing" is far WORSE to me than owning up to your real politics. At least if he turned coat to the point of becoming "Mike Ross (R)", then it would at least free up the spot for a real Democrat to run.

And no... I don't vote for the bastard. I vote Green if there is a candidate on the ballet, or else, I just leave that one blank. Actually, out of a sense of solidarity and feeling a need to at least try and help the "D" caucus in the 2010 election, I voted for him (I even voted voted for Blanche Lincoln) but only because I could see the Tea-Party tidal wave looming and was trying to foresetall that as much as possible. Otherwise, I haven't voted for him in over 6 years.

Given his politics, Mike Ross, in my opinon, is worse than the GOP!

[Fuddnik]

82. And we've got a Democratic Senator in Florida, who's indistinguisable from a Repuke.

He goes by the name of Bill Nelson. Right-wing policies and a "Family" member to boot.

[Art_from_Ark]

121. I've noticed that Mike Ross often votes with the R's

I can't believe that Arkansas now has 3 official R's in its Congression delegation! The first time ever, I think. Yuck!

Back to Ross- I don't think he would switch parties, though-- just look what happened to Tommy Robinson after he did that.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

172. When Democrats frogmarch rightward, they are worse than the GOP

The GOP are ignorant fools, that is why they push the policies they push. Why would Democrats push them? They know the end result of these policies, but they push them anyway trying to impress independents who see them as weak because of it.

[SusanaMontana41]

227. Ben Nelson in Nebraska is the epitome of a DINO. n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[BulletproofLandshark]

110. Nobody forgot a goddamned thing!

We expect the GOP to be scoundrels. That doesn't mean we have to approve when "Democrats" start taking up their ideology.

[lark]

204. WTF?

Are you unable to read? Were you around when the Wisconsin story mushroomed here? Tjhat was 100% anti Repug and the wingers were excorciated on that point again and again. That was all we were talking about until Obama showed his turncoat colors again and started (once again) pushing cuts in SSI & Medicare when the Repugs weren't even asking for that. He goes them one better in screwing the working class. That's why we are angry, that one of our supposedly "own" is in the process of handing our hard earned dollars to the Wall St. and the ultra rich corporations - the ones he really cares about.

[Aerows]

11. No one expects better from the GOP

You know they are nothing but sellouts, and they will tell you so themselves. When Democrats tell you one thing and then do another, then they don't get a free pass. Obama is betraying the very ideals of the Democratic party, and is certainly betraying those who have paid into Social Security all of their lives if he allows it to be decimated.

Meanwhile, over $600 billion in new war spending was authorized while we are discussing austerity at home.

[VeryConfused]

15. Lip service isn't any better

what happened to really focusing on the horrible things the GOP is doing and the misinformation they spread?

[ljm2002]

75. So what's stopping you...

...from making a post that focuses on the horrible things the GOP is doing and the misinformation they spread? Instead, you criticize another poster's choice of topic because you don't like it, as if we should all refrain from ever criticizing someone who is nominally on our own team.

Looks like a promising tactic for derailing a thread though. Just sayin'...

[Fuddnik]

83. Sometimes we focus on the enablers who are taking over our party.

[chervilant]

151. Well, now,

Why don't you get busy, and stop throwing up straw men?

Whoever is paying you to troll on DU is NOT getting their money's worth...

[mike_c]

16. all the raw partisanship is part of our problem in this country....

Every politician in Washington is part of this problem-- they represent the interests of American workers only as a last resort, when doing so won't reduce support from the wealthy and from corporate business. Sure, republicans suck. So do democrats, or at least most of them-- they suck too because they hide behind the same partisan smoke screen to serve the real masters of this nation. A compliant media keeps the pot stirred so that we're all fighting the partisanship battles-- none more than congressional leadership-- rather than devising real, honest solutions to our national problems (um, end the costly and unnecessary wars, tax the wealthy commensurate with their real worth, etc-- real solutions are not conceptually difficult, they're just less profitable to the MIC and their pet politicians).

[VeryConfused]

19. I think the problem is the ideologues on both sides

As they tend to demonize and refuse to accept the reality that the nation has people that see things different than themselves.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

173. What is the Democratic ideology

Lay it out for us.

[Dappleganger]

22. They are everywhere--just read her journal.

Gotta love it when people judge a valuable contributor based upon one post and they don't even bother to read their past history. madfloridian is a highly informative contributor to DU.

[VeryConfused]

28. I judge things on cold hard facts

sorry if that displeases you.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[spanone]

72. the cold hard facts are that you know very little about d.u.

[chervilant]

228. And,

very little about anything else, apparently...

