Been Away from Here. Got Apathetic. Then Got Pissed. Had to come back and vent.

[Armstead]

Call me a fair weather friend if you want. But after the election, I felt very relieved. Then I got apathetic and somewhat complacent. Then I got mildly annoyed...Then I get increasingly pissed. that even in victory the Democrats have been acting like whipped puppies....While the GOP yet again eat our lunch in the ways that matter.

It's fucking Groundhog Day. Except -- unlike Bill Murray in the movie -- we aren't learning anything or improving ourselves in this cycle of repetition. It just repeats with no growth in the political world.

The public moves somewhat leftward in a slightly more progressive populist direction..And yet our government stays far to the right (Democrats included) in terms of placating the rich and powerful, while giving the rest of us the shaft. It's tragic because the pendulum is swinging in our direction, but our "elected" representatives keep ducking out of the way -- or actively pushing it back in the wrong direction.

Same old shit as when the GOP had Congress and Bush was president. Except now we have the benefit of experience of the crappy results of GOP/Corporate Dominance --- and the people saw it too and gave Democrats a chance.

So what happens? Obama is Bill Cinton, happily supping at the Corporate trough and tossing us a few leftover bones. A Democratic president who won handily but can't -- or doesn't want to -- exercise his power to actual;ly implement some liberal/progressive policies and laws.

Obama is proposing reducing SS benefits -- Something that was unthinkable not very long ago. (Even Bush backewd away from messing with that.) Negotiating secret "free trade" scams that hand over even more power to corporations at our expense...etc.

Congress is still their namby-pamby ineffectual selves -- except when it comes to passing crap that helps out their corporate masters.....The GOOD progressive Democrats in Congress STILL get ignored and marginalized by the so-called "centrists."

So, it seems that with a few exceptions, we're just going to allow things to get more corporate, more right wing and make life worse for average people and the poor while a few enrich themselves at our expense....And so, instead of hope, average people get more cynical and burned out by all the meaningless political games.



And so that old adage remains in place -- "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[Blecht]

2. Good rant

And I hate that everything you said is true.

[G_j]

3. K&R

Groundhog Day
yes, but each day we wake up more on the right..

[Armstead]

5. The public wakes up somewhat to the left -- But the politicians push them back to gthe right

That is what is so damn frustrating.

This is not like post 9-11 where people got scared and ran to conservatism.

Now they're scared and want to see some progressive solutions. But do they see it in government? Nooooo.

[G_j]

12. agreed

absolutely maddening...

[saidsimplesimon]

104. G_j, I agree.

Except, all this bi-partisan push to the right compels me to move left. Is the move to the right by our President the reason I spend many sleepless nights? A link to wasted days and wasted nights below:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[graham4anything]

4. OMG, this must be the first anti-President Obama post I have read on DU

...


...


...


in the last 10 seconds

[Armstead]

6. Doy, you are putting such a narrow filter on things

This is much bigger than Obama.....

[merrily]

140. +1 In three or so years, Obama will be out making hundreds of millions of post-Presidency dollars,

like Bill Clinton.

But the Party changed so dramatically by the DLC and other neocons will still be with us.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. So personalities are more important than policies?

Right.

If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.

[Fuddnik]

11. Whadaya expect?

Some people worshipped Stalin.

[G_j]

10. Why does it have to be personal?

It doesn't. Some people, for example,
actually don't want SS diminished.
Imagine that!

[BlueCaliDem]

15. Frustrating, isn't it?

The Democratic black man in the White House can't seem to catch a break at a Democratic Party-supporting site. Who would've thunk it?

There are so many falsehoods in the OP's post that it would take oodles of hours to disabuse, yet there those "HateObama" cheerleaders come, flocking to support a fellow anti-Obamanite with nary a question asked.

It's one thing to post legitimate gripes about this president and to discuss it while being open to suggestions and/or corrections. It's another thing to go on a full-out bashing spree with skewed facts and wrong information. But hey, the anti-Obamanites don't care about no stinking facts nor do they care how much they're undermining this president and the Democratic Party while completely giving the GOP and Republicans a HUGE pass. Why should they when they can have their biases and hatred against that Black Man in the White House vindicated instead?

No wonder we still have Republicans in power.

[G_j]

17. so, are you implying

people here have a problem with Obama because he is black?

[Fuddnik]

19. Well, nobody could ever possibly have a problem with his policies.

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Of course not! Perish the thought!

No way! Nah! Never!

[BumRushDaShow]

18. +infinity

That black face continues to cause exploding heads from all sides of the political spectrum.

[Armstead]

28. If Obama had a white face mhy head would be exploding just as much

[BlueCaliDem]

29. Thanks!

I never wanted to believe it, but apparently it's true that there a way too many "Liberals" who just don't like black people. Maybe not as many as on the AlwaysWrongRight, but still too many for me to be comfortable with because it tells me they cater to the their worst rather than their best instincts. I expected more out of self-proclaimed Liberals and/or Democrats.

[G_j]

34. WTF?

care to back up that load of BS?

[Armstead]

44. It is "liberal" to treat all people as people -- including criticizing them

[BlueCaliDem]

53. It is a liberal trait to research the FACTS first before criticizing people, but

most importantly, it's a liberal stance to be OPEN to newly discovered facts or corrections they may not like before they make an educated assessment and before they undermine the head of the Democratic Party as they did in 2010. We're supposed to be the analytical demographic, not the short-sighted one.

I had believed, that after the 2010 shellacking Democrats {and the country} have suffered and continue to suffer, people from center to center-left to the far left had learned their lesson. It took the gavel away from the most successful Speaker of the House in history, Speaker Pelosi, and handed it to the worst Speaker-in-Name-Only Boehner. But, no. The shrill screaming about the president's proposal to replace the current (and failed) COLA formula with a much better one that will actually save social security and put more money into people's pockets, is immediately bashed from mostly the Left. They're frothing so at the lips, screaming so loudly, that they've completely overlooked the telling silence on the AlwaysWrongRight. They should ask themselves why the silence?

When I first learned about chained CPI, I was furious. And of course I learned about it through {Romney-voting-GOP-supporting-Corporate} AOL & {Romney voter} Arianna Huffington's, Huffington Post. In my heart of hearts, I couldn't believe that this president, whose own family, from time to time, relied on the {stingy} social safety net in this country in order to survive, would try and dismantle it. It just didn't fit. It didn't make sense to me. So, after my initial red haze of anger dissipated, I began researching blogs and sites on the Internet and I discovered that half of what I've been reading wasn't even true.

But the gist of this post is, as a Democrat and a Progressive (I don't think I can call myself a Liberal anymore), it's incumbent upon me to first look up peer-researched information and learn the basic facts, and then keep researching to learn the consequences that result from any proposal. That's what I've done. That's what I expect Liberals to do.

It astounds me that the always analytical, level-headed thinking so wonderfully and righteously displayed among Liberals isn't happening with this president. And then I began to wonder, what is it about this president, arguably the most progressive president (not liberal, progressive) of our lifetime, that pisses off the Left so much that they don't even bother asking the fundamental question: why is he doing this? in anything he does.

Instead, too many Liberals immediately make up their minds, sans facts, write it in stone, and then go on a bashing spree while completely and totally negating the heavy hand of GOP obstructionism in it all.

[Purrfessor]

68. I have a die-hard Republican Facebook friend who.....

posts graphics containing the most ridiculous lies about Obama. I have no doubt she posts these lies without taking time to see if they might in fact be wrong. She makes these posts almost daily. It's as if she has nothing more substantial in her life than perusing the internet for material to trash Obama.

I am beginning to see similar reactions here. When facts are produced by others, the ones who are outraged often blow it off and seem to become more enraged. Obama has put offers on the table many here do not like, and yet they act as if the offer is not an offer at all but a policy change that has been signed, sealed and delivered into law.

It's fine to oppose the policy change, to call the White House and Representatives and register their opposition. But I think it is important to have the facts straight and to not attack the President as if he is already guilty of the charges.

And calling for impeachment for offering a change in policy? Good grief!! I thought Democrats/liberals/progressives had a little more sense than that.

[Armstead]

76. Disagreement is not necesarily ignorance

I have a pretty basic position after looking at the facts about chained CPI proposals at this point.

"If it aint broke, don't fix it."

SS may need long term adjustments to fix long term problems. But the starting point should not be tampering with benefits in a program that so many rely on (and have paid into already) and that basically works.

It's things like the stupid credit-card wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined with tax breaks for millionaires and corporations -- and a skewed set of economic values and policies that favor the rich while bankrupting the middle class -- that have caused our budget problems.

Forcing seniors, the disabled and others who must rely on SS and other programs is not the solution to those problems. Focusing on those is a distraction by the GOP and Corporate power structure to avoid looking at real solutions.

[Number23]

108. Excellent, excellent post.

[merrily]

142. A Democratic President's putting certain things on the table is in itself damaging, and permanently.

[Armstead]

145. Bingo!

[BlueCaliDem]

192. What certain things are you referring to? A new formula to calculate COLA?

Learn your history. Jimmy Carter did it with the majority of Democrats in BOTH chambers to CUT benefits.

President Clinton did it, with the majority of Democrats in BOTH chambers to CUT benefits.

But I never heard a single complaint there. In fact, too many around he wax romantically about those good ol' times.

President Obama has put forward a proposal that would strengthen and lengthen Social Security without harming the most vulnerable in need of it, without risking it's insolvency in 2033. The proposal includes raising billions in revenue, instituting a universal Pre-K, keep s.s. benefits intact and S.S. solvent, and force drug companies to lower their prices, just to name a few. But he appears to be the bogeyman around here. That's just sad.

[zeemike]

79. Immediately making up their minds?

Are you being sarcastic?....it has been 4 years and we watched as he appointed Wall Street to government and made excuse after excuse for him thinking he was playing 3 dimensional chess of something...then we re elected him only to have him go back on his firm promise not to touch SS and the social safety net...
And not you tell us we don't know the facts?....and that we hate him cause he is black...

Fuck that disassembling bullshit....not all liberals are fools or part of the 1%...

[BlueCaliDem]

85. If you step back for a moment

and look at the S S problem - the REAL problem we're facing - you'll see he's doing exactly what he said he would: no cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid. He's kept his promise with Medicaid (in fact, he's expanded it through the Left's and AlwaysWrongRight's hated "ObamaCare) and he's working to keep his promise with Social Security and Medicare.

With S S, he's finding a way to prevent that looming 25% cut in benefits that's coming in 2033 (or 2025 IF the trajectory for calculating solvency of S S remains the same as it's been used today, i.e., eight years earlier than reported in 2005). Maintaining the status quo will effectively CUT basic benefits, not COLA which no senior has seen a dime of since 2008 anyway. If he does nothing to avert that oncoming disaster, then and only then you can say he's breaking his promise.

