The Professional Left Is Handing Republicans Precisely What They Want

[babylonsister]

I know. Have at it.

http://www.politicususa.com/professional-left-handing-republicans-precisely.html

The Professional Left Is Handing Republicans Precisely What They Want

By: Rmuse
Apr. 9th, 2013



snip//

It is interesting that the left is throwing a tantrum over the purely political theatre that is the chained CPI outrage du jour, and yet they are nearly silent over Republican governors and legislatures balking at Medicaid expansion that threatens healthcare for millions of Americans. In fact, there is already talk of “primarying” any Democrat who supports the chainedCPI proposal and it is déjà vu of 2010 all over again. Once again it is noteworthy that the Center for American Progress (CAP) recommends chainedCPI in their “The First Step – A Progressive Plan for Meaningful Deficit Reduction by 2015” in all its iterations and for the uninformed, CAP is no conservative belief tank and is not funded by the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, or involved with the American Legislative Exchange Council.

For the past four days left-leaning websites have accused the President of “wanting” to be the Democratic President who destroys the New Deal, or that he is deliberately punishing retired and elderly Americans to curry favor with Republicans. Seriously? This President who staked his entire first term on an extremely unpopular healthcare reform law that gives 37 million Americans access to affordable healthcare, and pushed through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act with no support whatsoever from Republicans wants to go down in history as the President that eviscerated Social Security?

Those on the left threatening to primary Democrats over a symbolic budget proposal fail to remember a couple of occurrences that happened within the last seven days. First, Senate Democrats stated categorically they will not support any budget compromise that includes cuts to Social Security, and Republicans in the House rejected the symbolic proposals without reading them because the President included tax increases on the wealthy and funding for infrastructure improvements. They also forget that anything this President proposes will meet a quick death in the extremist House of Representatives, and that President Obama is a shrewd negotiator that has outsmarted and outmaneuvered Republicans at every turn including winning re-election to a second term in spite of Citizens United corporate money fueling Republican extremism.

It is seriously time for the Left to take a step back, regroup, and remember what happened a little over three years ago when they whipped themselves into frenzy over issues which the President had no control. Yes, it is appropriate to express opposition to Social Security cuts, and scream at the prospect of the KeystoneXL pipeline’s construction, but revolt over a symbolic budget proposal that has no chance of passing either house of Congress? Maybe the Left should take a look in their own states and focus their outrage on the growing number of Republican legislatures and governors raping the life out of education, Medicaid, safety nets, and public employees and just imagine how much good they will do by primarying Democrats in 2014. However, that means giving an ounce of thought to the process by which they encode, store, and retrieve information, and recalling what happened the last time their outrage and overreaction over something the President had no control overruled their common sense and any modicum of self-preservation and regard for their fellow Americans. One understands why Republicans conveniently forget the damage their consistent policies produce, but it is beyond reason why the Left is willing to revisit the damage they caused this country when they sat out an important midterm election and worse, are making plans to do it again. Here is a news flash; Congress writes and enacts the nation’s budget, they alone have power to repeal DADT and DOMA, create a public option, fund relocating Guantanamo, and will be the branch that will not pass anything this President proposes. And for the record, they certainly will not be giving emoprogs unicorns, a medal for Bradley Manning, or anything else that helps the American people, so think long and hard about 2014 and if it is humanly possible, remember 2010.

[Fumesucker]

1. If I wanted to read rants against the left I could go to Free Republic

The amazing hate for the left here on DU is one major reason I'm reading less and less and posting very little on this site now.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Or check the White House site for transcripts. nt

[SugarShack]

189. No one here is quiet about the non Medicade expansion....right here in fLA every day....so can it.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. If I wanted to read rants against President Obama, I could go to Free Republic, too. n/t

[Fumesucker]

69. Why do you pragmatic moderate centrists even care what the left thinks?

We are far too insignificant to have any effect on politics or elections.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. I'm just saying your argument is weak, Fumesucker.

For the record, I'm glad everyone's mad about the chained CPI. Any problems with Social Security should be sorted by lifting the cap on taxable income. I do like that the President has some safeguards against the poorest being hit with these cuts, but why not fix the whole problem, right?

[sabrina 1]

83. If only it was just the Left that is outraged over a Democratic president offering to cut SS but

it is not. Independents, the votes most needed by Democrats to win any election, who were so disappointed in 2010 they stayed home, are furious too.

See, the problem for anyone in politics who tries to cut SS benefits is that every single person in this country including Republicans, is a part of this incredibly successful program. Either because they themselves are receiving benefits or their parents, grandparents and/or disabled friends, relatives and/or dependent children.

I despise people btw, who resort to the packaged language invented by the Third Way and Right Wingers to try to shut down what they perceive to be the 'dreaded Left'.

Anyone who used the term 'Professional Left' has ZERO credibility with the Left, Independents and most Progressive Democrats. However I am always happy to see people expose themselves and there is no more sure way to do that than to utilize these idiotic phrases and words that were deliberately created around 2004 by some of the stupidest people in politics.

Iow, now I know for sure I am on the right side of this issue. Once they drag out the old 'professional left/concern troll/whiner/martyr garbage it tells me we are on the correct political path.

[blackspade]

125. +1000

[DCBob]

170. So what is the proper term for those on the left...

who are illogical, narrow-minded and incapable of understanding the big picture due to an irrational obsession with their ideology?