[sabrina 1]

52. The GOP is and always has been the enemy of SS. That

goes without saying because everyone knows it. The Democratic Party has traditionally protected, or tried to, SS from the enemy, until now.

The issue NOW is why are Democrats abandoning their role as protectors of the people's money from the greedy hands of the GOP? Who, if not Democrats, can the people turn to now?

[Fuddnik]

78. You are very confused, aren't you?

[Logical]

105. So you are saying Obama = GOP?

[Mimosa]

109. We ALL hold the GOP accountable. So why collaborate with them?

There's nothing to be gained in collaborating with the GOP since their goal is to take down every good thing in this country.

[pam4water]

135. It wasn't the Republicans calling Social Security a sacred cow. Obama is supposed to be defeining

Social Security not throwing it under the bus. He was elected to represent up not the banking system.

[chervilant]

147. hmm...

One can expect these shenanigans from the GOP, but it is surprising and disheartening to see Democrats betraying us.

[pecwae]

191. Why not start your own thread

instead of hopping into another poster's so disingenuously? The subject of the OP is not Republicans. Pulling this "prove your cred" garbage is bullshit.

[pam4water]

206. Great point. I'm sick of all the "More Democrat than thou" BS around here.

[Ignis]

216. Buy a star and do your own search. There's no excuse for sloth.

:thumbsdown:

[mzmolly]

3. Do you have a quote on the specifics surrounding SS and Medicare?

Thanks MF. :hi:

[madfloridian]

5. Look up the transcript mzmolly. It will be up soon.

[mzmolly]

18. Will do.

Thanks.

[pscot]

6. Politicians need to sign a pledge

No cuts to Social Security or Medicare if they want to run as a Democrat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Trusting politicians is akin to trusting guys selling Rolex's in alleys.

[madfloridian]

36. I agree..

Looking back, it was all smoke and mirrors.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. In a democracy we aren't supposed to "trust" the people we hire to do a job.

It is our responsibility to hold them accountable. Of course, they do their damnedest to keep us from doing so. See the untelevised budget negotiations for evidence of that. Here a group of politicians are debating the fate of millions of Americans...in secret.

[Fire1]

43. I'm certainly not going to take the word of a blogger over my

own instincts. The president didn't say one word this a.m. about "cutting" anything. I heard him use the word "change" and "reform" in reference to social security. Nothing more and nothing less. Changes and reformations can come in any number of forms without resorting to "cuts." I also heard in his tone that he intends to use executive privilege to meet the August second deadline if necessary.

[madfloridian]

49. ? The blogger I quoted was years ago.

Obama has freely and openly put Social Security on the table. They are already cutting future benefits through the payroll tax cuts which he wants to extend.

How does it look to have a Democratic president so freely offer up a program as important as Social Security.

Don't get all bogged down with "cuts" or "change" or "reform." It's the same thing, they are making it available to the right wing as part of the bargain.

[Fire1]

60. I don't believe that and I hope he can extend payroll tax cuts.

Alot of people can certainly use the extra money. Social Security is not a "program." It is an entitlement benefit. The "revenues" he spoke about are directly linked to "programs" from the federal government such as student loans, unemployment benefits, research grants, etc. etc. I listened and watched every nuance of this man when he spoke this a.m. and while he emphasized that not raising the debt ceiling would, in fact, jeopardize government subsidized "programs" he only spoke of ensuring that social security and medicare would be sustainable for future generations. Furthermore, to maintain the integrity of these "entitlements" some "changes" MAY ocurr and "then again, MAYBE NOT!"

If I thought he was the kind of person who was just spouting political rhetoric and bullshit then I probably would consider that he's using these words interchangably. But to me, he's not. He uses words very deliberately and in no uncertain terms b/c I think he is trying to get the public to "see" exactly what is taking place in these negotiations. Too, make no mistake, these are negotiations which includes compromise but I DON'T think these compromises are going to be on the backs of those who can least afford it.

[madfloridian]

64. I'm sorry. I am no good at all with talking points. Bottom line:

He has put these "whatever you want to call them" on the table as a bargaining chip.

Why would you want to change SS from being a self-sustaining program to one that depends on general revenue and is open to being cut from the budget?

[Fire1]

65. Mad, those are not "talking points." I'm repeating exactly

what the man said this a.m. Furthermore, social security is NOT sustainable. THAT is the problem! That not only came from HIM but EVERYBODY on both sides of the aisle. I saw the handwriting on the wall in regards to social security 25 years ago!! Everybody in the boomer generation KNEW ss was going to be a problem!!! There have been reports about that since the 60's!!!

It DOES MATTER what you call them if you're going to accurately represent what is being discussed.

[TheKentuckian]

66. How have you redefined "trim benefits"?

Not much room to pretend there will be no cuts there.