"Cuts" in Medicare, as propagated by corporate media, is nothing but savings in order to strengthen it. He's already done a lot to cut wasteful spending in Medicare like shutting down fraudulent providers, regaining billions of dollars in defrauded money, closing the donut hole for seniors, and zero co-pays for check-ups, just to name a few. Now he wants to cut spending where Big Pharma is overcharging for prescription drugs.

So in all honesty, President Obama is doing exactly what he said he would; strengthening in order to preserve both Social Security and Medicare.

As for the Wall Streeters appointed to his administration . . . have you never heard the idiom that you should keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer?

Also, as a chess player, President Obama knows, you don't learn how to win at chess by playing against weaker, less experienced chess-players. You learn from the pros. Wall Streeters are pros at the ins and outs of Wall Street shenanigans. I don't see any problem with that, being a person who learned to play chess from very good chess-players and used that knowledge to win.

[zeemike]

91. Bam...you start out with the big lie.

"and look at the S S problem "

Social Security IS NOT A PROBLEM...and stop saying it is...there is almost 3 TRILLION in the trust fund that all of us poor working people paid into and it has 0 effect on the budget...

And 20 years in the future it MAY have to reduce benefits...if the economy stays in the shit house...which I guess you are planing on....but if you want to solve that problem real quick and simple all you need to do is raise the cap on SS deductions just a little...nothing complicated about that.

I am STUNNED to here liberals repeat this big lie over and over again...it makes me wonder really.
And yes it is a game of chess...that is all it is...and in chess you have to sacrifice the pawns to save the king...and you suggest that the pawns just roll over and take it up the ass yet again.

[BlueCaliDem]

129. Bam! And you respond with one of your own. Good goin' there, buddy.

First, I'm not a Liberal. I"m a Democrat. Second, if you don't think S S isn't in trouble, you're only deluding yourself. I'd rather believe a report by the SSA Board of Trustees than some faceless Lefty who's still pissed off that his candidate didn't win in the election, and who NEVER WILL. Get over it, already. That black man WON.

But it's apparent that sour grapes does seem to be the Left-Fringies' cup of tea. Way to go to underscore that point.

[zeemike]

151. Sounds like you are a DINO to me.

Claiming SS is in trouble because 20 years from now it will reduce payments if nothing is done....and you don't want nothing done that will save it...and want to cut what seniors are now receiving.

And you try to play the race card...claiming that anyone who does not want to gut SS must hate the black man in the whiter house...
Sorry buddy but that will not fly here...I am not that insecure in my belief system as to fall for that one.

[BlueCaliDem]

183. And it sounds as if you're a faux-Dem to me.

I'm not claiming S.S. is in trouble. The Board of Trustees at the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION are claiming it is.

Again, for the hard of reading/hearing/learning . . . the C-CPI is NOT a cut to what seniors are receiving. It's a minute cut to the growth rate of basic benefits. Since most seniors haven't received a cost of living adjustment under the current formula since 2010, do YOU consider this a cut to social security? Because you'd have to if you're going to claim until you're blue in the face that the chained CPI is a cut. Otherwise, that would make you a hypocrite, wouldn't it?

I don't play the race card. That's your sensitivity speaking. If the shoe don't fit, don't worry about it. But you make mention of it in a very defensive way and that says more than your hollow words.

Anyone who doesn't want S.S. changed or improved, and believe that NO Democrat should even suggest it, don't know shit. President Carter, with a Democratic House and Senate, CUT basic benefits. President Clinton, by signing into law a new taxation for social security recipients making above $34k per year, CUT basic benefits. But ya'll forgot about those in your zeal to attack this Democratic President who is merely offering a proposal for the tiniest cut (0.3%} to how the cost of living adjustment is calculated, without doing the necessary research, without acknowledging that S.S. is, at least, in trouble, without believing what the S.S.A. Trustees are warning about, and without acknowledging the year that social security will have to cut benefits by 25% has been moved eight years earlier.

[zeemike]

187. The board of trustees did NOT say SS was in trouble

And stop saying they did...those are words put in your mouth by those that are trying to destroy it....they merely projected a shortfall in 20 years or so if nothing changes...that is very different from saying it is in trouble.

The CPI is there for a reason...I am on SS and I depend on it to live...and in those 2 years we got no increase everything including food has skyrocketed up....I have not eaten steak in years...and in fact had to drop beef altogether because even hamburger has doubled in price...and chicken is going the same way...so soon I will be a vegetarian....fortunately I like beans peas and lentils which makes up most of my diet....they went up too but I am still able to afford them...so YES it is a cut in SS...as I have to eat less good food because of it...and you want more of that because we are living too high on the hog?
But I guess it is my fault I find myself living off of SS...I should have had a stock portfolio to supplement it...so I could move to a retirement community at the golf course like those with stock portfolios do and use the meager SS payment to cover my golf fees...but I am just a slug, a useless eater...who deserves to eat cat food because they had no money to do the hustle for them on Wall Street.

And for your information I started paying SS when I was 16...and paid into it for more than 50 years...and I was self employed for the last 30 years I worked...and actually had saved a little money...which disappeared when I was hospitalized for a week which cleaned me out and made it impossible for me to continue working...I had no choice but to go on SS.
And there are many like me...but those who are secure in their finances don't give a shit about them...let them eat cat food cause how much money you have is the only test of a persons worth.

[BlueCaliDem]

188. I never meant to demean your personal situation. I'm sorry if that's what you took away from my post

But the fact is, in 2005, the Board of Trustees rang the alarm bell that S.S. was in trouble when they projected that in 2041 earned benefits are projected to be cut by 22%-25%. Now, in 2012, they've come out with a new report showing that the year has been pushed up by eight years - 2033 when basic benefits, not cost of living adjustments but your basic benefits, will be cut by a whopping 25%.

You can read the report here: 2012 Trustees Report Summary. If you don't believe this SSA 2012 Trustee's Summary denotes that S.S. being in trouble, then I don't know what will. It's pretty clear to me that it is.

But to be clear here, there are no cuts being proposed to social security's basic benefits. Social Security benefits are currently calculated using a formula that takes into account your income and replaces a certain percentage of it.

Here's how it's done today: they do this by determining your average monthly income - wage-inflation adjusted - for the 35 best earning years of your life, and then applying a "bend point" formula to determine your base benefit (fashionably known as PIA or the "primary insurance amount&quot . If you retire in 2011 at your normal retirement age, for example, your basic benefit is determined using the following formula:
(a) 90 percent of the first $749 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus
(b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $749 and through $4,517, plus
(c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,517.
These "bend points" are adjusted by a formula that has been set in law since 1979, are based on wage-growth, and there is absolutely no changes to that formula in the gang of six plan. The changes proposed to it in the Fiscal Commission plan actually increases the base benefits for the poorest workers who are also likely to have the least in savings or other retirement income.

All recipients, 85 and over, of SS benefits will see an increase as well.

President Obama has got you covered. His proposal with strengthen and lengthen social security, Medicare {the gov't will again be allowed to negotiate prices for pharmaceuticals}, and raise taxes on those who can afford them. It's a very balanced and for you and me, very beneficial proposal. It's time we Progressives understand that and support the president if we don't want to make the Republican Party's wet-dream - demolishing our social safety net - come true.

[zeemike]

189. No you demean the personal situation of millions like me.

The reason we have a COLA is not because they are being nice to us but because the basic necessities of life have skyrocketed...and while that means little to you it means a whole lot to people who are just trying to get by.

And you seem to dismiss it all and claim that there are no cuts...well then why don't we apply that same formula to the Pentagon or even the congress which gets increases every year to compensate for inflation...and if you suggested a chained CPI for that you would then call that a cut and the shit would hit the fan over it.

The truth of the matter is that you can through those people under the buss because they have no political power and now that Obama no longer needs their vote under the buss they go.

Don't expect me to pretend that everything will be OK because it won't be for the powerless....I am sure the ones on the top of the economic class will do real well...just as they have for the last 30 years while the rest of the people slide downward even further.

We have become a cruel, selfish and uncaring nation...that is full of self interest and little else...and my party just joined up in the fight to provide the 1% with even more of what they want.
There was a class war and my side has lost...I hope you were on the winning side.

[BlueCaliDem]

190. I demean the millions in similar circumstances as you?? How do you figure

when I'm supporting President Obama's proposal? I believe you're woefully misinformed what that proposal entails and what it will do for all Americans.

Unlike Clinton, Bush 1 and 2, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, President Obama has worked hard to preserve our social safety net, and to continue to find ways to improve and expand it for all.

This is what President Roosevelt's Labor Secretary, Francis Perkins - who is to social security what Elizabeth Warren is to the CFPB - said in her 1962 speech: "Thousands and thousands of new problems arose in the administration which had not been foreseen by those who did the planning and the legal drafting. Of course, the Act had to be amended, and has been amended, and amended, and amended, and amended."

Did you see Lawrence O'Donnell's piece last Friday regarding the history of Social Security? You should. You can find both parts {aired on Thursday, 4/10/2013 and 4/11/2013: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/04/must-watch-tv-on-history-of-and-changes.html

How can you claim that the nation is in crisis when this president has done more to strengthen and expand our social safety net than any other president before him? That just doesn't make sense.

And I'm sure you know that COLA didn't even exist before it was signed into law in 1975, right? And having admitted that you haven't seen a COLA increase in the past two years, don't you think that's the writing on the wall that things aren't hunky-dory in Social Security land? Don't you think it's time something gets done before we get a repetition of 1983 when Congress and President Reagan had to hurry and raise the Social Security age in order to keep it solvent - something that never, ever benefits the average African-American who rarely makes it to 65 but who has also pay into it all their working lives.

For the life of me, and based on President Obama's track record, I can't understand your reasoning for criticizing this president. I really can't.

[rhett o rick]

109. Your rationalizations are remarkable.

"With S S, he's finding a way to prevent that looming 25% cut in benefits that's coming in 2033". Yeah he's finding a way, asking grandma to eat cat food now so she wont have to eat it in 2033, if she lives that long.

And the rhetoric, "President Obama is doing exactly what he said he would; strengthening in order to preserve both Social Security and Medicare. " So you are saying that cutting benefits is strengthening?? See if you dare tell that to those trying to live on their SS. "You may have to get by with a little less, but the system will be strengthened."

If you are so panicked about the solvency of SS THEN RAISE THE CAP. Or does that go against your nature?

"As for the Wall Streeters appointed to his administration . . . have you never heard the idiom that you should keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer? " This would be hilarious if it wasnt so harmful to the 99%. So are you saying the Republicans he appoints to monitor Wall Street are his enemies and he is just keeping them close? Close for what purpose? They are giving Wall Street everything Wall Street wants. Then quitting and going to work for the Wall Street firms. Are his so-called "enemies" that he is keeping nice and close doing what he wants or not?

[BlueCaliDem]

130. As is your denial of the facts.

So you are saying that cutting benefits is strengthening??