[sabrina 1]

173. I'm not sure who you are referring to. If you are referring to 'democrats' who are attempting to

excuse cuts to SS proposed by a Democrat, I would call them either Republicans hoping to stir up dissensions within the Dem party, or Third Wayers, little difference between them and Right Wingers on most issues.

But if you are talking about those who see the big picture, that is the protection of the most successful piece of Democratic Party legislation ever, so that our most vulnerable citizens are never again subjected to the threat of starving to death as they were before FDR implemented SS, who are appalled that a Democratic President would cave to Republicans' long held desire to destroy this program?

I call them Democrats. How about you? What do you think of anyone who would cut SS benefits?

[AgingAmerican]

188. How about "Strawman"

Which is exactly what the OP attacks.

What is the proper term for Democrat-hating Democrats? Reaganprogs? Wingers? Limbaughcrats? Divide-o-crats? Self-hate-O-Crats?

I like "Wingers"

Are you a winger? See, I can do it too!!

[G_j]

177. +100

[KoKo]

194. It says that they are "hurting.". If this is all they have

to throw at Democrats from the "Democratic Wing of the Party."

They fear the wider exposure of their "GAME."

[treestar]

161. Oh wow, so what are you bothering with?

[Warpy]

121. Between that and all the pious souls getting offended

by words and adjectives here, it's getting less and less fun to post here.

I'm with you, I'm sick of the conservatives trying to divide Democrats by whipping up hatred of the left.

And for what it's worth, the left is correct once again. The chained CPI reduces Social Security benefits. We need to be expanding it, not looking for ways to cheat people who have paid their premiums all their lives.

[newthinking]

123. The DLC got the message... Damage control is now in process...

More political objectification and realpolitic.

They should really rethink. This is such a critical subject to people that they will just further resent the attempts at manipulation. It is a losing strategy for everyone.

[Sheepshank]

146. interesting....and true. no longer fun at all

The continual hammering byt the same people, without EVER any support, makes me wonder about the direction they are trying to push other Dems.

The consistent and negative rhetoric is clearly designed not to change the process on the Hill, but to demoralize and instill futility in the voting process and in fact, the party.

[Andy823]

181. +1000

If I remember right, the same things were happening back in 2010 and look how that worked. I have no problem with pointing out faults, and letting the president know who they feel, but any talk of "staying home" and not voting next year is simply insane. If we don't vote we play right into the republicans hands once again.

Everyone has the right to speak up, and to be angry if they want, but don't let that keep you from voting for those you feel will help change things. Also as the OP state, this is all political theatre, there is no way that any of the budgets from the president, or the two parties, will get passed.

Remember congress is the problem here, they pass or kill the bills. Change has to start there. Get out and vote for real change.

[antigop]

206. We also need to stop outsourcing jobs so American workers have decent jobs to contribute to SS nt

[treestar]

160. If we wanted to hear rants against the President/Democrats we could go there too

[MADem]

2. Cut this down to four paragraphs so you don't run afoul of copyright...but yes, it is a fair point.

The last paragraph, in bold text, is the doggone money quote, anyway! Sums it up nicely...

Not so professional, the professional left...

[Number23]

15. I was just thinking that last paragraph utterly nailed it

Not so professional, the professional left...

Not too bright, either...

[WinkyDink]

3. Yes, poor helpless "No Control" Obama.

[Skittles]

5. the prez is just a bystander, you know

unless, of course, it is a republican president

[Marr]

35. Totally helpless.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

96. *Abandoned* by librul meanies.

[Bobbie Jo]

154. Another twisted mischaracterization

And yet the "pl" continue to wonder why they're not taken seriously?

[treestar]

163. He has control over some things and none over others

Read the constitution.

[bobduca]

4. "emoprogs and the so-called professional left "

Tells you all you need to know about this blogger.

[AgingAmerican]

53. "emoprogs" = white Democrats

Nuff said...

[BumRushDaShow]

6. "Emo" really sums up the foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy. n/t

[tridim]

37. "Emoprog" certainly deserves a place in the lexicon

Unfortunately they will be so offended by this article that they will pay no attention to what it's saying.

[JaneyVee]

7. I believe there is a very good moral & economic argument against cutting SS & Medicare at all.

But then again, I'm a professional leftist.

[roody]

61. How is the pay?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. A bunch of nonsense and invective.

To claim the President has no control over his own damn proposals and words is absolute nonsense that even a random blogger shill should be ashamed to type. What utter gibberish.

[pa28]

9. I managed to wade through until I got to "emoprogs".

I even soldiered on through the part where it was OK to "express opposition" to Social Security cuts but not "scream" at a "symbolic budget proposal". The WTF pegged there but I continued to read anyway . . .

[hay rick]

60. "Emoprogs" kicked me into scan mode.

You're a better soldier than I am. The writer obviously has a target audience (Third Way apologists?) and I am not in the house. What I gleaned from my quick read made me wonder if Rahm has a pseudonym and his editor staged a four-letter word intervention.

[pa28]

68. You probably missed the part about liberal whining causing the 2010 disaster.

Also the part about ignorant emoprogs needing a basic education in civics to know the president is just a powerless figurehead.

However, I'm guessing you knew that crap would follow once you went into scan mode. And . . . you were right.

[Art_from_Ark]

85. I seem to recall, just a few years back,

that a "powerless figurehead" got just about every damn thing he wanted, including tax cuts for the megarich, two protracted wars, and new "unitary executive" powers, just to name a few. About the only thing he didn't get was privatization of Social Security.