How do you imagine raising the cap can be done? I thought Obama didn't have a magic wand.

[Fire1]

69. You heard something I didn't hear and I've listened to the

press conference twice today. Raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with ss b/c as he SAID, social security has nothing to do with the debt!

[madfloridian]

67. Of course it is sustainable. We really disagree on that.

[Fire1]

70. All baby boomers have known for years ss was going to be

a problem. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[madfloridian]

86. That is exactly why I included the 1994 stuff on Cowan.

Exactly why I did that. They have done this for years.

He started the war between the generations. I am of the older generation....they are not to touch the SS I paid into for all my working years. I mean that.

[Fire1]

88. Mad, WE won't be affected. The boomers WILL get theirs!!

It's the FUTURE generations he is concerned about. OUR CHILDREN or grandchildren.

[madfloridian]

90. Read this NPR article. He is already endangering us and the future boomers.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/10/131969824/some-worry-payroll-tax-cut-threatens-social-security

Look up other articles on the subject.

[Fire1]

91. You mean those from 1960-64.

The article basically reiterated what I've been saying. It's not sustainable. They will eventually run out of money in the trust fund by 2035. There is no other alternative but to raise the age of eligibility.

[madfloridian]

94. Not what I heard.

I read that in 2036 it would pay about 77% of the benefits...without any fixing.

They do not need to raise the age. Tinker with the cap if need be, but that should do it.

Another article:

http://retirementrevised.com/money/phony-social-security-analysis-from-the-nyt

[Fire1]

97. That's certainly good news for us. By 2036 I'll either be gone

or on my way out!

[roxiejules]

118. SS does not run OUT of money,,,

it will not be able to pay 100% in 2035, but it will be able to pay close. These are the oligarch talking points....be scared!

This isn't the "Great Recession", it's the Great Bank Robbery.

The big banks are turning America into a banana republic.

[Fire1]

197. 77% is what is predicted. n/t

[chervilant]

231. Disaster Capitalism

run amok, with virtually no push back from the functionally illiterate, easily manipulated, fear-mongering, hate-mongering hoi polloi.

Embarrassing, these days, to be a member of this species...

[JDPriestly]

145. They will not run out of money if they tax all income and end

the cap on income subject to FICA taxes.

You are misinformed.

[Enthusiast]

166. It is sustainable.

That is a fascist lie!

[Fire1]

180. Not when Washington keeps investing trust fund money and

tapping it to pay for other stuff.

[bread_and_roses]

169. what nonsense. There ARE alternatives to raising age of eligibility -

- and I don't intend to list them here because a few seconds with google will provide all the resources you need on that. Oh, and btw, try standing behind a cash register all day when you are 60, or working on a road crew before you tell us how we have to raise the SS age - we should be demanding it be LOWERED - we need to open those job slots for younger people - and the age is ALREADY TOO HIGH. And don't tell me how people are living longer blah blah blah. Like I said, try doing manual work when you're 60.

And SS is not an "entitlement." That is a Right Wing talking point.

[Fire1]

200. It may be blah blah but it's a fact of life. Few people can afford

to live on ss benefits alone and people are living longer. One of the alternatives is to reduce payments and it is predicted that by 2035-36 payments will be rduced to 77%. I'd opt for raising the age of eligibility rather than reduced payments.

[bread_and_roses]

214. False choice. We don't need to do either.

and btw, whether or not people can "afford" to live on SS benefits alone, take a look at how many do. (Again, google is your friend) It's more than "a few." I would also like to see you address the issues of manual work at 55+ (many manual workers, btw, already suffer various ills arising from the work they do when they're in their forties). However, you studiously avoid the issue while advocating for raising the retirement age.

We should be lowering both the retirement age and increasing benefits, as well as - in the absence of sane national health care - lowering the age for Medicare.

You are mired in the Beltway rhetoric and - for what reason I cannot even begin to guess - refusing to look at the options for raising revenue.

Which is all I have to say on the subject.

[Fire1]

217. I said, "few people can afford to live on ss alone." Retirement

eligibility is already lowered to age 55 and I doubt many retire even then. It's all about perspective.

[JDPriestly]

144. Our children and grandchildren are going to be more worried

about the horrible shape of their environment. Social Security will be of very little concern to them. Survival will be.

[JDPriestly]

143. The generational bump has been known for years and was dealt

with under Reagan.

Social Security has no problem and probably never will.

It's the Republican wars that were not funded that are the problem.

And now the Republicans suddenly want to pay for those wars with our Social Security reserves.

Obama is falling for it.

What is really behind this is Wall Street's hunger for more suckers.

And we who are retired are pretty sick and tired of Wall Street' greed.