Are you Fringies really that thick in the head? Again, for the hundredth time since it appears your ilk are pretty hard of hearing, CHAINED CPI DOES NOT CUT BENEFITS. If you're willing to claim that, then to not be regarded as a hypocrite, of course you believe that the current formula HASN'T BEEN WORKING because all those seniors you try to convince everyone you care oh so much about {Wait! Wait! Wait! I need to pink away a tear here} have not seen a DIME in cost of living raises for the past FIVE FUCKING YEARS. So, are now willing to say that the status quo is cutting SS benefits? Come on. Be a big man, and grace us with more of your nonsensical anti-Obama rhett-o-ric and hate-for-everything-Obama opinion.

Jesus fucking Christ! It's as if I'm talking to TeaBaggers around here these days. They, too, hate rational thought, change, and most particularly, that black man in the White House.

[rhett o rick]

149. Good grief. So your argument has slid to name calling and rudness.

This "fringie" doesnt think SS needs any help. And if you think it does, then promote raising the cap.

Please refrain from responding unless you can be civil.

[BlueCaliDem]

193. I give as good as I get. And my patience has run dry.

Raising the cap does NOTHING to preserve the solvency of Social Security. Is that the anti-Obamanite's auto-response to solving the social security problems? Because it appears to be the standard response.

Raising the cap will be DOA. It's a tax increase, and NO Republican will go for that. And IF it does, it would only flush the fund with more money the RightwingWooWoos in Congress won't hesitate to steal for their pet projects (like tax cuts for the rich and unfunded and unnecessary wars - you know? Like last time). And at the rate President Obama is being attacked, something that's going to infiltrate through to Independents {those pesky voters who decide elections} sooner or later, I foresee a Republican president and Republican Congress in our not too distant future who will be more than happy with the extra taxes we pay for social security.

[HomeboyHombre]

120. How do you explain this?

"I will not cut cost-of-living adjustments."

[bobduca]

122. They don't explain it, and won't explain it. nt

[HomeboyHombre]

124. +1 nt

[BlueCaliDem]

133. I just did, Newbie.

Live and learn and stop ASSuming or you'll find you'll have to chow down on crow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2639766

[bobduca]

163. Thats the other thing I love about centrists

You are all so fucking friendly!

[BlueCaliDem]

179. That's what I like about DU Newbies . . .

. . . they're so fucking transparent.

[BlueCaliDem]

131. Easily.

That was in September 2008, before he was elected president, before he was inaugurated, before he discovered that the deficit was $6 trillion dollars, before he learned that the country was losing 700k jobs a month, and before the GOP decided to try and make him a one-term president by obstructing his agenda through filibusters in record numbers.

But, being the Democrat you are, you know that, right?

You need to try harder. That was pretty pathetic, Homeboy.

[HomeboyHombre]

164. What's pathetic are the content-free

rationalizations.

Rationalize = rational lies

As for questioning my party affiliation, yes, I am a proud Democrat, unlike our President . . . who never says the word.

[BlueCaliDem]

178. If you're a "proud Democrat"

then I feel for this president. With Democrats like you, proud or pretending to be proud, he doesn't need Republicans and Teapublicans.

[Armstead]

47. See my Reply 18

You are spouting absolute hogwash

[BlueCaliDem]

61. Only to those

who refuse to see the facts in exchange for the wonderful prospect of hating on the president. Again. Otherwise, nope. I'm pretty much on target, as your multiple responses to me have proven.

[Armstead]

67. I reply to you because....

a) Mixed in with your nonsensical paranoid rhetoric is at least what seems to be an honest difference in ideas that is worth acknowledging and debating

b) Your nonsensical paranoid rhetoric undercuts any civil debate and thus undermines the ideas you present

[Fuddnik]

48. Oh Jesus Fucking Christ.

I expect more out of Liberals/Democrats too.

I expect them to stand up for the people, be they black, white, brown, yellow, or whatever. Not to nuzzle up to repukes and corporations, while throwing us under the bus.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. I expect them to at least do their research before bashing this president

with well-propagated lies that the AlwaysWrongRight are not only marketing - with great success, apparently - but are nurturing as well. If anyone is nuzzling up to "Repukes" and corporations, they are the ones excoriating this president for trying to govern this country; disenchanting low-information Liberal voters who will then stay home in 2014 and the Republicans will continue to rule the roost, only then it will be on steroids.

Bash the president all you like. But stop the bullshit that he's "selling out" or "he's destroying social security". Because those are just outright LIES. I expect more out our Liberals. This type of parroting, I thought, is for TeaBaggers and low-informed Republican voters who hate this black man in the White House.

[Fuddnik]

69. As long as it's not Alternet, right?

I know him and his Atty Gen. have been relentless in their pursuit of polluters and banksters.

Whistleblowers are running rampant. There's not a drone in the sky. We're at peace for the first time in 1000 years, and we have free or cheap medical coverage for everyone.

If Social Security is allowed to increase along with the COLA, pretty soon retiree's will be eating canned cat food instead of dry.

[G_j]

96. could you please stop accusing people of being racist?

is that too much to ask?

[merrily]

143. Talk to John Conyers.

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

[maddiemom]

157. Good clip: very appropo.

[merrily]

161. Thank you

Melissa Harris Perry once claimed that white people who criticize Obama (not really Obama--his policies) are racist, the corollary being that people of color who criticize him are not racist. That is one of the most racist statements I've ever seen any prominent Democrat make.

[stillwaiting]

49. This post is HIGHLY unfair.

I am furious with President Obama for how he has strengthened the right wing's ability to weaken SS. He has done this in a number of ways over the past few years.

I am furious with President Obama for completely (and I mean COMPLETELY) going back on some of his campaign promises and proposals in such shocking ways that it naturally leads to furor.

And, it has absolutely nothing to do with his skin color.

I was furious with Clinton for a number of his large successes on behalf of the elite as well. I don't think I need to detail the things Clinton did that justifiably invoked furor in me.

It seems that you don't believe that Obama has done anything over the past 4+ years to weaken SS. If you believe that genuinely, then I am very happy for you. It must be very nice to feel that way. BUT, to blame those of us on this blog for being mad at Obama simply because of the color of his skin (and not due to his actions) is completely and totally unacceptable. If there are individual posters that have done anything to make you feel that way, then alert and let's get rid of them. It's a fucking joke to try and paint those of us that are pissed with Obama right now as racists. I have given Obama credit when he has deserved it, and I will criticize him (and LOUDLY) when he betrays the people of this country who are relying on him to protect them from what has been happening to most all of us for the past 3-4 decades. Obama HUGELY deserves the high levels of criticism that are coming his way right now.

He DOES have a lot of power, and how he has chosen to wield that power on some occasions has deserved strong levels of criticism.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. What's HIGHLY unfair is the unwillingness of so-called Liberals and self-proclaimed Democrats

to completely and unequivocally negate the powerful influence of an obstructionist GOP Congress (and yes, with the filibuster still pretty much intact, the GOP rules the Senate roost) in all of this, placing the blame on the president as if he's a dictator or a king or has this magic wand he can wield and make Congress behave. Most, not all, but most ObamaBashers here merely parrot rightwing talking points and completely ignore the Republicans' hand in those decisions that they believe the president is responsible for. And that's short-sighted OR they have another reason. After being here for some time, I'm leaning toward the "other reason".

President Obama is NOT weakening S S. Stop saying that and get the facts. It's a rightwing lie NO Democrat should propagate this far and this widely. And it's sad to read so much of it being propagated here. The president is proposing a way to save S S so that we don't see a 25% cut in benefits in 2033 but a mere 0.3% cut in COLA which amounts to, on average, $3.00 per/mo. That's what the chained CPI does; changes the way the Federal gov't calculates the cost of living adjustment. It does NOT touch basic benefits. It does NOT change how basic benefits are calculated. And it does NOT weaken Social Security. It preserves it and strengthens it.

The "Obama is cutting social security benefits" bullshit really needs to stop. He's no more proposing to cut benefits than the current COLA formula is cutting benefits by not having given SS recipients a cost of living adjustment raise in five years. So no, the president does NOT deserve the "high levels of criticism" coming his way . . . unless, of course, you believe that people should have the right to just make shit up and then hold him responsible for it.

[stillwaiting]

55. That's nice.

I will CONTINUE to say that Obama has WEAKENED SS because it happens to be true.

Even if cuts don't happen. The third rail is now fair game because of Obama.

You need to wise up to the facts.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. You prove, beyond any doubt,

that there's no changing a mind already made up. Facts be damned. Liberals are really losing the credibility factor, and that's just sad.

I have wised up to the facts. It's time you do, too. I stand by my assessment why some Liberals appear to hate this president for no sane reason whatsoever, and your post has done nothing to disabuse me of that assessment.

[stillwaiting]

63. You are absolutely, 100% ridiculous.

I can't believe that you have levied such a horrible accusation against so many DU'ers.

I have no more time for you.

P.S. Your facts regarding the cuts to SS are EXTREMELY misleading in their cumulative effect over a retiree's entire life, but I'm pretty sure you already know that.

You really are unbelievable.

You're on ignore now. I just don't want to see trash like your posts here at DU anymore. I still can't believe it.

[BlueCaliDem]

132. Yeah, well, I promise I won't lose any sleep over your opinion of me. Honest.

For those who are following this thread, stillwaiting's math is fuzzy at best. The moment s/he mentioned the "cumulative effect over a retiree's entire life" I knew s/he was parroting the AARP's assumption, forgetting of course, that the AARP has strong ties to Big Pharma and Big Insurance. It's in their best interest to mislead the populace. Their profits are at stake!

P.S. Your facts regarding the cuts to SS are EXTREMELY misleading in their cumulative effect over a retiree's entire life, but I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Yeah. I know what AARP has been fooling you with. That much I know.

AARP assumptions are spoon-fed by Corporate America talking points. Get that? It astounds me that too many uber-Liberals proclaim to loath corporations but would happily swallow their tripe if it's against Obama. Of course AARP has a special interest not to want the president's proposal to get through, and so do the uber-Leftists. For AARP it's profit. For uber-Leftists it's more fodder to whine about and another mark against this president.

You know that in the president's proposal - something AARP omits to tell you - people 85 and older will see a BOOST in their benefits, and the proposal would create a minimum benefit that's above the poverty line. I know you know that and if you don't, it's time you do. Unless, of course, it's so much "funner" to BASH this president because you're still sore that your Fringie candidates got their asses handed to them in last election. If that's the case, don't expect people to take you seriously when you go on a bashing-binge-fest of President Obama. I get it. You don't like him. You didn't want him in the White House. You'd be DAMNED if you'll support him. But you're not TeaBaggers and your hatred for this president shouldn't stop you from wanting to at least know the facts.

I know that no matter what I say, what I write, what I disprove, or how many links I provide to show you that you're wrong about this, you will "cling to" your prejudices against this president simply because you just don't like him.