[Union Scribe]

93. Remember that absorbed dosage of bullshit

depends on the amount of time you're exposed. So don't keep a browser window open for too long with such an article on it

[pa28]

108. If you are are comparing this to radioactivity I've already got a fatal dose. I might as well study.

Otherwise impotent and irrelevant leftists used their magical frowny face powers to cause the 2010 election disaster. Check.

Irrelevant liberals and leftists whine about Obama and weaken his position causing him to offer major concessions on SS. Check.

Whining liberals are destroying their own principles by suggesting they primary Democrats who don't represent their principles. (OK this one seems especially weird and contradictory) Check.

Yes, there is some seriously fucked up stuff in this item. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few I guess.

[Starry Messenger]

10. .

[demmiblue]

12. That pic looks familiar. Where did I see it?

[Starry Messenger]

18. Some obscure lefty website, with emoprogs for owners no doubt!

No one I know would ever post there.

[demmiblue]

21. !

[99Forever]

11. Rmuse can...

... kiss my "Professional Left" a$$.

[neverforget]

16. and the Third Way Trojan horse they rode in on

[patrice]

63. I always laugh when I see references like this, because THIRD is precisely what this particular

bandwagon and most previous ones have been about, hence all of this pressure against Democrats.

It's a struggle over who owns whatever becomes the Third whatever-you-want-to-call-it, but it could be Party just as easy as Way, because in either case, it's about splitting margins like they did in 2010 and like Nader did in Florida, the basic objective being bare naked POWER and absolutely nothing else and that means ALL issues are window dressing for upscale or downscale Third Whatever window dressing. It's another version of the DLC, fueled in part by fractures on the Right.

[neverforget]

13. So basically it's the Left's fault that the President put SSI on the table?

And what exactly does SSI have to do with the deficit or debt?

[markpkessinger]

17. Why, of course! Everything is our fault! Didn't you know?

I mean, otherwise we might have to lay responsibility at the President's feet, and we certainly can't have that, now can we?

[RGinNJ]

73. Got to agree.

SSI is not part of the budget so it cannot be a part of the deficit.

[L0oniX]

74. The Dino's and worshipers want SS on the table. You don't see them defending SS.

All you see is the usual mockery from non US citizens ...people who hate old poor people ...people who won't discuss anything but pile on pages of links ...maybe because because they don't have an opinion of their own. You'd never know that they would object to SS cuts because they never express any defense of SS. They only defend who they worship ...and if you don't join with them then you are helping the repukes. No one makes me take it or leave it. I've seen enough corporate deference over the last 5 years to know what's going on.

[neverforget]

110. you got that right. very well said!

[treestar]

165. This kind of post is what the "emo" is for

No, it is the Republicans' fault. With a Dem Congress, it could not happen.

[neverforget]

168. So Obama was forced to give SSI to Republicans because?

Answer the question without the name calling. thanks.

[treestar]

182. SSI?

I have not heard a thing about yet.

To get a budget passed with this Republican Congress, a Dem President will have to give them something. What do you suggest?

The budget Obama proposed also includes taxes on the rich. No focus on that. And the reason the current intransigent Republicans won't accept it anyway.

Your question is worded snarkily and so don't complain about "insults." That's why it is labeled "emo." It's an emotional response and not a logical one. Your tone makes it clear the question is malicious. Please read the Constitution for the part about Congress' power and the Executive Power.

[neverforget]

186. you can't even answer the question. I guess my Senator is an "emo"

https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley

There’s a view among some in Washington that we have been too generous to our seniors. They are dead wrong. #chainedcpi

Chained CPI is DC-speak for cutting the hard-earned benefits for seniors who worked their whole lives. Strongly disagree

And i certainly don't need a condescending lecture from you about how the Constitution works.

We agree on the tax increases, thus no debate there. We disagree on the Chained CPI so we are fighting that. Is it really that hard to understand? And whatdoes SSI have to do with the deficit? Can you answer that?

[treestar]

207. No you made that leap

Same old bitterness. Democrats of course do not want to do it - they are simply giving in on it to get a budget that will pass.

You do not know how it works, since you have no other suggestions and just blame others. Or the poster I was responding to does.

The poster I responded to was talking about a cut to SSI. I have never heard of that.

[neverforget]

210. Look what this Republican said today about Chained CPI

WALDEN: Well, once again, you're trying to balance this budget on the backs of seniors and I just think it's not the right way to go.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200768/-GOP-campaign-chairman-calls-chained-CPI-trying-to-balance-the-budget-on-the-backs-of-nbsp-seniors

Whoops! They now have a talking point against Obama and the Democrats just like they did in 2010 about Medicare, which was a bunch of bullshit, but it worked. This Chained CPI will not motivate the base or seniors to vote for Democrats. Maybe it's you who doesn't understand how it works.

Edited to add: yeah it was really hard making that leap because Senator Merkley and I agree. You called me an "emo" which stands to reason that he would be an "emo" to since we both agree.

[Union Scribe]

14. Take THAT, The Left!

So, which one of you wrote it?

[markpkessinger]

19. I really resent the term "Professional Left"

I am not part of any "Professional Left." The term was Robert Gibbs' way of derisively referring to any progressives who disagreed with the President on anything. It is a slur, and was never anything but a slur.

[grantcart]

59. I agree it is an idiotic term

[AgingAmerican]

126. I always thought he was aiming it at leftwing punditry

n/t

[emulatorloo]

215. Yes : professional commentators, high dollar web bloggers/sites (HuffPo)

People who get paid to write opinions.