They ransacked our 401(K)s in 2008 and while they have made lots of money for themselves, the Wall Street guys haven't repaid a lot of seniors whose money they "lost" or hid away in their own hefty commission accounts.

Obama does not need to even mention Social Security or Medicare. They have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. Military spending and privatization have a lot to do with our deficit, but not Social Security and Medicare.

Remember the "lost" pallets of money from the Iraq War. Well, the military "loses" money all the time. Bush had such a laugh about it. Remember his joke where he goes looking under his desk for the WMDs that he claimed he thought were in Iraq? Well, that was no joke. What he actually found was bundles of money for his buddies. He took good care of them. Problem is, that was the money that was supposed to be in the Social Security Trust Fund.

The Republicans looted the treasury and now they are trying to get away with the loot. And Obama is driving the get-away car. (Not my original idea.)

[chervilant]

152. hmph!

I STRONGLY encourage you to stop snarfing the myriad red herrings promulgated by the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy!

[chervilant]

153. Hmph!

I STRONGLY encourage you to stop snarfing the myriad red herrings promulgated by the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy!

BTW, I'm a 'baby boomer' and I've known for YEARS that Social Security would be used as a BIG red herring by the obscenely wealthy.

[chervilant]

155. So,

why don't you do a wee bit of research about Disaster Capitalism? You can start by reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

Then, you might want to learn more about why Social Security is such a sexy plum to the obscenely wealthy, who've worked VERY hard to promulgate all those lovely red herrings to support their contention that 'we need to fix SS NOW!' You can start by visiting this website.

The Corporate Megalomaniacs are banking on (pun intended) an ubiquitous dearth of critical thinking skills among the hoi polloi. AND, their hegemony is sacrosanct to them. Our nation's social SECURITY will be just a bump in their road to absolute and GLOBAL economic control if Obama and other pseudo-democrats continue to play in their reindeer games.

[Enthusiast]

165. Why do you take a Republican position on SS?

I hate Republicans. I especially hate DU Republicans.

[Fire1]

208. Now you know on a message board nobody cares how

you feel about them. Replace that hostility with information.

[Enthusiast]

163. You couldn't be more incorrect

if you tried.

Working Americans have paid more than two TRILLION more into social security than they have received in benefits. Those are REAL dollars.

Social security is not a problem. Right wing thieves are the problem. It doesn't matter if the masquerade as Democrats -they are still right wing thieves. It doesn't matter if they have a D or an R next to their name.

Baby boomers paid double FICA contributions to keep social security solvent.

Take your right wing talking points elsewhere.

[chervilant]

229. Sigh...

I sincerely doubt this will do any good, but I strongly encourage you to read this, and avoid promulgating misrepresentations about Social Security, and all other matters economic.


(Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt...)

[chervilant]

232. Here's a great resource

that virtually ALL of DU missed: Galbraith's summary statement to Obama's 'Commission.'

I very much appreciate your persistent efforts to challenge the Obama sycophants, and encourage them to recognize the many ways their candidate is betraying the Democratic Party.

(I will be sure to find a library and check for your posts, mad, when I'm living in my car. PLEASE, don't let the 'turkeys' get you down...)

[Enthusiast]

164. Extending payroll tax cuts

is an action designed to undermine the solvency of social security. This action is one of the reasons so many of us won't be voting for a second Obama Presidential term of office. Cutting payroll FICA contributions will not bolster the economy in any way. That is trickle down supply side bullshit.

[chervilant]

233. Won't be voting,

won't be campaigning, won't be suckered in.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Great work Mad, Thanks

There has never been a more tried and true strategy deployed by small entrenched elites than Divide and Conquor. K&R

[madfloridian]

58. Thank you, Tom.

:hi:

[jtown1123]

53. Very well done. Articulates pretty much everything I'm feeling right now.

[dissidentboomer]

54. Nice post. I'm done with both parties. They are BOTH BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

Fuck republicans and democrats. I've taken a LONG political journey from 1976 to the present. Most of time, I've been a pragmatist and voted for the policies I thought were most needed. That changed in the late '90's and early oughts, when I realized that ALL republicans are now owned by corporations and the global wealthy or are just SO goddam dumb that you wouldn't let them tutor your dog. THEN came the REAL kick in the ass - MOST democrats are owned by one industry or another and, collectively, the two major parties were well down the road to making their elites criminally wealthy and destroying the great American middle class (One of the finest achievements by a nation or culture in history) in the process. That was shortly after the 2004 elections. The libertarians? So clueless they aren't really worth mentioning. However, the public has grown so fat and dumb, they might elect a few incredibly stupid, neanderthal libertarians.