[Number23]

110. You are absolutely, 100% FABULOUS in this thread

Liberals are really losing the credibility factor, and that's just sad.

Many would say liberals lost that battle looooong ago. Why? Because of their steadfast absolutely ASTOUNDING ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (ANY victory) and their ability to piss on every single thing that smells like compromise or negotiations, you know, the very principles of politics/society in ever single culture since human beings came out of caves and discovered things like fire and the wheel.

[Armstead]

113. Compromise and negotiations would be a refreshing change

Some of us totally appreciate the importance of compromise and negotiation.

But that is a far cry from the 30 years of capitulation and selling out that has allowed this country to be dragged so far to the right with almost no political counterbalancing to the GOP Corporate State

[Number23]

115. In what ways has the country been "dragged to the right" in the last 30 years?

On the issues of minority employment and opportunities? Gay marriage? Women's rights? Or is the absurd amount of corporate power that's been garnered during that time the only thing that matters?

Some of us totally appreciate the importance of compromise and negotiation.

Then from what I've seen over the years, you would be in the extreme minority on the "liberal" front. Which would make you a pariah to many other "liberals."

[Armstead]

126. Corporate power, attacks on the social safety net, true minoirity rmploymeny and opportiunities, etc

On issues of power and money...We have been dragged very far to the right.

Economic behavior that would have been considered unthinkable when I was younger has now become the norm. The social safety net is in danger of being shredded...The middle class, meanwhile is being sucked dry.

In some respects minority rights and opportunities have moved forward, but there is still a huge gap.

There has been no real compromise. If there were, things would be a lot better than they are. Instead we have entered a new Gilded Age, in which the top 10 percent have gained obscene wealth and power, at the expense of everyone else.

[Number23]

127. I agree with you that the top 10% have grown obscenely wealthy

and that there is still a huge gap on minority rights and opportunities, but anyone that truly believes that a country that started out enslaving people, stealing a people's land and slaughtering them, denying women the right to vote, and taking every single opportunity to deny people their rights and openly murder them when they protest has "gone to the right" is not someone that I think has even the most tenuous grasp on our country's history.

There is no further "right" than what the United States began as. The progress made (for which many, many people have died to get) has pushed the country further left to the center if anything. There is still much work to be done and there is no question that many quarters are more to the right than others.

[Armstead]

158. History is not a straight line

It zigs and zags and moves forward and then backtracks.

We have, for about 35 years, been backsliding and losing progress that had formerly been made on many fronts. We are moving back from the gains of the 20th Century towards a restoration of the Gilded Age, when the middle class was relatively small and the majority struggled while a handful of people and corporations sucked up unimaginable amounts of the nations wealth.

yes, we are better off than 250 years ago -- but we are backsliding.

[Number23]

165. "History is not a straight line" Absolutely right. And neither is the present

yes, we are better off than 250 years ago -- but we are backsliding.

No doubt, but the conversation began when you said that the country was "being dragged to the right." Go ask any black person or any woman of any race anywhere if they'd like to be in the now or 35 years ago. There's your answer on if this country is being dragged to the right or not.

Because as you said, "history is not a straight line." The gains that corporations have gotten doesn't minimize the other gains that society has gotten.

[Armstead]

170. The gains that corporations have been at the expense of EVERYONE -- including minorities

You can't separate one form of exploitation from another. The same forms of oppression and closing off of jobs and opportunities that affect the white middle class also negatively impact every other segment of the population (except for the lucky top percentiles).

Anyway you're splitting linguistic hairs. If it'll make you feel any better, I'll amend my statement to "the country was "being dragged to the right in many ways" to allow for those areas where progress has been achieved.

But I doubt that will satisfy you.

[Number23]

171. You don't need to satisfy me. I know this country's history

I know what "right" and "left" mean. I know what America is and has been. I'm not splitting anything. And you don't need to worry about "making me feel better" because I know America and don't feel the need to ignore this country's treatment of millions of its citizens throughout its history because I am now suddenly feeling a pinch.

Done here.

[BumRushDaShow]

81. "Obama has WEAKENED SS because it happens to be true."

"Even if cuts don't happen."

And there you have it. Nothing has actually happened but it's "true" and "the facts" just the same.

This has been the logic for the past 4 years from DU, where the below is often forgetten -

Folks refuse to acknowledge that when Obama says "Up", rethugs say "Down". Every. Single. Time. The dunces on the right keep saying "entitlement cuts" and not one of them have offered a thing other than privatizing SS & vouchering Medicare.

"The facts" are that anything and everything that this President presents to them is DOA - even when it's something that they proposed themselves. THOSE are the "facts".

It's amazing how many people hate someone who they truly believe has more power than he really does and attributes some magic wand to him that is guaranteed to make their worst fears come to pass. By your logic, the 250+ Democrats in Congress are either complete zombies or don't even exist. It's just him and ?????

[stillwaiting]

88. Another fact.

A DEMOCRATIC President has now included Social Security cuts in his budget.

We seem to differ on how important that fact might be. It is a really big deal to a lot of us whether it is to you or not.

It is quite historical in significance actually.

Some seem to be completely bewildered by the outrage that FACT has invoked in so many.

And, I really hope you're not trying to say that I hate Obama because that would be quite the assumption on your part.

It's a damn shame that I/we have to rely on Boehner to reject cuts to SS. <----- How is that not easily understood?

Not to mention the potential political fallout from this boneheaded move.

I frequent DU fairly often, and the posters that I see criticizing (NOT hating) Obama for this move seem to also criticize the general trend that the Democratic Party has taken over the past few decades, so to say that it's all directed at Obama is unfair. Now, Obama has a little more individual power over the process than a single member of Congress, and so when he INDIVIDUALLY says or does (or doesn't say or doesn't do) certain things they naturally take on more weight since he has the bully pulpit and he CAN influence average Americans.

The number of posters here that don't seem to understand the anger right now is truly astonishing for me.

[BumRushDaShow]

98. No Congress has ever enacted a Budget, exactly as proposed & given to them by the President

What the President puts forth is a Constitutionally-required document to request that CONGRESS fund x, y, z within the Executive Branch. And Congress promptly declares it DOA -and more often than not - Dead at the Scene - before it even arrives by courier.

The assumption of late is that because Obama proposed it, then it is as good as done, and that the entire Democratic caucus will go along, and that rethugs are going to push it through too because they just love some Barack Obama.

If anything, the Democratic party at the state level has gotten lazy and I expect that this has woken them up.

As they say, never go to a gun fight with a knife and the teacrazies have made Congress into one big AR-15 blood-soaked gore-fest. And one has to figure out how to actually go about keeping the government functioning when you have dysfunctional people elected to office, along with corporate media empires who make money off of the discord. I.e., that same media distorts the bully pulpit that folks attribute to Obama, into something that it isn't, and ignores the key parts that benefit the nation.

There is another drop-dead date that comes up in May - that is the debt ceiling again. And by trying to get some signal above the RW noise to once more show who is at fault (since the media keep pushing the nonsensical "both sides do it" meme), then he not only positioned the party to once more show who really is the party of "no" but he woke alot of folks up who would rather watch "The Voice" than pay attention to rethug threats to privatize or eliminate SS, and pump that money into the stock market.

It's sad that one has to scare their base into action but in this case, that is what we are seeing now. It's no different than when crazies like LaPierre run around claiming that "Obama is going to take your guns away!!!1111!!!11". Well here we have the same crap - "Obama is going to take your Social Security away!!!11111!!!!!". And then the electorate wakes up out of their stupor and tries to do something about it.

[Armstead]

57. Right wingers like Bernie Sanders you mean?

My attitude is tyhat everyone is free to agree or disagree....You may have a valid point, or at least a debatable one.

But how about putting away the templates about anyione who disagrees with the centrist (mildly conservative) approach as spouting right-wing talking points or disliking Obama because he is not white?

So far as I know, right wingers don't complain about about real or perceived benefit cuts in entitlements (except when they are trying to sound acceptably moderate during elections).

Your name calling and distortions overshadow any legitimate points you might be making.

[Skittles]

107. another one who just DOES.NOT.GET.IT

you're seriously calling us RACISTS?????

[BlueCaliDem]

134. Only if the shoe fits.

Does it, Skittles?

[Skittles]

136. WTF?

RIDICULOUS

[BlueCaliDem]

139. Actually,

pretty fucking true. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't worry about it. Touch a sensitive nerve, have I?

[G_j]

152. If that is true

then give us even one example of someone here expressing a problem with Obama's skin color?

[Skittles]

168. they have nothing

it's just the swooners who lack critical thinking skills - Obama himself would find them laughable

[BlueCaliDem]

177. Oh right.

Like they're gonna come out and say, "Hey! I hate Obama not for his policies (which are more progressive than FDR's and he's got more done than Fox-sell-out Kucinich), but I hate him becauise he's BLACK."

Sorry, but they ain't fooling nobody.

They go after everything he's tried to do to help push this country forward without doing the research they should be doing, as Liberals.

The lastest hair-on-fire Lefty-fringe wailing that he DARES put C-CPI on the table, and OH MY FUCKING GOD, dares to try to touch Social Security is a good example of that. They ASSume the worst without researching the facts. Had they done so, they would've known that Carter and a Dem House and Dem Senate cut social security benefits, Clinton TAXED social security benefits with the vast majority of Democrats in both chambers voting for it, for incomes above $34,000 a year - but Obama trying to put forward a more accurate formula for calculating cost of living adjustment {not mentioning that this also RAISES revenue more than cuts a cost of living adjustment) and that makes him EEEEVEEEEL.

Has FireDogLake already gone bankrupt? Is that why I'm seeing more and more FireDogBaggers finding their way to the Democratic Underground? Last I heard, Hamsher ain't doin' so well.

Lefties who believe Democrats have never touched Social Security, need to mosey on over to The Last Word site by Lawrence O'Donnell. He blows that popular but factually incorrect stance straight out of the water. People who give this president the benefit of the doubt would have done the work to find out just what President Obama is doing, and not immediately go striking matches while dumping gasoline over their heads the moment he utters a single fucking word.

[G_j]

186. that's a pretty involved

non-explanation of why someone would state that a certain group of DU
members hate Obama because of his
race and refuse to back it up with any evidence. To offer instead, They are "not gonna come out and say it" is disingenuous
at best. Telling I suppose, that you run on about hate when your post oozes with it.

[Skittles]

167. you're delusional

you need to pull your head out and stop with the fucking hearts

[BlueCaliDem]

176. I love you, too, Skittles

my trying-too-hard-to-be-seen-as-a-no-nonsense-unapologetic Liberal.

[merrily]

141. So, complaining about DLClinton means we hate Arkansans? Get a grip.

[L0oniX]

65. Of course. Racists also don't want SS cut.

[BumRushDaShow]

84. And most fucking racists don't believe that they are racists

[Blue_In_AK]

119. I'm sorry, but that's a bullshit statement.

It's the policy, not the man or his skin color. That racism charge is bogus.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

23. Yep. And most of their arguments would be eaten alive by intellectuals.

But they'd just claim it was part of some grand conspiracy that needed a blackface to accomplish its objectives.