That's what Gibbs was about, but apparently meaning has morphed into something else.

[HiPointDem]

20. the 'professional left' are the minders who write crap like this.

[neverforget]

22. more like the Palace Guard

[HiPointDem]

25. whatever you call it, they get paid to spout crap. unlike me.

[msanthrope]

34. I will not say it. I will not. I will not. nt

[SidDithers]

42. Heheh...

Sid

[OldDem2012]

23. I don't understand why crap like this gets posted to DU....

....if I wanted to read stuff like this, I'd be a Republican.

Trashing now.

[Maven]

24. "I know. Have at it."

Is that your way of excusing yourself for deliberately trolling liberal Democrats on this board?

[carolinayellowdog]

156. seems like

thanks for asking

[KG]

26. delusional.

[patrice]

36. What's delusional is thinking that threats & promises not to vote etc. get you what you want in a

situation like this.

Those kinds of behaviors contribute to the DEFEAT of your issue in almost any political context, but most especially in this one and with the added factor mitigating against that kind of coercion, WITH E - V - E - R - Y - T - H - I - N - G on the table, the sequestration.

[JDPriestly]

81. So what does work?

Do you seriously disagree with what most of us criticize the President for doing?

Do you like chained CPI? Do you think we are better off without a public option? Do you want to keep paying for Guantanamo, keep violating the civil rights of the people jailed there for life with no opportunity to defend themselves or question why they are being held? Do you think that Manning should have kept his secrets and never exposed the wrongs that our government did?

Do you seriously think that seniors on Social Security should pay for Bush's two wars and his tax cuts for the rich so that the rich can pay for their yachts and elevators for their cars?

Do you think it is the fault of progressive Democrats that idiotic Republican governors don't choose to have Medicaid in their states and that their sheepie constituents vote for them anyway?

I think the article quoted in the OP was written by a person of little intelligence and no compassion. It makes utterly no sense to criticize progressives for criticizing Obama's right-wing stances. The stances themselves make no sense as you can quickly learn if you read posts, for example, about the chained CPI and its horrendous effects not just on seniors but on most people in our country.

Progressives like me got Obama re-elected. He has turned on us.

We progressives are the ones who worked the long hours, made the phone calls, registered the voters, talked about issues with the uninformed, the undecided. We comforted people and did all the work that Democrats do at the grassroots that get out the vote.

We progressives elected Obama. He owes his re-election to us. We are the party stalwarts. He has abandoned us.

We are the worker bees, and then he turns on us. That is why we are angry. We did not elect a Republican. We did not work to get a Republican re-elected.

The people resoundingly rejected Romney's right-wing views. And now we see Obama, who was elected thanks to the blisters on our feet and the hours we wasted on his campaign, turn against us.

Of course we are angry. Of course we will not forget. And I do not think he wants a Democratic House because if he did he would not have leaked the fact that he is proposing the chained CPI.

Obama has lost the 2014 election. Just the back-door announcement that he is supporting the chained CPI insures that we will not have a Democratic House in 2014. Might as well forget about that campaign. Les jeux sont faits. The die is cast. The game for the 2014 election has been played. It's gone. I had hoped we could win back the House. But I think Obama has thrown that hope away.

[patrice]

27. Everyone on that bandwagon needs to ask themselves why they are working to defeat THEIR OWN issue.nt

[MotherPetrie]

28. The only one handing Repugs what they want is President Obama.

[patrice]

30. I don't believe I have ever seen you spout anything but propaganda slogans. PLEASE answer a question

What other issue(s) will you trade for success against the Chained CPI?

[Fumesucker]

32. One that doesn't mean I'll freeze and starve in my old age?

[patrice]

50. So, you'll throw the defeat of DOMA under the bus, alternative energy development, the right to

organize, women's autonomy over their own bodies . . .

And don't tell me those non-budget issues don't count, because all of us know that defeat on the budget weakens the political positions on ALL other issues across the board.

I'm not saying people can't disagree and stand up for themselves, but you need to be smart about it and what is going on on this board IS NOT SMART. It WILL contribute to defeat on the very issue, preventing CPI that is the putative motive here. Doesn't it bother you at all that so many people around here are so eager to BROADCAST THEIR HAND????????? Are they stupid? Or is there a hidden agenda here that doesn't have that much to do with stopping the CPI? a bait-and-switch seems probable to me, because I simply can't explain why anyone thinks all of this bragging about not voting and turning against real Democrats will get anyone what they say they want, so what the HELL else is going on here?

Don't you wonder WHY someone would cut their own nose off (contribute to the success of CPI) to spite someone else's face?

This isn't a neighborhood brawl where threats will get you compliance. Threats get the opposite of what you want in politics. Only solidarity and concrete work increase the success of your issue.

[Fumesucker]

66. You said one, not all of them

And yes, keeping from freezing and starving is a priority of mine, I'm funny that way.

I tell you what, if we're playing "what will you give up" I'll gladly give up one major weapons system to be named later.

A lot of us think that someone who proposes cutting Social Security is not a *real* Democrat anyway, perhaps you should aim your ire at the politician who put forth that idea rather than the peons who are horrified at it.

I was paying attention through the Cheney regency, I know full well that threats do indeed get you somewhere in politics.

[JDPriestly]

86. Obama is doing next to nothing for the environment.

He is saying yes, inch by inch, slowly but surely, segment by segment, piecemeal to the Keystone Pipeline.

Meanwhile Obama does not nearly enough to promote solar energy.