How did I know the crash was coming and that our "leaders" had sold us out? The rampant lies about the wars, the economy, and weak democrat resistance that was really fake democrat resistance. The democrats did not have the real will to resist any more because they were being purchased and made wealthy, as well. NO HONEST democrat during the 30's through the 70's could have stood by and watched that shit and THIS shit and not called for open, violent, if necessary, resistance. I'm almost glad that some folks I've known during my life are dead because watching the congress, courts, and presidency these days would cause them great pain. Some would now be hard core revolutionaries.

Welcome the club for the faithless and the dispossessed.

[TBF]

92. I agree completely. nt

[woo me with science]

55. Great post. K&R nt

[Starry Messenger]

57. recommend.

[tnlefty]

71. I wish that I could understand all of this, but I don't.

My Mom, recovering republican who will mark another year in her seventh decade later this month, and her husband, who is 75 (I think) were here yesterday and the President's ears should still be burning. My Mom voted for him and defended him for a year and a half even when I was irritated at the directions he was taking, etc., but not yesterday.

Her husband is originally from upstate NY and he mentioned NY 26 and ,"it isn't called the third rail for nothing." They just couldn't understand why this was coming up in the tenure of a democratic president. I had to explain the DLC, New Democrat Network and the Turd Way, I mean Third Way. and her husband, who has probably voted democratic more than Mom, as he's a retired union plumber had some choice words for them.

They even mentioned working class republicans who won't be too happy either, but all I hear from talking heads on the teevee is that the President will piss off his liberal base. I mentioned that yesterday, and they both laughed and said that he's gonna piss off more people than that. :shrug:

Lots of confusion all around, and thanks for posting. :hi:

[DemocracyInaction]

73. Bravo---your point about what they are putting the elderly through

Just today, Mad, I was thinking of what anxiety and pain they are putting senior citizens through. We cannot exactly say "oh shit, I lost my job, so I'll go out and see if I can find another". It's like looking out the door to see who is going to come and drag you from your home and take everything you have and not being able to do anything about it. Now...let me share something that won't give hope to anyone. This is exactly the crap we at the state level went through when they went after our pensions. The rest of the public laughed and breathed a sigh of relief because only the low-life teachers and public servants were getting screwed on COLA's. Couple months later all the rest of you are now waiting in the "screwed" line. The states were round one. You are round two. It's a coordinated dance and now the whole nation is hearing the dance music. The war has come out of the shadows and now is outright being waged on the middle class.

[madfloridian]

95. I don't they have a clue about the stress, and I don't think they care.

[chervilant]

207. Well, now...

I can give you a brief description of that 'stress' with which we elderly and near elderly must contend:

Within the next two months, I must sell or dispose of most of my personal belongings as I prepare for homelessness (meter-pegging stress!).

Four years ago, I left mortgage lending (refused to sell sub-primes even before THAT shite hit the fan) to become a teacher (I hear you laughing hysterically out there...). My lone administrator for the ONLY year I was allowed to teach told me "you're too intelligent to teach these kids" (my students were predominantly Latino, AND she was dead wrong).

Thus, I have been un- or under-employed for the majority of these past four years (major, relentless stress). I have not had health or dental insurance for the entire four years (to COBRA my insurance, I would have had to pay $600+ a month, which was absurdly impossible--so, stress to the MAX here). I have lost fillings in two teeth (big time stress). I have severe tinitus (constant, high-pitched jet whine noise stress). I battle with encroaching and debilitating anxiety over these issues (OMG! stress!!!).

I am among millions whose situation is similar or worse (inescapable stress). I cannot get an interview or call back from potential employers AT ALL (heart-pounding, insomnia-inducing stress). I, like countless others, face a Sisyphean struggle to transition into the isolation, shame and diminishment of homelessness in this 'Great Nation' (geez, I cannot even quantify THIS stress).

If things go the way I hope (frissons of doubt stress), I'll be in DC for the Freedom Plaza event this October. I'll likely spend my first homeless winter dodging the DC police so that I can keep my car a while longer (dogged, numbing stress).

I'm STILL thankful I chose not to bear children (you know...the 'take care of you in your old age' children). I SOOOOO would not want to have children growing up in this world of pernicious greed.

[Blue_In_AK]

74. Right on, Mad Flo

I can't even listen to the guy anymore.

[madfloridian]

87. I love your Northern Vision pictures. I look at them often.

http://northernvisions.smugmug.com/

I can't listen much either. Today I tried, but....

[Blue_In_AK]

89. Oh, thank you so much.

:hug: I'm going to be posting some new ones within the next couple of days. Stay tuned. :)

[madfloridian]

226. I will do that.

:hi:

[Rex]

80. Been politial since I was 13 and Ronald Wilson Reagan was in office.

I learned what true evil was at a young age. That is part of my problem, I've watched too much shit go on for so long that I have little to no faith in the system.