We are the outliers of a severely demented hivemind.

[Armstead]

25. Please enlighten me as to "so many falsehoods"?

The phrase "Democratic Black Man in the White House" is a dead giveaway for a myopic response.

This is only partially about Obama.

As for being open to suggestions and corrections? How about this for a start? Stop buying into the GOP claims of "deficit reduction" and don't (yet again) start a "compromise" with the GOP with a capitulation to their worst demands?

How about instead to actively debunk the concept of an immediate "crisis" in SS? Instead of putting the "solution" on the back of recipients, ask those who make more than the cap to pay a little bit more by raising it -- that's a progressive solution and would not be painful to them.

How about STOPPING these "free trade" negotiations that are not about trade? The terms that are being negotiated in secret are just a cloak to in raise corporate power, take away the power of governments and communities and increase corporate ability to screw workers, ignore the environment and run roughshod over the world.

How about actually challenging the mergers that are creating monopolies in key industries like airlines, media, etc.?

And WHY pray tell, are the right wing of the GOP STILL able to monopolize the terms of the debates on every issue, despite bewing whupped last November? (Yes they still hold the House, but they should not be driving the debate in their direction.)

[BlueCaliDem]

82. If you'd done your research

you'd know that raising the cap is DOA and it won't save social security. For one, it's seen as a tax hike by the GOP who control Congress. It would require new legislation, and they hold the power in Congress because they hold the power in the House, and they will refuse it, but it really doesn't address the solvency of S S, as I'll try to explain in the second part:

Second, up until Bush and the GOP in Congress started stealing from Social Security, redirecting the money to the Treasury to fund those unaffordable tax cuts for the rich, Social security was doing juuuuuuust fine. Raising the cap will only have more of your and my tax dollars flow into the SS trust fund which the GOP will move heaven and earth to get their stinking paws on - just as they'd successfully done in or around 2003 - and funnel your and my money through to those very corporations you and I abhor.

As for global policy, I don't have an opinion on it because I haven't done any research on it. I'll withhold opinion on those questions. I'm not an economist. Suffice it to say, we no longer live in an American-only economy. For better or worse, we're part of a global economy and I believe the president is doing his best to get the best deal for the country he represents as he can.

Challenging mergers that are creating monopolies is Congress' responsibility, not the president's. He can jump up and down and demonize corporations, but all he'll get for his troubles is a corporate media excoriating him for it. Let's keep things in perspective. Congress is the legislative branch and it takes legislation to undo the damage they've done when they began relaxing ownership rules at the federal level.

The GOP is able to monopolize the terms of debates because they hold a vise-like grip on the House. Democrats can do whatever they want in the Senate (if they can find a way around the fucking filibuster), but it goes nowhere because the House has the last say.

These backassward Republicans aren't afraid to say NO to the president because they're sitting pretty in their dark red states and gerrymandered districts. Their voters expect them to obstruct everything the Democrats put forward, and that's exactly what they're doing using every trick available to them. It's why Boehner's House only has to work 2 3/4 days a week. This is a tactic the Democrats have never indulged in (although at times I wish they had) because they aren't in government to play obstructionist games. They're there to govern.

They key here is, if we want more progressive legislation, we need to win back the House. Otherwise, this is how things will stay.

[Armstead]

89. First of all regarding Monopolies...

It's executive offices like the DOJ that are charged with enforcing anti-trust laws and regulations to maintain competition and protect consumers. The head of those depts. are appointed by the executive branch. They should be more strongly challenging mergers (like the airline merger) that are not in the public interest.

Second, regarding Congress -- I agree with you. We need a much better Congress. Many here who criticize Obama also are angry at Congress. That is one reason your claims that people are personally just steamed at Obama are incorrect.

Third -- Obama is proposing budgets and laws that have to be negotiated in Congress. Changing the benefits formula may require that -- bit it is Obama's job to set a tone he wants Congress to follow.

Fourth -- For many years it was an article of faith that Democrats were not willing to fuck with SS benefits or the system. That Democrats were the party that would stand up against GOP and Corporate Raiders who wanted to get their hands on it...So it is not surprising that people who care about such things get up in arms when they see the president proposing something that is openiong the door to eroding SS benefits.

Fifth -- I would suggest you look into the actual substance of "free trade" agreements -- They often are not about trade but aboput increasing corporate power globally, and undermining local and national governments. And ultimately such agreements take away the position of American workers and laws. That is not necessary, even as we participate in the global economy. (We have always had a global economy.).

These issues are much bigger than Obama -- but when Obama is on what some of us see as the wrong side of issues we care about, we are going to legitimately criticize him for it....Those who disagree with critics are also free to do so. Just don't assume there is some personal animosity towards him because of his race or some other factor that is irrelevant to whatever issue is at hand.

[raindaddy]

35. OK, Maybe it'll go down a little eaiser if we hear it from a black man....

"Obama is a Rockefeller Republican in blackface."
-Dr. Cornell West

But wait a minute Dr. West is a "liberal" black man so of course he's biased. I'm sure Clarence Thomas, Allen West and Herman Cain are pleased.

[sabrina 1]

37. All the President has to do is to stick to Democratic principles to 'catch a break' from Democrats.

Such as, Democrats actually expect a Democrat to never, ever even suggest cutting SS. For one thing, that fund is the people's fund and no politician has any right to bargain it away to Republicans to try to appease them, or whatever the reasons are.

If I wanted a Republican who would cut SS, we had Romney and Paul Ryan to choose from.

A Democratic President willing to sell out on SS??? Who would've thunk it??

[L0oniX]

72. Oh wait ...he's trying to work with the GOP who want to cut SS but don't want the blame for it.

You of course are totally right in that a real Dem would never even hint at any sort of cut to SS ...and that's what the worshippers don't get ...for all their "intellectualism" bull shit. Pride blinds and the DU worshippers are a great example of that.

[BlueCaliDem]

182. Ah sabrina . . . how short your memory is. Or is it?

Who would've thunk it?

I'm sure by now that crow stuck in your craw for claiming that a Democrat "never, ever even suggests cutting SS" is smartin' something aaaaawwwful. Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.

That meanie Lawrence O'Donnell {now he'll be labled a centrist Obamabot, too, I would gather} dealt the Purists on the Left a painful blow, and blew the propagated myth that Democrats never, ever try to offer cuts to S.S. right out of the water, and did so from Wednesday through Friday using FACTS, not FireDogBagger/DKos lies and misinformation.

Democrats have cut social security benefits under Democratic President Jimmy Carter - who had a majority in both chambers - and under President Clinton, when he signed into law taxing social security benefits for incomes over $34,000. Their reasoning was exactly the same as President OBama's: to preserve and lengthen Social Security. But those were real CUTS to BENEFITS, not a COLA change, but real CUTS. How does that feel now. Painful that this Obamabot had to point out the truth to you, huh? President Obama has proposed a tiny adjustment in the COLA formula to strengthen and lengthen Social Security and this site is full of Purist-Leftists excoriating him for it. So why the difference of treatment between Presidents Carter and Clinton, and President Obama? hm.

Democrats and Liberals are known for doing their research. They - usually - don't jump to conclusions or hold a purity view of every policy being offered. That's what TeaBaggers do. So when I see this happening on DU, it underscores the truth of my contention that President Obama can't catch a break from the Purity-Lefty (14.9% of the Democratic Party, btw) that, for some strange reason, really hate this president, as you prove with your posts that are usually filled with anti-Obama sentiment.

[snagglepuss]

60. So rather than take time to refute even one point you opt

to to use the race card. Least everyone can see how little credibilty you have.

[L0oniX]

74. It's just another sign of desperation from the worshipers. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

90. It's the only plausible explanation that can be attributed to some DUers here

who refuse to see the facts and happily continue bashing this president for everything he does and for everything he doesn't do but what short-sighted people only perceive he's doing, solidifying in their minds that it must be the only truth, facts be damned, because they just don't like that black man in the White House.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

121. I think you should examine whether you belong here when you begin accusing liberals of racism

...because they don't agree with the President. I think this is an extremely jack-booted way to try to scandalize opinion that you do not agree with, so as to make those you disagree with not only wrong, but also morally reprehensible. You're telling what you do, or should know, is a lie. And you're doing it in hopes of generating as much damage as possible. When you impugn the integrity of a majority of this site with a vicious, harmful, and totally unfounded accusation just because you want to score an argument point, you're not up to any good, and you should expect pushback.

[BlueCaliDem]

128. Nah. I belong here since I'm SUPPORTING A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ON A DEMOCRATIC SITE.

Maybe you should take your own advice. I hear Firedoglake is really the hot place to be for anti-Obamanites these days.

[lark]

78. So, are you saying we should have different stds. for office holders based on race?

Because he's black, he gets a pass on adding Republican priorities to his budget? Putting something in his budget, in writing, doesn't matter - it's all wrong information? How do you get that? Seems like a huge stretch of reality to me.

I think most people on this site don't care what race the president is but instead care about policies that directly affect their lives and the lives of their family and friends. That's the bias that's showing here - wanting the government to keep it's committments to the working class vs. giving our money to the 1% and screw the workers.

Why are you defending cutting social security - that's the real question?

[BlueCaliDem]

87. No. I'm saying we shouldn't segregate this president

and treat him differently the moment he makes a perceived mistake than we would any other Democrat. But that's exactly what's so troubling to many Democrats who are seeing it happening around here.

Again, I'm not defending "cutting" social security. You really need to stop saying that because it's a lie.

The chained CPI will no more "cut" social security than the current COLA has been "cutting" social security since people haven't seen a cost of living adjustment raise since 2008. Do you consider that absence of a raise a cut in social security then? If you consider the chained CPI as a cut to social security, then you have to be honest and believe that zero cost of living adjustment raises in the past five years are cuts to social security, too.

[lark]

93. Very unfortunately, not a lie.

You just refuse to acknowledge it because that would not fit with your rosy mind picture. I agree that SSI has already been cut and that's what makes the Chained CPI worse.

If you think we treat the current president badly, you should note the pure venom a lot of poster have for Clinton or Carter. If anything, Obama largley has gotten a pass from a lot of Dems, despite consistently supporting right wing policies.

[noiretextatique]

95. well, i'm black

and i am totally pissed about him offering up social security, among other things.

[BlueCaliDem]

181. So is Michael Steele.

Big whoop.

And as a Black person, you of course KNOW that Clinton, the "first black president of the U.S.", not only offered up Social Security, but actually signed into law, with the majority of Democrats in BOTH chambers, to tax social security benefits above $34,000. That's a CUT in social security benefits. But I'm sure you knew that.