I spoke to a neighbor today. She said that last year she talked to a contractor about putting solar panels on her roof. The contractor told her it would not pay. That in the end she would pay a penalty for having them on the roof, that the tax benefits are not great enough to pay for the trouble or make the panels more economically feasible than an ordinary roof and dirty energy. Obama could campaign to turn the country green with solar energy. Germany is going green. Certainly we could. But, no. Obama is sticking with dirty coal, oil and gas and the chained CPI.

Obama talked big about the environment but is not taking care of the environment for future generations.

Obama is good on DOMA, but the outcome will depend on the Supreme Court, and Obama knows that his stance makes him friends with relatively generous and reliable donors in the LGBT community while placing no risk on his campaign. It's a no lose stance for Obama because public opinion is turning toward gay marriage, but everyone knows that it is not Obama's decision. This is a safe issue for Obama.

We have to have progressive Democrats in Congress to insure rights like the woman's right to choose. We will not have those progressive Democrats unless Obama uses his bully pulpit, his amazing voice and his wonderful personality to educate people about progressive values. He can do it. He is simply choosing not to on the issues of Social Security and Medicare, human rights, and others on which he takes stances that progressives criticize. That is a foolish point of view.

Obama is no FDR. It's really sad. But he does not measure up to that gold standard. Obama is no FDR. He does not fight for the people. He has not instituted the kinds of programs that are needed.

If chained CPI is introduced, the economy is likely to take a dive for the worse. When it does, Obama, not the Republicans will take the blame and will be to blame. Be prepared. Because there is a chance it will happen. Obama is taking that chance. And that is very sad for the country.

[sheshe2]

106. There's this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632105

[JDPriestly]

111. I believe that the military is taking action on the environment

but far too little and far too late. And remember, they are likely considering nuclear to be environmentally friendly. I do not. I think it is worse than oil, coal and gas. Oil, coal and gas will hurt us right away. Nuclear could hurt innocent, ignorant people way into the future. The generations to come may not have the understanding, means or ability to take care of the enormous amounts of nuclear waste and other nuclear-related dangers we are imposing on them.

So, this is not necessarily good news. It isn't a matter of doing anything. We need to be doing the right things.

[sheshe2]

115. I agree with you, that nuclear waste is a huge issue.

http://obrag.org/?p=72491&cpage=1

Unfortunately we need congressional support, and fight the monied interests of people like that Koch's.

[treestar]

166. If Republicans win, yes

It's one thing to try to balance the budget and get it passed with some tinkering and another to eliminate the programs.

This kind of post is what gets you the "emo" tag.

And why are you assuming you'll be among the poor?

[MotherPetrie]

149. There is no reason to trade ANY issue unless pro-Obama propaganda like yours

Is more important to you than not protesting Obama unnecessarily throwing people depending on SS under the bus.

[patrice]

29. And NO ONE will say what issue they'll throw under the bus in exchange for success against the CPI.

[neverforget]

33. Success against the CPI? How about not offering it up to the Republicans?

Besides, it has nothing to do with the deficit or debt so why offer it up?

[patrice]

39. To find out who will go for it and who won't and who will give what to make it happen and

who won't.

To find out from your constituents what their priorities are, what they would allow to be negotiated away to stop a CPI and what they won't allow to be negotiated away to stop a CPI.

For example, I for one, would accept one of these rather limited CPIs that are being floated, in a heart beat, in exchange for Universal Pre-K.

[neverforget]

55. So we have to choose between seniors and kids to satisfy Republicans?

Really? Is that the rationale?

[patrice]

75. NO! not if people stop advertising to the opposition that they will weaken the Democrats' positions

by refusing to vote, by not volunteering, or not donating, or not making phone calls, nor writing letters to the editor.

Maybe some people think those kinds of threats against the Democrats result in compliance. This is politics; they result in the opposite of what you might think threats do, because the opposition can see right up front that Democrats are losing support, so all the opposition has to do is wait.

Publicly threatening ALL of the other issues for a single issue only contributes to likely defeat on your single issue and damage to all of the others, especially when that grandstanding is accompanied by inactivity in any of the other responsibilities of ISSUES (and yes each person should make that PLURAL, not single issue, politics) activism.

It's not just BS to shoot of your mouth with threats against Democrats; it's doubly suspect when a person doesn't do any of the work of facilitating development on the issues, does nothing but tear things down, much to the pleasure of Republicans, and blame others.

[neverforget]

113. I'm not threatening Democrats.

Obama has done that with this asinine proposal that creates a link between SSI and the deficit. I'm pissed off that he did this and have expressed my outrage to my senators and my Blue Dog Dino Representative Schrader.

I will continue to express outrage until this is taken off the table.

[newthinking]

130. Now it is the "Three dimensional chess" argument?

I understand that argument. But I disagree entirely.

Has anyone at the higher levels even considered how it is:

People were disgusted at the end of the Bush term. He delivered a unique opportunity on a platter. Since then the Republicans have become more and more distasteful to even many of their own. They have almost imploded!

Yet the Democrats are still fighting for majorities!

Has it ever occurred to the leadership that they are doing something seriously WRONG in their approach?

The citizenry were ready to hear something different. And that showed in 2008. The President came in strong because he clearly announced a serious difference in values and told the public he would offer a different vision.

But then since he got in office he stopped being bold in his expression of that difference. Thinking that would get him more wins. It doesn't. But yet the party keeps trying the same approach.. almost afraid that the energy of the population behind him would not be enough. "Beltway" logic seems to have been substituted when what is really needed at this time is to energize the people by offerring a truly apparent difference in ideas.

