No seriously...I would like to know the answer to this

[senseandsensibility]

Why did Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow IGNORE the entire social security proposal story yesterday? I cynically predicted that they would not criticize it or allow their guests to criticize it. But they did not even mention it.

It was a live breaking news story and an important one. Their shows were live last night. And they both ignored it. Completely.

What could the reason be? Really.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

1. Because they know it's not that big of a deal...

And outright goddamn lying about it like people have on DU would only confuse people that don't understand the intricacies of political maneuvers.

[KoKo]

11. Seriously...that's really OTT...calling other DU'ers "liars"...

I'm not alerting but just pointing out the rudeness.

[DirkGently]

14. Bullshit. No one's lying. Quit spinning.

[Festivito]

19. Interesting that some do not think DUers lie on DU.

I guess those trolls had it right then? (I don't think so.)

I do not like this chained compromise, but, I do not have a different compromise to offer the House-obstructionists, so, I stay quiet and let the sock-puppet brigade continue their bluster seeing they do not offer a different compromise either.

[lamp_shade]

2. Probably to keep people like me watching. I'd heard enough already of this "important" story. n/t

[Nite Owl]

3. I'm surmising that

the NBC execs told them to not speak about it. The less people know the better for them. Keeps the protesting down.

Martin Bashir talked about it, although he was more reserved than his usual self. He had 3 guests and they appeared to be all by satellite. One guy was great. He was a professor, black, he's on often and is one of the good guys. Can't remember his name though. Peter Welsh (VT) was on and he had the 'Obama knew it would never be accepted' theory. Don't remember the other guy at all.

Tweety was exuberantly in favor of it, Obama was a leader, brave etc. Joy Ann was on and she was all for it too, I was a bit taken back by her. I thought maybe Joan Walsh would be on, maybe she was but I couldn't stand it any longer.

[senseandsensibility]

5. I agree, Nite Owl.

Good summary. Joy Reid was very disappointing, too.

[winter is coming]

20. But Rachel did mention it in passing as being a bad idea, economically.

If neither she nor Chris have a segment about it on Monday, I'll suspect they've been "encouraged" not to discuss it, but both of them tend to do more research than Tweety, so they might be looking for material to put together a well-organized segment.

[Nite Owl]

21. Let's hope you are right

about Monday.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. Too many people let media tell them what to think.

They tell us what we should be outraged about. They put certain topics on the news and repeat it over, and over, and over again in order to whip us all into a frenzy, and other topics are completely ignored. I only watch a few minutes of news a day and that's it. There is no true journalism anymore. News is not news anymore. News is what the executives and the owners of the station decide is news.

[JaneyVee]

4. They'll have no choice but to cover it come Wednesday.

[grantcart]

6. I am guessing for the same reason Lawrence O'Donnell didn't object the last time

If people were to read the NYT article they would note this important caveat:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html

Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said. The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama’s left, and they have already mobilized in opposition.

Last time we went through this Pelosi and Dean also said that they understood that low income SS recipients would not be affected.

Without knowing exactly what protections are being included its difficult to take an informed stand.

But that's just my guess.

You have asked a great question.

[dsc]

7. O'Donnell wasn't on last night he never is on Friday

as to the other point. Just what is the definition of low income. If it is anything other than relying on SS for most of your retirement income, then it won't do much good.

[grantcart]

13. I was referring to when the issue came up the first time on reaching a grand bargain.

O'Donnell, Pelosi and Dean all seemed rather nonchalant about the whole thing and stood by the point that lower income people will not be affected.

In any case the OP raises a good question. Why hasn't Maddow and others not responded?

[KoKo]

8. Democracy Partners, Mike Lux, has an answer to your snip...

Mike worked in the Clinton Administration on Budget then became a Dem Lobbyist (on the Left) and he had a good post about what this means for those SS recipients who are on that border of very low income and very old beneficiaries"

------------------------------
Mike Lux
Co-Founder, Democracy Partners
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/your-budget-represents-yo_b_3006222.html

b]"Mr. President: "Your Budget Represents Your Moral Values"
I understand the president has political reasons he wants to do this. He wants to look like the most reasonable guy in the room, and he wants the Republicans to look like they are the extremists who won't compromise. He doesn't want the attacks that will come from the deficit hawk crowd if offers nothing on "entitlement reform," and he feels like this is a modest cut compared with the budget ax the Republicans are threatening. He feels like he can lessen the impact of the Social Security cuts by adjusting the formula to protect the oldest and poorest recipients.