[Jefferson23]

81. I believe it is important to understand that this proposal is Obama's idea. He did not need to make

such a proposal but he did. This proposal is a part of who he is ideologically....no one
is pressuring him to do so.

[Fire1]

93. Which proposal? n/t

[Jefferson23]

99. Social Security.

Democrats Oppose Talk of Cuts to Social Security

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/us/politics/08inflate.html?scp=2&sq=Obama's%20scial%20security%20proposal&st=cse

[Fire1]

101. He could kick the can down the road but like I've said,

it will come up again. The only "cut" or change I can see him making is to up the age of eligibility for full benefits. Most people aren't going to wait for full benefits anyway.

[Jefferson23]

103. The concern is that he is even suggesting it. It is a bad and unnecessary idea. n/t

[Fire1]

106. It's not unnecessay. Due to the boomer generation it is not

solvent or sustainable. The trust fund is expected to peter out by 2035 or 36. This is not new. The boomers have known this since the 60's when these talks first hit the media.

[Jefferson23]

111. Top 5 Social Security Myths

http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/

Keep in mind Obama's proposal:

Sanders: Obama proposal would impoverish 250,000
By Erik Wasson - 07/09/11 04:33 PM ET

The Social Security Administration estimates that a proposal floated by the Obama administration would put 245,000 people into poverty, according to an analysis released by liberal senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Saturday.

That level of impact would be felt by 2050 if a proposal to change the way inflation is measured is adopted, Sanders announced. The change to the way SSA would calculate the Consumer Price Index has been floated in debt ceiling talks between Congress and the White House. The White House has suggested revising CPI for both the tax code, in order to generate more revenue, and for benefits.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/170543-sanders-obama-proposal-impoverishes-250000-people

As I stated earlier, Obama's idea is a bad one and unnecessary.

[JDPriestly]

146. You are utterly wrong.

Reagan raised the rate of the Social Security tax to cover the costs of providing Social Security to the Baby Boomers. We who are on Social Security have not have COLA increases for a couple of years.

It is time to raise the cap and tax all income for FICA. That is how we should be providing for our elderly years and for those who receive Social Security and Medicaid for other reasons.

There is no realistic alternative to Social Security. That is the lesson we seniors learned in 2008. Don't forget it. Wall Street would like to get ALL the retirement funds. Wall Street is just one huge Ponzi scheme. Forget Wall Street.

We need to strengthen Social Security, but not by cutting benefits.

I belong to an organization that is funded to a great extent by voluntary donations. Members come from all socio-economic groups. The few who are very wealthy are doing extremely well and cannot understand why the less wealthy are not donating money like they used to.

The disparity in incomes in the US is just horrible. Wealthy people do not come into much contact with people less comfortable than themselves and do not know what is going on.

[Enthusiast]

167. Why do you keep repeating a Republican lie?

The cap has not been raised for many years. And reducing FICA contributions does make it a bigger problem. There are several small measures that correct any shortfall. Stop lying!

[Fire1]

189. It would be sustainable if the fed would stop investing these

funds and tapping into it to pay for other things. And exactly WHAT small measures are you referring to?

[madfloridian]

96. Setting a new record...

37 unrecs at 6:45. Not a popular thing to say, is it?

Not supposed to express how I feel that a Democratic president is offering a vital issue like Soc. Sec. up to be put on the chopping block as shared sacrifice??

[Fire1]

98. Cause it's not true, yet. n/t

[madfloridian]

117. Yes, it is quite true.

And some are in denial.

[roxiejules]

131. NYT: Barack Obama wants a right-leaning deficit deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11douthat.html?_r=1&emc=eta1


Barack Obama wants a right-leaning deficit deal. For months, liberals have expressed frustration with the president’s deficit strategy. The White House made no effort to tie a debt ceiling vote to the extension of the Bush tax cuts last December. It pre-emptively conceded that any increase in the ceiling should be accompanied by spending cuts. And every time Republicans dug in their heels, the administration gave ground.

The not-so-secret secret is that the White House has given ground on purpose. Just as Republicans want to use the debt ceiling to make the president live with bigger spending cuts than he would otherwise support, Obama’s political team wants to use the leverage provided by those cra-a-a-zy Tea Partiers to make Democrats live with bigger spending cuts than they normally would support.

Why? Because the more conservative-seeming the final deal, the better for the president’s re-election effort.

[madfloridian]

198. Thanks for the article.

I missed that. Very true.

[chervilant]

209. Looks like

Fire1 is bucking for Queen (King?) of Denial...