[noiretextatique]

191. i am sure you know that's insulting

and if i listed all the white assholes in the gop, it would take me all day. i think you're making my point: the third way, DLC democrats share the wet dreams of republicons.

[BlueCaliDem]

194. It doesn't surprise me you didn't see the forest for the trees.

and instead find what I write {which is perfectly reasonable AND true} as offensive. Instead, you should try and think about what I've written. That's what a true open-minded Progressive would do. Liberals on the other hand, well, they're a breed of their own.

[LanternWaste]

159. You will of course points us towards posts on DU which...

"The Democratic black man in the White House can't seem to catch a break at a Democratic Party-supporting site..."

You will of course points us towards posts on DU which, with no error for misinterpretation on your part, either specifically or generally implies racism rather than A (A being anything other than racism) on the part of the poster, yes?

[G_j]

162. I've asked for the same

crickets

[BlueCaliDem]

180. Why waste my time?

You'd excuse it away just as your fellow "DUers" always do.

But again, you're not fooling anyone.

[Arctic Dave]

16. That's what happens when go with shitty DLC policies.

People soon realize they are being had.

DLC Dems suck.

[L0oniX]

75. DLC = anti FDR. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

97. Some think they have been had...

others are too busy drinking nicely chilled kool aid.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

24. And if I have to look at another "Alternet" link, I might just fucking vomit.

Who made them the authority of all things truth?

[Armstead]

27. That's whats wriong with you-- You are closed off to different perspectives

Maybe you should actually READ some links to places like Alternet with an open mind, instead of rolling your eyes.

[L0oniX]

77. Hey here's a clue. Worshipers are not interested in having an open mind. They already have their god

[sabrina 1]

39. That's interesting. Alternet is a well known Liberal site with long established reputation

for telling the truth. Why on earth would a highly respected Liberal publication make anyone on a Democratic forum feel like 'fucking vomiting'?? That is very strange.

Since when did they become the authority of all things truth? For Democrats they have always had that reputation. The question should be 'when did they stop telling the truth'.

[ljm2002]

50. If you think Obama can't take the heat...

...then why did you vote for him?

You did vote for him, right? I did.

I have never thought that voting for someone meant that I must then refrain from ever criticizing them, even if I believe something they are doing or proposing is wrongheaded.

The Chained CPI is wrongheaded. It is against the bedrock principles of the Democratic Party. And it is one of many such positions taken by our President. So while I agree he is much, much better than the benighted alternative we were presented with in the last election, he is also much, much worse than ideal.

If you want to interpret that as being "anti-Obama" then so be it. You merely show yourself to be a simple-minded thinker whose parameters of debate are narrow indeed.

[treestar]

102. Don't tell me

It suggests giving up on voting for Democrats.

[Skittles]

106. you just do NOT.FUCKING.GET.IT.

not at ALL

[bobduca]

123. Genius Fundraising Ploy!

you are making the case for getting a donor star, just for the ignore feature. genius fundraising ploy, DU!

[Autumn]

7. Glad to see you are back

rec

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Good to see you back Armstead

As I know you know, as poor as the alternatives to it may be, apathy never works in the long run.

[Armstead]

114. Thanks

[hfojvt]

13. good to see you back

but I never had any post-election relief. Especially not when Republicans held on to the House. And the media was all "OMG! OMG! The Fiscal Cliff! The Fiscal Cliff!

We have to do something quick, before taxes go up on the rich and it kills us all. OMG. OMG."

And the only thing Democrats were saying, outside of a few of us on DU, and Krugman for maybe one blog post, was "let's keep 78% of the Bush tax cuts" and even here people seemed to think that was all hunky dory http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1777348

The celebration following the passage of ATRA was overwhelming here, and I saw that as a knife in the back that will never be taken out.

But there are not many in the rest of the country who seem to care.

[Armstead]

31. People care but they are disillusioned

If one is hurting and asks for help from someone who looks like they are in a position to help -- but then they turn their back or makes excuses, it tends to make one care less.

[Warpy]

14. I didn't support Obama in the 2008 primary for the same reason

I didn't and won't support Hillary Clinton. They're too Third Way, Wall Street Democrat, Blue Dog, "pro (big)business" for me and the country had had enough of their business as usual. It's been killing us as citizens and as a nation.

I have no idea who I will support in 2016, which is likely to be my last election season. I will not be supporting Ms. Clinton. She would have been wonderful in good economic times. We can't afford her now.

[Autumn]

22. I find myself in agreement with what you say, We can not afford

7 more years of what is going on now. I really like Hillary but we really need someone who will not maintain the current policies.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

20. Agree on SS. Respectfully disagree on TPP.

Those negotiations were going to happen whether or not we threw our hat in the ring.

Our exports would have dropped dramatically without getting involved and getting in a rulemaker position where we can do a lot of good.

We are going to set a lot of standards and do a lot of business that will allow us to keep the lead over China.

The stigma attached to free trade is not based on facts. It is based on a dogmatic belief in economic nationalism.

[Armstead]

33. I am fine with negotiating about trade -- But not opening the gates to Trojan Horses in the process

Taking away the power of communities and elected officials and gthe courts to challenge corporate malfeasance inm the name of "free trade" is not what we should be doing -- especially after seeing the results of all the previous trade scams of the 90's and 00's.

[fredamae]

21. Wow! You Couldn't Have

stated it any better For me if you tried.

I believe at this juncture you have many folks who Agree with you.

Reality, for me was like a bucket of ice water...........

[BlueCaliDem]

26. Bullshit.

Obama is proposing reducing SS benefits --

Really? Do you even know what the Chained CPI does? Do you at least know what it doesn't do?

The chained CPI does NOT touch basic benefits. Not a penny. It's a new COLA formula that merely slows the rate of growth. The current formula for calculating basic benefits remains untouched and intact.

To claim that "Obama's proposing reducing SS benefits" is hyperbole at best, and an outright lie at worst. If you really believe that, then you'd believe that the current COLA formula is currently reducing SS benefits because SS recipients haven't received a cost of living raise since 2008, have they? Do you consider that cutting or reducing SS benefits? Because you'd have to if you continue to claim that the president's proposed chained CPI will "cut benefits" {which it does NOT}.

But here's the scary part {drum roll} . . . if we do NOTHING, the SSA Board of Trustees have warned that, based on current variables, SS benefits will be CUT by a WHOPPING 25% starting in 2033. Not cost of living adjustment, but basic benefits.

Now, twenty years from today might not scare you as much, but let's look at recent history:

in 2005, the same Board of Trustees predicted that recipients would have to take a 22% cut in benefits by the year 2041 if nothing is done.

in 2013, the BoT now predicts that there will be a 25% cut in benefits in 2033. That means they've moved up eight years.

My question to you . . . what will happen in the next eight years? Will they move it up another eight years when they'll have to cut SS benefits? In eight years it will be 2021, and if we moved up the year when they'll be forced to cut basic benefits by eight years in keeping with the trajectory set in 2005, that means it will be 2025 when they start cutting benefits by anywhere between 22% to 25%.

Do we really want to wait that long to do something? I'm sure the Republicans would. It would effectively begin the dismantling of social security as we know it.

[Armstead]

36. "Slows the rate of growth" while being outstripped by the rising cost of living

There are plenty of ways to head off that problem in 2033 without hurting those who need every penny from their benefits.

My own preference is to raise the cap. SS taxes are already unfair because they hit people with moderate incomes much harder than those who make more than the capped amount...How about making the caps a little more progressive and fairer instead of hitting recipients? It would not be the end of the world if the percentage of income being paid in by those making a lot of money were just a little bit higher.

[BlueCaliDem]

138. As it's doing now? When was the last time an SS recipient got a cost of living raise?

That's right. 2008. FIVE. YEARS. AGO.

Do you consider not having been able to give our seniors a cost of living increase for five years, a cut in benefits? Because that's what proponents of the president's proposal is calling the chained CPI that would replace the current COLA formula.

Raising the cap would be an excellent idea. We'd rid our worry that SS won't be solvent in 2033. We'd get that much closer to have rich people pay their fair share to our seniors. And the problem would be solved. But do you recall, in the not too distant past, that social security was strong and flush with more than enough money to fund earned benefits till, what was it again? 2078?

And then Bush happened. And twelve years of borrow and spend Republicans controlling Congress joined forces with him. Tax cuts for the rich was passed TWICE, but as every Progressive knows, they wouldn't pay for themselves even though we were sold that tripe by Corporate Media. I mean, hey, Duhbya even promised he'd keep his paws off of social security, 'member? Well, he didn't. That cash was flowing in thanks to the Clinton years, and Congress redirected it to the Treasury to pay for those tax cuts and then they launched two unfunded wars and kept dipping their hands into the SS trust fund. And here we are today, looking at a 25% cut to basic benefits by 2033.

What I'm getting at is this, considering the fickle American electorate, even IF we can pass a raise in the cap through this obstructionist Republican House (highly unlikely) there's a real possibility that we'll see another Republican president and another Republican Congress in the future. The moment there is, tax cuts for the rich will pass as law again, and all that cash flowing in will again be redirected to the Treasury to pay for them instead of keeping it in the "lockbox" for our seniors. President Obama's proposal would stop that from happening and effectively create that lockbox that will save social security for the long haul and to stop future Republican presidents and a Republican congress from pillaging SS.

[Armstead]

146. If benefits are not kee;ping up now, why make it worse?

You are correct. One of the drivers of this has been the tendency to raid SS to pat for other shit.

And you are also correct. The GOP (and timiod Dems) are unlikely to vote for raising the cap for SS Taxes anytime soon.

However, that should be all the more reason NOT to cave in to the GOP and continue to set the tone and terms of the debate on how to fix it. Both for humane reasons AND political ones.

The humane reasons are obvious.

The political ones should be equally obvious. For years, even Republicans were afraid to go after the Third Rail of SS and propose cutting the programs benefits. Because even they knew it was a POPULAR program. The few times they have tried, they quickly backed off because of the political shitstorm they encountered from the public.

Instead they have gone after it in devious and backdoor ways. Even Paul Ryan, one of their main hatchet men, pretended to be defending and "saving" SS and benefits, even as he was trying to giut the program.

One of the political strengths of Democrats has always been the perception that they will protect SS matter what. That has been their main selling point.

That is what Obama and the rest of the Dem leadership should be doing now. Instead of buying into and reinforcing the GOP cries of "wolf" the Dems should be even stronger in defending benefits and driving the message.

This chained CPI proposal is just caving into the GOP, giving them more ammo. And in voters minds it is going tp weaken the Democrats political position. It's pretty obvious what is going to be going on in the minds of "swing" independent voters if Democrats walk away from their traditional support of SS. "Why should we vote for Democrats? They're not defending SS anymore. They're jusgt as bad as Republicans."

Instead of that the Democrats should be pushing back even harder against the Teabaggers. That's not only the correct thing to do, it is also politically smarter than caving into them.