Then, to add to it, when things don't work well try to use intimidation as if that is going to get back that "2008" energy. It is almost hillarious if it were not so tragic

[MADem]

131. +1,000 nt

[JDPriestly]

94. I would trade half of our overseas military bases for no chained CPI

and three years of pre-K universally -- every child in America whose parents want it. I would also like to trade those bases for universal free college tuition for all qualified high school graduates.

[newthinking]

132. and that can't be discussed because that ground (military bloat)

has been entiredly sceded.

But it is not acceptable to sacrifice the poor and elderly because leadership is too timid to take on the real budgetary issues.

[Marr]

40. We have to trade something with the Democratic President?

What the hell are you talking about? The Republicans never even *asked* for Chained CPI.

[Babel_17]

52. We could not go after Cheney, or Wall Street, and we can not go after some of the trillions

squirreled away in off shore accounts.

But that's not the point, you don't put SS on the table with Republicans, ever.

If they suggest it you say, "I couldn't hear you, say that again?" and you keep doing that till everyone is very aware of what the Republicans want to cut.

[Dragonfli]

139. I have an idea, instead of asking which of my other organs I am willing to sacrifice

in order to save a kidney You Reagan Republicans have been salivating over, maybe I should stop letting the black market organ salesmen engage in deals that are harmful to my health?

You are a very shady group of guys with ties to some very shady characters that demand a pound of my flesh so they can get those Pete Peterson checks before next election.

Offer up your own organs! Don't expect me to follow you into a room with a tub full of ice and a cooler waiting for transport.

[AgingAmerican]

172. Issue thrown under the bus?

How about no issues thrown under the bus? Obama OFFERED SS, they didn't ask for it.

[Nite Owl]

31. 'The Left'

didn't hand the Republicans anything, Obama did it all by himself. What is happening is called democracy, it's what should happen.

[Progressive dog]

38. It is not wrong for the "left" to protect popular progrms created

by the "left" from a President who is head of their party or from Congress members who belong to that party.

[patrice]

41. That's right, when that protection is mounted effectively. What is going on is not protection, it's

EXTORTION - an attempt to defeat the ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC agenda by some rather strange-bed-fellows created by this particular issue. My REPUBLICAN Senator (in one of the reddest of red states with full on Disaster Capitalism in effect here) who is against everything else that Democrats stand for, opposes CPI. This is NOT a guy who will have any trouble whatsoever getting re-elected if he supported the CPI. So, please PLEASE, honestly ask yourself WHY???? he'd do that.

[JDPriestly]

100. Let's cut the military budget and do away with private contractors for

military supplies and infrastructure.

We could cut enough from our military budget, especially on money spent in foreign economies, to pay off our entire debt. And we should be investigating military contractors who overcharged and profited from the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount of the corruption was shocking.

There are lots of things we could trade in order to avoid the chained CPI and to support clean energy. Obama is not choosing to fight the political fights he would have to take on to change what needs to be changed.

[MADem]

133. Military contractors are CHEAPER than using military personnel to do the work.

Even with the overcharges and bad contracts. When the action is done, they go home. No retirement pay, no continued paychecks, no medical/transportation expenditures, no family support, no DOD infrastructure needed. You do away with private contractors and your costs go way, way UP over time--and particularly over peacetime--which is what we want in the outyears. Uniformed personnel costs are a massive chunk of the military; if we put support personnel in uniform once again (because the need for support personnel in surge situations will not go away) we alter our tooth - to - tail ratio towards 'tail' and we spend too much day in/day out on assets that aren't designed to put ordnance on target.

Huge money suck. Not economical in the slightest.

[JDPriestly]

151. But very, very good for the economy.

It is not only a matter of how much money you spend on something. Where that money goes makes a big difference.

The greatest boost to our economy that ever happened was the GI bill after WWII. The generation that survived WWII had self-esteem and access to education. They had the means to buy a small house and could get medical care when they really needed it.

The GI benefits are good for America. Paying Halliburton and other contractors millions of dollars so that their top management and shareholders can buy themselves more toys and vacation in the Caymans while avoiding taxes here at home -- not good for America.

And, please note, the last war we really won was WWII. Our army has only been successful at preparing for war, at spending lots and lots of money on war, but not at winning wars, since 1945. Unless you count Grenada of course.

I believe that an all or at least as much as possible volunteer military would be good for America. And if we had a volunteer military, its members and veterans would be far more loyal to America.

A volunteer military would also probably help prevent our politicians from starting wars without really good reasons.

[MADem]

175. Unfortunately, in the case of the present war, we, as a nation, were not on a

"wartime footing." We went about our business, the fewer than one percent of the population did the heavy lifting in support of the war, and a very small number of contractors (Hell-OOOO Haliburton) got the lion's share of the dough through the noncompetitive bidding process. That's something that needs to be trashed, but good.

We have an All Volunteer Military. We have since the seventies, when "the draft" was abolished. No person serving on active duty today was drafted. The ones that stayed on have retired. Every single person in uniform today volunteered to serve. Yes, we still have a requirement that males register for the draft, but we haven't drafted anyone since the Vietnam era. We would have to be engaged in a desperate, fight-for-our-lives, They Are Coming Over The Wall With Thermonuclear Weapons-type war to even consider firing the draft back up. The new paradigm (well, not so new, the paradigm for the past thirty-plus years) is Smarter Servicemen who want to be there.