[Fire1]

222. I just don't have knee-jerk reactions. n/t

[chervilant]

224. Bwahahaha!

That's doubly hilarious, given your response.

(Still laughing over here...)

[Fire1]

225. I know what you mean. n/t

[Jefferson23]

102. It is similar to Obama's education policy approach, damage the unions by vilifying the teachers.

[madfloridian]

104. Yes, it is.

And that angers me, too. I guess you have guessed that though, it probably shows. :)

[Jefferson23]

108. I read your journal on education mads for the details and I along with

many here share that anger. No good reason not to show it.

:hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

100. Good, sad post,

Right there with you.

[Dystopian]

113. KandR

peace~

[pmorlan1]

114. Excellent Post

Thanks for the excellent post.

[Samantha]

115. These guys say provocative things to get the spotlight on themselves

Think Sarah Palin.

I had to quit reading your thread when I got to the part about centrist think tanks ... this is the old DLC you are referencing, and we formerly referred to them as Republican-lite. And that is what these guys are, with a little more theatrics on display. Regarding the ridiculing of the word "liberal" I personally have no problem with calling myself a liberal. I realize some wanted to change that to "progressive" and that is fine too. But these guys calling themselves progressives is like Karl Rove changing his name to John the Apostle. Really, who is going to believe it?

Okay, now I will go back and finish your thread, but I couldn't wait to post a response. I wouldn't lose any sleep over anything these guys call me, and basically, I would give them no publicly over their provocative rhetoric (which is exactly what they wish to generate).

Sam

[Blecht]

119. This is when paying attention really sucks

The instant you realize you've been had.

I pine for the days I was ignorant. I really do.

[chervilant]

156. NO DUH!!!

And, I grieve for the COUNTLESS members of the hoi polloi who seem to revel in theirs...

[TacticalPeek]

120. This.

Madfloridian Johnson is correct.

[Major Hogwash]

123. The entire agenda of FDR is for sale on Obama's table. Whatcha' got?

Hell, I don't remember Obama campaigning on changing Social Security.
Or Medicare.
Or Medicaid.

He just pissed all of the good will from killing Osama right down the sewey pipe!!
He will get re-elected because there isn't another Democrat with any spine out there who is willing to challenge him.

But, he will face a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and then it's just 4 short years before the Republicans can get a fucking Republican back in the White House, and finish off SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Why?
Because they can point to THIS DAY IN HISTORY when a Democrat President was willing to scrap those very same programs!!!!

[tcaudilllg]

124. It is quite clear from this post that Mr. Cowan is to be hated deeply and intensely.

Thanks for letting us know.

[bertman]

125. REC. The Democrat leaders know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are doing

the bidding of those who pay for their campaigns that keep them in office. We know the corporate donations are the money pot that controls who wins.

Until we liberal Democrats are able to stage an uprising similar to what the Tea baggers did in the GOP there will be no change in the rightward direction of the Democratic party. The folks in the DLC who control the party do not have to worry about their retirement income or their medical insurance payments. They are in the upper TWO PERCENT of wage earners.

[saras]

128. Is a blue dog worse than a Republican? Is a traitor worse than an enemy combatant?

[ProSense]

132. The President

actually made :

<...>

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You keep talking about balance, shared sacrifice, but in the $4 trillion deal that you’re talking about roughly, it seems to be now at about four-to-one spending to taxes; we’re talking about $800 billion in taxes, roughly. That doesn’t seem very fair to some Democrats. I’m wondering if you could clarify why we’re at that level. And also, if you could clarify your Social Security position -- would any of the money from Social Security, even from just Chained CPI, go toward the deficit as opposed to back into the trust fund?

THE PRESIDENT: With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems. Social Security, if it is part of a package, would be an issue of how do we make sure Social Security extends its life and is strengthened? So the reason to do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure that those benefits are there for seniors in the out-years. And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.

With respect to a balanced package, is the package that we’re talking about exactly what I would want? No. I might want more revenues and fewer cuts to programs that benefit middle-class families that are trying to send their kids to college, or benefit all of us because we’re investing more in medical research.

So I make no claims that somehow the position that Speaker Boehner and I discussed reflects 100 percent of what I want. But that's the point. My point is, is that I’m willing to move in their direction in order to get something done. And that's what compromise entails. We have a system of government in which everybody has got to give a little bit.

Now, what I will say is, is that the revenue components that we’ve discussed would be significant and would target folks who can most afford it. And if we don't do any revenue -- because you may hear the argument that why not just go ahead and do all the cuts and we can debate the revenue issues in the election -- right? You’ll hear that from some Republicans. The problem is, is that if you don't do the revenues, then to get the same amount of savings you’ve got to have more cuts, which means that it’s seniors, or it’s poor kids, or it’s medical researchers, or it’s our infrastructure that suffers.