[xtraxritical]

42. Blah blah blah, just raise the income cap.

OMG a tax increase on businesses OMG

[Cleita]

43. Oh, Gawd. Straight from the Heritage Foundation.

I'm hoping you don't know that but it is. Please go to Bernie Sanders website and get the truth.

[Sheepshank]

46. In addition, we still don't even know what products will be used to calculate chained CPI

Chained CPI (as I have been told), is tied to a variable and designated set of products and the rate of increases in those prices. Products like gas, groceries, housing will be a helpful measurement in calculating the increases in SS, while the costs of electronics and furnishings not so much. I'm not sure anyone here on DU has a clue what chained CPI really entails, the numerous types of chained CPI and which one is proposed or which products will be used in the calculation of SS increases.

The outrage without the full information, so many jumping on the bandwagon assuming a posted outrage is fact filled is quite pathetic...and become very predictable at DU.

[treestar]

103. And not to affect the poorest recipients

So all of this outrage is on behalf of the middle class and rich, mostly people who voted Republican to start with.

[marions ghost]

32. Did you really expect things to change in a big way already?

We are controlled by the Corporates. I don't even blame Obama so much as I don't think he can overcome it. I'm not sure anybody can. But I understand your disappointment that progressive gains seem impossible by the usual political means. Your point that the populace has progressed while government reflects the opposite--is true IMO. This further underlines the reality that we lack real political power.

Does this convince you & others that what we progressives are up against is a brick wall? The problem is how to bring democracy to America, in light of a Corporate coup.

[Armstead]

40. I thought we would at least be starting to shift in a better direction

I'm too old to expect miracles. But I do think it is realistic to expect that politics should begin to shift when the will of the people shifts.

You are right, it will take a lot more than party politics to fix this mess. But that's where it should be expressed in government.

In the 80's Reagan and the GOP were able to shift the country clearly to the right. Their ultimate success took 30 years, but they started by pushing the political pendulum rightward.

We are in an opposite period now, where the public will is pulling in the opposite direction. In theory, the Democrats should be using that, instead of resisting it.

[marions ghost]

51. There are some in congress

who represent the progressive direction but not enough. The middle and right have a lock on it and they are sold out to the Corporates. Obama is not in a position to be Captain America.

The will of the people is simply ignored. The fact that politics is not shifting whatsoever in synch with the people proves this.

Yes--"it will take more than party politics."

[Cleita]

38. Hey Armstead. Glad to see you back.

I wish Obama was even Bill Clinton. It seems we in the 47% were more prosperous back then.

[bvar22]

41. The "CHANGE" Administration.

Don't worry.
After his Re-election, he will be free to show you what he really stands for!!!
Just give him a little time.
YES. HE. CAN!


Besides, all that other bad stuff was Joe Lieberman's fault.
Did you see the pictures of his kids & dog at the Easter Egg Roll?
Dreamy, DREAMY, Hunky, HUNKY! Hoot!
We're having a parade adoring his Hunkiness this afternoon.
You should come!

[malaise]

45. Welcome back

Rec

[MotherPetrie]

52. K&R

[Win-the-fight]

59. It's not about them anymore, they have shown us who they are

Now it is about us.

What are WE the PEOPLE going to do about this?

What did they do in FDR's time?

What are we missing?

[Armstead]

64. We're missing enough real political leaders

People can (and often do) kick and demand and othrwise press for positive change. Anmd to an extent it succeeds -- at least in convincing a number of other people -- or at least in getting issues put on the table.

But it also required political leaders who will take those points and demands into government so it is translated into policy.

That IMO is the missing link at the moment. A substantial number of people are finally pissed at the banks and wealthy powerful corporations -- and they want atv least more balance in our economy and political system.

However, at some point that requires elected leaders who actually represent and press for those changes in policies.

The problem as I see it is that too many Democrats -- who claim to be filling that role -- are either too timid and/or corrupt to actually do that job. Which leads a leadership vacuum, which makes people cynical and complacent....Which allows the powerful bastids to continue to do business as usual.

The last five years are a classic example of that.

[Win-the-fight]

100. the opposition plants our 'leaders', this is not a new tactic

They keep doing the same thing over and over, we should be able to outsmart them.

Instead we just keep following along, getting distracted at every stupid thing the media wants us to.


I just know there is something we are missing, we are definitely doing it wrong.

[L0oniX]

62. You won't see the worshippers caring about old people on SS on DU. n/t

[antigop]

83. You won't see the worshippers caring about people whose jobs have been outsourced either. nt

[SwampG8r]

166. here is what one of them actually put on DU

says people are hiding behind grandma and hiding behind women and children if they criticize the president
truly disgusting stuff
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=297857

[L0oniX]

169. Another sick worshiper ...jeeze ...a regular sociopath. I'd ban someone for saying that. n/t

[Doctor_J]

66. This is a political as well as human and governance debacle

He should have just said, outright, "There will be no cuts to benefits. SS is the most successful domestic program in US History, and we're not going to gouge it - period. Find someone besides needy seniors to get money from".

But he's a Republican, and so embraces a Republican solution (to a problem that doesn't even exist)

[KoKo]

71. Good to see you back Armstead...your voice was missed.

and your post is appreciated in these trying times.

[Armstead]

80. thanx

[SHRED]

73. yep

[haikugal]

86. Welcome back..

As you can see we need your voice here!

[CountAllVotes]

92. Welcome back!

Always glad to see an old poster like yourself return.

You have plenty to say and are able to communicate your opinions and feelings in a cohesive manner and I don't blame you for becoming apathetic, pissed off, etc. Many of us that are still around here feel the same we and I for one have taken my hits for my opinions.

At times, I too have left. However, in the end I've always returned having been a member of the DU since 2001 in some format, registered/unregistered, whatever.

[Armstead]

94. I come and go I guess -- Some like to see me when I return. Others not so much.

been here since 2001 or so myself, and periodically fade in and out of DU. I guess my involvement depends on a combination of how much the rest of daily life is intervening and also periodic shifts in my level of passion and apathy/cynicism about politics.

...(And how much tolerance I have at any given time for the circular firing squads that are ever present here on DU)

[liberal_at_heart]

99. I think I'm about to take another leave. I have tried using the ignore button but

it seems like I spend 2/3 of my time doing just that, pushing the ignore button. I have to wonder if I spend most of my time pushing the ignore button if my time is just being wasted. There are some great people on this board, but there are also some very ugly, nasty, and just plain mean and hateful people on this board too and it just doesn't make any sense to be on here if all I am doing is putting people on ignore.

[WillyT]

101. Hey Arm... Really Good To See You Again... K & R !!!

Wonderful Rant !!!

[Armstead]

111. thnx

[suffragette]

105. Glad to see you here. I've been off DU more than on myself lately.

Agree with what you've said here.

Quite awhile back, I posted about all this feeling like what occurred in the UK, with Blair taking Labour to the right and rebranding as "New Labour" and how that shredded his party and what lessons there are there for us.

Seeing the similarities more than ever now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9086223

[markpkessinger]

112. Superb rant -- spot on! K&R n/t

[kentuck]

116. How long can this continue??

"The public moves somewhat leftward in a slightly more progressive populist direction..And yet our government stays far to the right (Democrats included) in terms of placating the rich and powerful, while giving the rest of us the shaft."

On edit: Good to hear a rational voice again, Armstead.

[rainy]

117. So well said and right on!

[HomeboyHombre]

118. It's all perfectly consistent--

Great post btw.

Did Obama refuse to sign the Health Care bill because it had no public option, as promised?

How about allowing the re-importation of prescription drugs, as promised?

How about increasing cap-gains taxes, as promised?

Pass a union card-check law?

Take a hard look at NAFTA?

Refuse to allow bonuses for execs in bailed out banks, etc?

Hmmm . . . that would be no, no, no, no, no, and let me see . . . uh . . . no.

[PinkFloyd]

135. We share the same boat. I'm beyond mad too.

I've been a way for a very long time and now I'm back because I'm pissed and tired of losing even when we win. I'm beyond sick and tired of every election being told by Democrats just how terrible the Republican candidate will be (which they are often that bad). Then they tell us to vote for them and they'll fight for us (the 99%). Then once you vote for them, they wimp out EVERYTIME. This chain-cpi thing makes me beyond angry...almost to the point that I don't know if I want to bother voting anymore.

I mean, I feel like what's the point? In every election it's the same damn thing...We either elect a greedy, self-righteous, sociopath who's extremely aggressive in their determination to implement policies that only benefit 1-2% of the people but make life harder for everyone else. OR we can elect a spineless wimp who has decent policies but has absolutely no guts whatsoever to implement them. To make it worse, once the win and go to Washington they suddenly feel compelled to "get along" and capitulate to the agenda of the greedy sociopaths who's just like the one they beat in the election...Thereby making the process of electing them, redundant.

[Armstead]

147. That's pretty much it in a nutshell

[kentuck]

150. Redundancy grows old.

True.

[tex-wyo-dem]

137. Yup...it's like when Obama got elected...

The liberal/progressive/left kind of breathed a sigh of relief only to find that the corporate cockroaches were as bad as they were under bushie, scurrying around leaving their droppings of payola that the dems were as happy to gobble up as their rethug counterparts. The whole thing is a mess of greed controlled by the gold and treasure showered down upon any politician willing to play the game. Those who aren't are ignored and ostracized, castigated by the complacent media empires that the same cockroaches control.

Our "democracy" is owned and rigged to favor the ultra-wealthy. The rest of us are just viewed as hapless "consumers" to fill the pockets of the corporate royalty.

[merrily]

144. Many share your pain, including "racists" like John Conyers, Tavis Smiley and Cornell West.

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/01/cornel_west_and_tavis_smiley_u.html


But, this is not about Obama. It is about the sharp right turn the Democratic Party began taking after Bill Clinton's election.

The Party always had its conservatives, but it always had its classic FDR/Truman style Democrats and its Democrats who were further left than those two. Now, the rights dominate the DNC and elected Democratic officials, and certainly the Democratic think tanks like Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way, etc.

Question is, besides ranting, which is momentary satisfaction, if that, what shall we do about it?

[Armstead]

148. I guess we try to support the good ones, encourage mlore good ones and hope for the best

And we should also encousage the good ones not to sell out once they get inside the inner circle.

[merrily]

160. How would be different from what Democrats have always tried to do?

[Armstead]

172. If at first you don't succeed...etc

I wish our system was open to other alternatives, such as a multi-party parliamentary system. But it isn't so we're got to do the best we can with what we've got.

[merrily]

173. Another saying, used by Obama himself,

is "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

I feel compelled to add that is a misquote. The correct statement is "One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." (Obviously, there are many definitions of insanity.

Or, as Dr. Phil says, "How's that been working for you?"

IMO, it is not the absence of a parliamentary system that causes voters to vote (and donate and volunteer and campaign) as they do. It is the voters themselves. And their own fears.