[JDPriestly]

178. All volunteer means to me that volunteers cook and wash dishes,

clean the toilets, everything. My husband did KP when he was in the Air Force way back when although his real assignment was very technical. He was very young. I think the experience of working together and living as a team that serves each other makes the brother/sisterhood in the military much stronger. And that is good.

[MADem]

185. It costs too much to do that. Soldiers are for putting ordnance on target, not scrubbing crappers.

Being a servicemember is no longer a punishment where one must do MENIAL work, it is a PROFESSION where education and training are prized. Yes, there is still teamwork and esprit de corps, but it focuses around doing a job as professionals, not being forced to do crappy jobs.

This is something that it's hard for some of the older folks--retirees and vets-- to wrap their heads around. As someone who worked some of these transition issues, I "get" it. I don't resent that I didn't have it as good--I'm glad they're improving the way the things are done.

Those old days are the reason why the Pentagon is in such a mess today. It's a Byzantine system that needs to be streamlined. When we go to war overseas and need people to scrub shitters while soldiers are fighting, we hire them. There's no need to send shitter scrubbers to boot camp, to house their families, to provide them with uniforms, or to provide them with any level of training save "Here's a brush, scrub that shitter." No PT tests, no advancement exams, the people can be old or young, male or female, fit or not, so long as they can scrub that shitter. And no one peels potatoes--they come, pre-peeled, sometimes already mashed and seasoned, ready to heat-n-eat, for many field kitchens. It's just easier. Let someone back home peel 'em and shrink wrap them--that makes them lighter to ship. There's no shoe shining anymore, either. No more gleaming black boots--they look like hippie hiking boots from the seventies, nowadays.

As it is, three out of four applicants to the Armed Forces are not qualified to serve. They are too fat, unfit, or not smart enough. It is just not a valid concept to take the few qualified people that we can find and have them do menial, degrading, pointless jobs. Research has shown that there's enough meniality in the day-to-day execution of military life, where people do have responsibility for keeping their unit areas up to snuff and living in close proximity with others. No need to treat them like morons with stultifying work that is hated and remembered resentfully--it's a volunteer job, and we want to keep the best and smartest, not drive them away.

[JDPriestly]

192. But the reality remains: the old way won WWII; the new way hasn't won anything.

All that the new way accomplishes, the new, "professional" way accomplishes is to perpetuate crises, perpetuate war, perpetuate fear and kill. That's all it does. Killing does not equate to winning. As we see in Iraq.

[MADem]

196. When have we fought a "World War" since WW2?

A war where everyone is engaged, everyone is working in the defense industry in some way or another, manufacturing beans, bullets and weaponry, every able bodied person is in uniform, anyone capable of contributing to the cause does so, shared sacrifice and rationing so that more can go to the war effort are the norm...

We haven't done that since WW2.

We have been engaged in low and medium intensity "conflicts" since then--battles and boredom, easily ignored by the folks back home. The rules of Geneva no longer apply when your enemy beheads prisoners of war and takes Red Cross workers and reporters hostage--and sometimes kills them, too.

We don't "do it" like WW2--and we never will again--because no one with a nuclear arsenal is going to sit around and feed their uniformed population by the millions into the war meat grinder without figuring that lighting off a tac nuke would shorten the pain and resolve the issue toute suite. If we are ever fighting a WW2 style war, make sure your will is up to date and you've said your goodbyes to everyone you care about, because the situation will be THAT precarious--no matter where you are in the world, because there are no real front lines anymore.

[JDPriestly]

198. We lost Iraq on the ground.

And, actually, when you think about it, we never knew what we were doing there other than to avenge ourselves and Hussein's victims for his crimes. Unless you agree with me and my admittedly conspiracy theory that the war was partly about oil but also about replenishing Halliburton's bank accounts after Cheney saddled the company with Dresser's liability for asbestos.

Iraq was about transferring money from the US treasury to the war contractors. That's what it was about. Halliburton was the primary beneficiary of the Bush administration's war policy.

And that is what is wrong with privatizing the military. It makes killing "enemies" a very lucrative, very rewarding business. And that is morally wrong. That is why I do not agree with privatizing and corporatizing our military.

[MADem]

201. We had no business in Iraq--Dumbya wanted to avenge his "deddy," plain and simple.

When you have a crew of morons doing your warplanning--a crew of morons that did not realize that there was more than one flavor of Muslim (Shi'a? Sunni? And what about these Kurd guys?) before they put us in harm's way, you're going to have a messed up situation.

Garbage in, garbage out.

That said, we aren't "privatizing" the military. The people who put ordnance on target are uniformed personnel. The people who scrub toilets aren't. Our tooth to tail ratio is streamlined, and that's good news for servicemembers who--believe me on this--don't want to put their fricken lives on the line out on stressful patrol for six hours to come back to base and be told to scrub shitters and peel potatoes. To suggest that a well-trained, hard working volunteer in defense of our nation do that kind of work is just flat-out absurd, and disrespectful of their contribution and sacrifice.

The whole "Blackwater" game is a different issue entirely. Cheney and Rumsfeld were experimenting in some very odd ways, and that shit just wasn't cutting it. It's fine to loan those guys out to people like Karzai who can't trust their own people, and even let them take care of perimeter defenses in certain situations, but they shouldn't be involved in warfighting. Even when they're guarding convoys of civilian drivers, it's a tricky situation and cutting close to the edge.