But, folks, this is rotten public policy, and all those political reasons pale in comparison to the damage he is doing here. With the demise or curtailment of most pensions, the drop in family wealth due to the collapse of the housing sector in 2008, the big unemployment numbers cutting into many families' life savings, the flattening or decrease of wages for most workers, and the inflation in many essentials among those who are working driving down the ability to save for retirement, this is the absolute last time we should be looking at cutting incomes for retirees.

As to the idea that Obama will keep the most vulnerable low-income seniors from harm, I am very appreciative of that fact that he cares about them and is trying to preserve them from cuts. Obama's compassion for the poorest of the poor is something to be lauded, one of his best values. But I used to do a lot of organizing with moderate income senior citizens, and I know a lot of middle-income seniors. I can tell you that even for those a little above the cut-off line but still living mostly on Social Security, they are not living in luxury, they are in fact just making it. When groceries or utilities or out-of-pocket health care expenses spike, it hurts and hurts bad. I have been in the apartments of seniors when utility prices were going on one of their periodic jumps, have seen what they can afford to eat, have felt the cold in their apartments in the winter because they can't heat their place. I know in my heart, because I have seen the evidence up close and personal, that for a lot of seniors the $500 a year they will have lost from chained CPI a few years from now if this cut goes into effect will result in more seniors dying of hypothermia or malnutrition.

Most Americans, over 80 percent in polls I have seen, understand that cutting Social Security benefits is a terrible idea, and I believe that if that is what happens people will be angry. But even if the politics were not on our side, this is a moral issue pure and simple. The president should not propose cutting Social Security, and Democrats in Congress should raise hell and oppose him if he does. As Democrats, according to all that rhetoric I kept hearing during the campaign last year, we believe in fighting for the middle class, and this proposal punches the middle class -- both older Americans and the families who care for them -- in the gut.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/your-budget-represents-yo_b_3006222.html

[grantcart]

12. goig to the heart of his point

But I used to do a lot of organizing with moderate income senior citizens, and I know a lot of middle-income seniors. I can tell you that even for those a little above the cut-off line but still living mostly on Social Security, they are not living in luxury, they are in fact just making it.

As far as I know the details of the lower income support has not been made clear.

I don't know what cut-off line he is referring to, obviously he may well be correct.

My response was to the OP who was raising a very interesting question, why has Maddow and others not responded yet.

They may be waiting for clearer definition of what is actually being proposed for the lower income, but obviously I don't know.

I believe that the OP has raised a very interesting question.

[KoKo]

15. As I said below. I think it's the "18-49 Consumer Demographic"

that might have something to do with why Rachel, Chris and Huff Posts Live Blog (mostly young reporters) didn't address it yesterday.

The corporation they work for is interested in that Demographic and while Chris, Rachel and Huff Post New Media might have mentioned it...the over 49 Demographic doesn't bring in the Ad Dollars.

[grantcart]

16. To be clear you think that Rachel makes editorial decisions based on ad generated data?

[KoKo]

17. She works for a Media Corporation who makes decisions based on

Ratings in that Key Demographic.

[KoKo]

9. I sometimes watch Huff Post Live on my ROKU and there was

no discussion about it. Even in their video archives. Yet Huff Post Online had many articles on it yesterday.

The online community seems to be more engaged with the issue, I guess.

ON EDIT: Huff Post Live....is geared to a much younger crowd. So, it's possible SS is not an issue for them. I didn't think of it that way before, but maybe Media wanting to skew to the 18-49 Crowd just isn't interested in SS because it's not part of their money making demographic.

Maybe that's why Rachel and Chris Hayes didn't bring it up.

[Nite Owl]

22. But that age group

(18-49) are our kids. I don't think mine want to contribute (they can't afford it) and they are listening.

[KoKo]

25. I think their statistical models are based on Demographic Research

that doesn't apply anymore...since the world had changed with Internet and all kinds of information sources available because of that.

I think they still rely on old "Neilson Models" ...although Neilson has just declared they will be monitoring Internet Views also.

But...the 18 to 49 Democraphic for Targeted Ads is what I hear on Bloomberg Business and Financial Sites that I read ...that is the TARGET of Advertisers because that group is in "Peak Earning Years for Spending." I think that has changed for sure with College Loan Debt, and Job Loss in that Generation....but, HEY it's what the BUSINESS INDUSTRY is SELLING.

I don't think their statistics are accurate but it's what the MSM goes with.

[bemildred]

10. It's a last desperate attempt to revive the Republican Party.

[jwirr]

18. That was always Big Ed's territory. I miss him.

[Nite Owl]

24. I do too

he was a bit much when he first started but I quickly learned he was with us, he was steadfast.
I wanted to listen to his radio show but couldn't during the day, I wish it was rerun. I checked on ITunes and only Rachel had a pod cast. Bill Maher did too, that was surprising.