[ProSense]

153. Hey, welcome back

So what happens? Obama is Bill Cinton, happily supping at the Corporate trough and tossing us a few leftover bones. A Democratic president who won handily but can't -- or doesn't want to -- exercise his power to actual;ly implement some liberal/progressive policies and laws.

Obama is proposing reducing SS benefits -- Something that was unthinkable not very long ago. (Even Bush backewd away from messing with that.) Negotiating secret "free trade" scams that hand over even more power to corporations at our expense...etc.

You're just in time, and ready with the same fact-free info. Bush tried to privatize Social Security. That is nothing related to what President Obama proposed. As for the rest, how about a history lesson:

The Story of COLAs (and amendments to Social Security)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632157

Clearly, Obama is not Clinton. President Obama signed health care reform into law, which included the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was implemented. It also strengthened Medicare and gave new benefits to seniors. From the stimulus, to repealing DADT, to health care, student loan (taking banks out of the federal student loan process) and Wall Street reform, he's been reversing a lot of Reagan and Clinton's damaging policies, and he's still got nearly four years to go.

Obama’s stimulus package aids people with disabilities

By Mike Ervin,

<...>

The first is a one-time additional payment of $250 to people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and other selected Social Security benefits. Many SSI recipients live on less than $10,000 a year, and so this additional income will make a significant difference.

Second, the stimulus package also allocates $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce the processing time for claims and appeals decisions. During the Bush years, the number of people awaiting final determination on their Social Security disability claims more than doubled to 755,000. Many were waiting two years or more for determination, without income. Obama’s allocation should help end this disgrace.

<...>

More creatively, Obama provided $140 million to support centers for independent living. These nonresidential centers are run by people with disabilities and are focal points for services and advocacy. There are hundreds of these centers throughout the United States, providing thousands of good jobs for people with disabilities and others in their communities.

The stimulus package will also invest in the future by providing $540 million for vocational rehabilitation programs, which assist people with disabilities in obtaining higher education and jobs.

- more -

http://progressive.org/mag/mpervin030509.html

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a number of provisions of particular concern to people with disabilities.

•The Act included $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce its backlog in processing disability applications;
•The Act supplied $12.2 billion in funding to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA);
•The Act also provided $87 billion to states to bolster their Medicaid programs during the downturn; and,
•The Act provided over $500 million in funding for vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement.
•The Act provided over $140 million in funding for independent living centers across the country.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/disabilities

Krugman: Insurance and Freedom
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022636098

Senate Republicans Unanimously Support Repeal of Student Loan Reform Law

By Josh Israel

All 45 Senate Republicans voted Friday for a budget amendment that endorsed the repeal of both Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. While Congressional Republicans attempting to repeal Obamacare is nothing new — this marks the 39th repeal attempt — this proposal also aimed to repeal the student loan reform and Pell Grant expansions that were enacted at the same time.

All 54 Senate Democrats present successfully voted to defeat the amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). If passed, it would have put the Senate on record in support of a repeal of
provisions that moved student loans from commercial banks to direct lending from the U.S. Education Department and:

• Used half of the the estimated $61 billion in savings to increase the maximum annual Pell Grant scholarship to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017, while indexing the grants to inflation.
  
  
• Lowered monthly payments on federal student loans and shortened the debt forgiveness timeline. For new loans after 2014, this will mean graduates will have to pay 10 percent of disposable income, instead of 15.
  
  
• Provided $2.55 billion to support historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions; $2 billion for community colleges; and $750 million for a college access and completion program for students.

Such a repeal would have meant a return to larger payments, smaller Pell Grants, and reduced support colleges and universities while putting billions of dollars back in the coffers of Wall Street banks. But in his floor speech explaining the amendment, Cruz told his colleagues only that his proposal was about defunding and repealing Obamacare, making no mention of the billions of dollars he would take from higher education to give back to for-profit banks.

Though every Congressional Republican voted against the health care and student loan reforms, House Republicans specifically exempted the student loan reform provisions from previous repeal attempts, though they have repeatedly slammed the reform as a “Washington takeover” of the student loan industry.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/03/22/1762921/senate-republicans-unanimously-support-repeal-of-student-loan-reform-law/

Want to talk about Wall Street reform, which expanded the FDIC's powers and created the CFPB?

[Armstead]

154. Thank you. I know you missed me.

I wrote a reasonably complete response to your post, but i stupidly press the wrong key and erased it before I could send it.

I haven't time right now to redo it, but in a nutshell....The real problem is that the public needs and has expressed basic support for liberal/progressive answers to the horrendous concentration of wealth and power that has developed. They want help for the poor and the struggling middle class. But the politicians ignore it, continue to support and engage in Crony Capitalism and corruption and into phony debates about the need for "austerity" while continuing to allow the wealthy and powerful to plunder and loot..

1) I know Obama has done some good things, and he is 1,000 percent better than a republican. But after what looked like a good start, he has reverted to his old tricks of starting out negotiations from the position republicans want, throwing us some bones and essentially keeping the same old shit in place and allowing it to get worse.

2)This is much bigger than Obama. He is a symptom. ..I expect that from Republicans. But when too many Democrats continue to engage in a combination of cowardice and/or corruption and cozy up to the same interests...I get disgusted and angry.

And after 40 years of seeing this pattern over and over, and seeing the long-term damage, I am through with making excuses for them and giving them a pass. At some point we need a two-party system, with at least one party actually representing liberalism and progressive populism.

[ProSense]

155. Anyone

I haven't time right now to redo it, but in a nutshell....The real problem is that the public needs and has expressed basic support for liberal/progressive answers to the horrendous concentration of wealth and power that has developed. They want help for the poor and the struggling middle class. But the politicians ignore it, continue to support and engage in Crony Capitalism and corruption and into phony debates about the need for "austerity" while continuing to allow the wealthy and powerful to plunder and loot..

1) I know Obama has done some good things, and he is 1,000 percent better than a republican. But after what looked like a good start, he has reverted to his old tricks of starting out negotiations from the position republicans want, throwing us some bones and essentially keeping the same old shit in place and allowing it to get worse.

2)This is much bigger than Obama. He is a symptom. ..I expect that from Republicans. But when too many Democrats continue to engage in a combination of cowardice and/or corruption and cozy up to the same interests...I get disgusted and angry.

...who doesn't see the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was implemented as helping the poor isn't thinking clearly.

President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html

The biggest progressive gripe about the legislation is that Mr. Obama extracted less revenue from the affluent than expected — about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade. In perspective, however, this isn’t that big a deal. Put it this way: A reasonable estimate is that gross domestic product over the next 10 years will be around $200 trillion. So if the revenue take had matched expectations, it would still have amounted to only 0.4 percent of G.D.P.; as it turned out, this was reduced to 0.3 percent. Either way, it wouldn’t make much difference in the fights over revenue versus spending still to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html

That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.

Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304

HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523

Who Benefits from the ACA Medicaid Expansion?

A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.

Medicaid does not cover many low-income adults today. To qualify for Medicaid prior to health reform, individuals had to meet financial eligibility criteria and belong to one of the following specific groups: children, parents, pregnant women, people with severe disability, and seniors. Non-disabled adults without dependent children were generally excluded from Medicaid unless the state obtained a waiver to cover them. The federal government sets minimum eligibility levels for each category, which are up to 133% FPL for pregnant women and children but are much lower for parents (under 50% FPL in most states). States have the option to expand coverage to higher incomes, but Medicaid eligibility levels for adults remain very limited (Figure 1). Seventeen states limit Medicaid coverage to parents earning less than 50 percent of poverty ($9,545 for a family of 3), and only eight states provide full Medicaid coverage to other low-income adults. State-by state Medicaid eligibility levels for parents and other adults are available here.



The ACA expands Medicaid to a national floor of 138% of poverty ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three). The threshold is 133% FPL, but 5% of an individual’s income is disregarded, effectively raising the limit to 138% FPL. The expansion of coverage will make many low-income adults newly eligible for Medicaid and reduce the current variation in eligibility levels across states. To preserve the current base of coverage, states must also maintain minimum eligibility levels in place as of March 2010, when the law was signed. This requirement remains in effect until 2014 for adults and 2019 for children. Under the ACA, states also have the option to expand coverage early to low-income adults prior to 2014. To date, eight states (CA, CT, CO, DC, MN, MO, NJ and WA) have taken up this option to extend Medicaid to adults. Nearly all of these states previously provided solely state- or county-funded coverage to some low-income adults. By moving these adults to Medicaid and obtaining federal financing, these states were able to maintain and, in some cases, expand coverage. Together these early expansions covered over half a million adults as of April 2012.

Eligibility requirements for the elderly and persons with disabilities do not change under reform although some individuals with disabilities may become newly eligible under the adult expansion. Lawfully residing immigrants will be eligible for the Medicaid expansion, although many will continue to be subject to a five-year waiting period before they may enroll in coverage. States have the option to eliminate this five-year waiting period for children and pregnant women but not for other adults. Undocumented immigrants will remain ineligible for Medicaid.

- more -

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/quicktake_aca_medicaid.cfm

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

[Armstead]

156. Alowing a few more people to be considered poor enlough for medicaid is not a solution

The problem i had and still have with Health Care "reform" is that it took a rotten, greed-based system of private insurance and the greedier aspects of corporate healthcare and enshrined them. And made them worse by forcing people to buy overpriced crappy coverage from private insurers....It softened a few edges with expanded medicaid for those "fortunate" enough to be considered poor, while leaving mlost of the struggling working and middle class slaves to the private for-profity insurance companies.

That moved it in the wrong direction. It may be slighltly better than it was, but it is still screwing most people -- and many businesses -- while corporate insurers get to continue to rake it in.

Mandates for private insurance was originally a Republican idea, before they became so batshit crazy that they even conmsideed that to be too radical for them. It aint a progressive idea, such as a public option would have been.

And that's the problem these days. People know we need more fundamental reform, but instead we are just getting a few crumbs tossed that perpetuate the worst aspects of the system.

Once again THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT OBAMA. He is a symptom, and until people stop seeing politics as a form of American Idol, the shit will continue. Obama needs to have his feet held to the fire, as do all Democratic politicians.

[woo me with science]

184. Amen.

Great post.

[merrily]

174. No one said expanding Medicaid doesn't help poor people. Cutting Social Security and Medicare

Not sure whether to call that a straw man or an attempt to change the subject or both.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare sure won't help poor people, though. And that is what this thread is about.

[Cliff Arnebeck]

175. Eject corrupt Republican members of Congress and Senators

I agree we have a problem.

I think it is a Rove/Koch/Chamber Republican Party posing as legitimately elected and functioning representatives of the American people in Congress and the U.S. Senate, with whom the Democratic Party must reach accommodations for anything to happen. Actually, they stole many of these elections, including the 2010 "tea party" elections. This has to be exposed, investigated and remedied. Then, we can better get on with the substantive business of our government.

Please see my posts @:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022560634 and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022628229