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

That’s what the revenue debate is about. It’s not because I want to raise revenues for the sake of raising revenues, or I’ve got some grand ambition to create a bigger government. It’s because if we’re going to actually solve the problem, there are a finite number of ways to do it. And if you don’t have revenues, it means you are putting more of a burden on the people who can least afford it. And that’s not fair. And I think the American people agree with me on that.

<...>

[madfloridian]

134. Sounds like he tossed it in for good measure.

"And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future."

[rosesaylavee]

170. I looked at this speech in light of who he was talking to...

It wasn't just to his base (us) or to the assembled press. It was to the independents and Republicans at the table and who vote for who's repping them at that table. This is part of the negotiatons and very appropriate time to be 'political'. There is no way he or any other leader can open their mouth in mixed company and NOT be political.

This press conference made very clear that he is willing to talk to the GOP leaders to establish a plan. I will bet anyone that the Republicans will NOT change their position between now and August. If that does happen, I am sure the President will initiate emergency procedures to get this covered. I have read of a few such procedures here as maybe you have too.

Peace to you MF - I always enjoy reading your opinion even when (or maybe especially when) I disagree.

rosesaylavee

[chervilant]

157. hmm...

And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.

Weasel words, methinks.

[midnight]

140. "There is no excuse for the stress our own party is putting on seniors by including benefit cuts in

Social Security and Medicare. " K&R!

[inna]

150. K&R - and *huge* appreciation and respect for your efforts

[fasttense]

154. Vote for Obama cause he wont cut your meager Social Security and health care as much as a RepubliCON

Now there's a winning political strategy that will barely get him re-elected. Let's just hope the dancing supremes don't get called into be the referees again because we all know who they take bribes from.

[avaistheone1]

179. Yes, Obama's politics of hope have proven themselves a sham.

He is little different from the republicans. However, Obama is very effective at further eroding our safety net, and damaging the hard won protections our fathers and grandfather have put in place in this country.

I think he has betrayed the working and middle class. I would be happy not to see him return for a second term. Primary him!

[Warren Stupidity]

168. "Greedy Geezers" demanding that they get paid back for 40 years

of paying into a system that promised them medical care and an inflation protected pension when they were 65.

Fucking right we are.

[Fire1]

181. You think THAT'S unfair? What about those who died before

they could collect ANY of the funds they paid into their entire working lives???!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

202. That was part of the agreement.

And in the case of SS your survivors do get some benefits. What I object to is changing the terms because it is fucking inconvenient to billionaires to have to pay back the trust fund obligations used to finance their tax cuts.

[Fire1]

210. Some had dependent children some didn't and those people

never collected a dime. Imo, the terms aren't really changing b/c eligibility is already graduated, people are living longer and few can afford to live on ss benefits alone. Most will continue to work anyway. I'm more concerned about payment reductions.

[Warren Stupidity]

218. SS is a pension that terminates on your death with limited survivor benefits

what part of that don't you understand? it is not a savings account, nor has it ever been one. However, changing the terms of that pension program on the fly is a breach of contract, regardless of the fact that 'people live longer'. People might live longer, but they certainly aren't being gainfully employed in their 90's, and their medical costs rise steeply with age starting in their late 50's early 60's. Increasing the pension age limits is hideous, increasing the medicare age limits is criminal.

[Fire1]

219. Nobody said it was a "savings account" nor did I imply that it

was!! Being 90 yrs. old with increasing ailments is exactly why I am against reducing payments. In reference to increasing the age of eligibility, a large percentage of people don't wait to apply for full benefits and collect much earlier.

[OwnedByFerrets]

171. great post

[TransitJohn]

174. Wouldn't it be nice if elected Democrats

stopped actively working against the Party's Platform, and instead worked to implement it?

[colsohlibgal]

175. They count On An Easily Manipulated Population

Dead on, some of us get the long con, too many can't or won't grasp it.

I listen to Stephanie Miller a lot and she's funny, the show's a hoot. But she keeps making a point that Obama knows that the "middle" is the people he wants to go after so he can win in 2012. The sad thing is she's likely right but what she and millions can't seem to grasp is that the middle now is way right from where it was a couple of decades ago. People like Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Goldwater and Reagan would be drummed out of today's crowd of republicans, the whole spectrum keeps tilting right.

[madfloridian]

177. Trouble is there is no party in which people want Social Security messed with.

[chervilant]

230. Yeah,

fear does that to most people--how quickly we embrace the god myths when we're afraid...

[Emelina]

213. Pure psycopaths!

The average politician that is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MZCHjGkTPg

Or am I insulting psychopaths in general?