General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOh joy....Rachel is taking on the SS story at last
She announced that to cover the problems Obama is having with his base, she will interview a REPUBLICAN.
She's doing it right now. Worth the wait, huh?
She is interviewing one Republican, probably the most boring Republican ever, Steve Schmidt. That's it. And the actual issue was not even addressed. It was war stories about how Republicans deal with dissent.
Wonderful stuff.
flamingdem
(39,304 posts)nice job
Cleita
(75,480 posts)She's not hard enough on him.
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)my wife (extreme liberal she is) is stupid for being upset about this.
senseandsensibility
(16,713 posts)If this is how she is going to cover it, don't bother.
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)About the consequences or immorality of the harm it would cause.
A beginning maybe...
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)You a mail!
I was so excited that it was covered I missed a lot of it.
Will have to check her website or iTunes
neverforget
(9,433 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)That's it? An interview with a republican?
And her weak "I'm...against....these...cuts...to... (I guess she had to say that)"...
What would a real democratic do on a nationwide TV show....?
I know, half hour segments every day starting on Friday on how disgusting these cut to SS would be...
senseandsensibility
(16,713 posts)speaks volumes.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In big picture it us not a big deal in short - run, as long as there truly are protection for those at lower end.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The Republicans sure as hell aren't going to vote for it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)1/3 for 90% or more.
comments like yours show ignorance
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I know that without improvement in econony, won't be long before you will view ccpi not so bad compared to what could well be coming. And if that many are on low end, they won't be impacted. Good.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)things, it's still BAD.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"oooh, be grateful for this, it could be worse"
more than a passing resemblance to 'we will fuck you, but not as bad as the republicans'.
fuck that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)If economy doesn't improve, youngsters get decent jobs, changes in healthcare, cut military budget, inreased taxes on upper income, etc., -- you'll wish you had given up a little in short term to get much needed legislation through. With that said, there are other ways for that to happen, without ccpi, if we are lucky.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)is destroyed'.
fuck that so-called 'logic.' you're ridiculous.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I think he has better grasp of things than you have indicated.
Both of our ss will be at bigger risk if something doesn't happen. I'll risk a little ss if necessary, because we'll all be getter off in long run.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in Shock Doctrine. 'Diary of an Economic Hitman' also describes what you are suggesting.
Either create a disaster or take advantage of people when a disaster causes a population to be so distressed they are in a state of shock. Take away as much as possible from them, telling them it is necessary to 'save' them.
Before the disaster they have normal expectations of a decent life. But when the predatory neo-liberals are done ripping them off, usually using their puppets in government to do so, like cutting Social Programs eg, the people presumably will lower their expectations. They won't be demanding fair pay eg, they will be happy with the crumbs thrown at them, while the greedy, criminal thieves run off with a country's wealth and potential.
People must never, ever lower their expectations, in fact the more their governments try to take away from and give to the rich, the MORE people should demand. This is war and you don't fight a war by surrendering while you still have the ability to win it.
TheKentuckian
(24,943 posts)The selling snow job by implying most won't see a reduction or even will come out a little better can only be bull, there would be no possibility of savings.
"Protections for the poor" is just newspeak for we'll get some above the absurdly low poverty level and commence to dragging everyone else to the same point. I reckon once one somehow scraps above meager, no adjustment at all to erode it to little to no effective benefit with time.
No explaining, no double talk, no "fix it later" shit, no bipartisanship, no bogus ass "chess", no "poker", NONE OF IT!
These benefits are minimal as is, even the max for those the pegged the scale would never be reasonably called rich, in fact pretty far from it. The crying and gnashing of teeth on this motherfucker wailing in the night for the poor souls in San Francisco and New York that potentially were looking at a few percentage points on their take above $250,000.
We've already had our ante upped, our retirement has already wickedly been jacked up to 67, hell Ronnie fucking Rayguns even nudged up the cap and not a single damn unexpected thing has happened since but here they come for another pound of flesh. Not a damn thing happened except for greedhead generated crashes in the economy that those pieces of ratshit profit off of and then cry like babies to destroy the poor safety nets we have and call for deregulation and more fucking tax cuts.
No, I say this is as good a hill as any. Considering the madcap plundering of the people and the audacity to try to even make mention outside of Bircherland leads one to believe that the hungry black hole of avarice is anywhere near satiated. Mealymouthed cheering and weird mythologies aren't going to stop the stripmining of the people, the forces at work aren't going to be appeased by one more nibble.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Should she be found guilty...
madamesilverspurs
(15,783 posts)I'd welcome her company!
That said, she's not known for inveighing on speculation; chances are she will opine in depth once the actual details are known.
But I'll clean a spot for her on the pavement, just in case. . .
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)in agreement with KoKo, and was met with snark about "sensible" (woodchucks? people?) having to - sniff - wait to react to proposals. You know, until they actually see the proposal! Waiting to comment on a proposal until you actually see it is apparently some oppressive plot by the centrist-right anti-New Deal Cult of personality Fake Democrats. Or something. Who can tell what these people are talking about anymore?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2644739
Number23
(24,544 posts)It seemed a bit light on responses but I thought it was because people had exhausted themselves in the other 634 threads on the issue.
But even Patron Saint of TV Liberals, Rachel Maddow apparently doesn't consider this the end of the sun, moon, stars and grandma too. Classic.
Her inbox is probably flooding as we speak. She'll probably have a "follow up" story, complete with much more outrage, by the end of the week.
elleng
(130,146 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Kudos to Rachel for journalistic integrity.
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)those on medicaid as well as medicare BUT would effect programs like food snaps and help to those families who need it THE MOST.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)were saying he'd never, ever, EVER offer to cut Social Security.
Now I'm seeing the same names nibbling at the idea that it's the pragmatic, responsible, adult thing to do.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)big deal.
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)Or moveon.
Kurgan or Stiglitz but SteveSchmit?
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Ms. Maddow looked like as if she was forced to talk about and then
the ...yawn... let's talk to a republican...
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama, the bought and paid for Congress, and the corporate/media
oligarchs are going to push the c-cpi through... and what America erupt....
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)in her ludicrous defense of her good buddy Cory Booker. Once someone shows their ass, they can't unshow it.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)foundations, is a big tell.
he's a major education deformer.
education deform has been another topic on which rachel has been silent.
vanlassie
(5,637 posts)Cory sold access to his poorest citizen's health education to Nestlé Corporation for a lousy hundred grand. What a tool.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)Reporting on another done deal. SS is on the table now.
Let's seize control of the media and take Rachel off of her GE/Comcast leash, then maybe she will report on things we can actually do something about.
Love Rachel. Hate her bosses.
msnbc is the "depress the fuck out of liberals" arm of the right-wing propaganda machine.
Nothing will change until we get the media out of corporate control and return it to the public. Nothing.
olddots
(10,237 posts)MSNBC GE bullshit .
We need to be angry , we have every right to be and these nice looking people smiling and working the camera are very pleased with their personal space .....Anyone that ever got pissed off on MSNBC isn't on MSNBC anymore or has a show at 4 in the morning.
"but it's all we have " bull shit we don't have it it has us .