Privatized non-combat services, though, aren't going away. Despite the Bush era screwups, they can work very well if properly managed. They're cheaper. If we would pay attention and do them right, they could be MUCH cheaper.

The paradigm now, for the work we are doing, is to use very small, specialized operations units to accomplish specific tasks, everything from the cheery "hearts and minds" stuff to getting rid of troublemakers, and to present a smaller installation footprint that is hardened and more difficult to penetrate. Nothing is foolproof, though. Humint, eyes in the sky (those drones everyone hates), all that feeds into the decision-planning grinder.

The battlefield has changed. It's not about waiting for the enemy to attack anymore. You own the information, you own the battlefield.

[Sheepshank]

164. So, in this world of serious political negotiations

You are going to offer the Republicans a reduction in the military budget in exchange for increased revenue from the rich?

Good luck with that negotiation strategy.

[JDPriestly]

174. Yes. It is the only proposal that will work.

We need to spend the money that we spend on foreign military involvement here at home. We need to use that money to hire Americans. It's about jobs -- here at home where we need them. Normally, Republicans would not buy the idea of reducing military spending. But creating more jobs stateside would sell to the public and would put pressure on the Republicans.

[SidDithers]

43. Awesome...

K&R.

Sid

[Safetykitten]

44. So is there a "Professional Left" giftwrap? I like my gifts to be special.

[Rex]

47. Got to slice and dice.

The message of failure is firmly written on their brand of politics.

[Babel_17]

45. Break promises, lost trust

"It is interesting that the left is throwing a tantrum over the purely political theatre that is the chained CPI outrage du jour"

Made me laugh but not in a way the author would appreciate.

[patrice]

56. Please produce links with quotes in which the word "promise" was used. Thanks. nt

[Babel_17]

67. You don't consider saying you'll do something a promise?

I'll get back to you later on that.

But I didn't say "I promise"

[patrice]

79. Looking forward to it, including a discusion of how presidents are not kings. nt

[Babel_17]

84. Why is that up for discussion?

I had thought by your making a point of wanting links with the word "promise" actually said the matter was closed. My reply was an attempt at humor.

But so you don't feel misled, here.

[99Forever]

152. The guy in that video looks familiar...

... and said in no uncertain terms that he would NOT raise the retirement age or change the COLA to Social Security. Who is that guy again, I seem to remember working hard to get him elected to some office?

[Rex]

46. That is a funny article.

They so love to try and deride the left side of the party those right wing centrist.

One can barely guess why...

[nakocal]

49. DO NOT STAY HOME

This article is correct. Chained CPI and other bad proposals would not even be on the table if the stupid side of the left actual understood how government worked. FDR was able to get his agenda through because he had a democratic controlled congress and senate. By staying home, you let the bastards win. Vote out all of the republicans in 2014. Give the president a super-majority in the Senate (four months with Lieberman being one of the votes does not count for much) and a democratic house. Pelosi got over 400 pieces of good legislation through the house and it died in the senate because of filibusters. And what did you do, you blamed the president because he was not able to get the racist republicans to support anything that made him look good. And you then stayed home.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. It's certainly not Obama's fault

It was that asshole, Bush: when he appointed Simpson and Bowles to head that infernal committee, we knew that incessant bipartisan demands for deep cuts had to result - and Obama got stuck with the fallout. Now he's valiantly doing what he can to get out from under Bush's nasty trick.

[hay rick]

62. Bush's third term really sucked. nt

[AgingAmerican]

57. Raging against the left on a Democratic blog?

My, how far we have fallen.

[L0oniX]

65. Look through this thread and you will see that the worshippers are just fine with Rmuse.

The worshippers are happy to have the left progressives get attacked even if it is bullshit. They are hurting since their g0d has offered to put SS on the table. Not one of them shows any concern for what could happen to poor people, the elderly, the disabled and vets. Instead its all a game to them and they want their perfect leader ....no matter what.

[Oilwellian]

107. Do you suppose...

they are professional worshippers?

[AgingAmerican]

114. Or perhaps...

emo worshipers...

[newthinking]

127. "It's all a game to them"...

sure feels like it doesn't it?

[sheshe2]

82. Calling for the President's impeachment on a Democratic blog?

My, how far we have fallen.

[HangOnKids]

88. Did AgingAmerican Say That

I read his post and it did NOT say that, why did you?

[sheshe2]

95. I never said that Aging American said that. I never quoted him.

It was a statement of fact of what was posted on an OP the other day.

And it's true, look how far we have fallen if DU is calling for impeachment of this Democratic President.

[Union Scribe]

98. "DU" is not calling for impeachment.

Including essentially all of us opposed to chained CPI. I think you know that.

[sheshe2]

101. Really?

52 Rec's:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022626778

[Union Scribe]

105. There is great irony here.

Defenders of the President's current tactics say that just putting something on the table doesn't mean it's going to happen or that he wants it to happen. The OP you're railing against doesn't call for impeachment. It says it's "on the table" (not just for Obama, mind you).

So is putting something "on the table" only a clever strategic ploy when Obama does it? Or would it, I dunno, be stupid to offer something up to manipulate others if one has no intention of following through on it?

[sheshe2]

112. According to the huge # of Op's that are being posted here

about SS it's a done deal.

[AgingAmerican]

179. Opinions are a bad thing

Especially in a Democracy. How dare they...

[Rex]

208. Oh sure, 52 people out of thousands...I see what you are doing here.

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[HangOnKids]

103. Priceless

This is just so cute.

[babylonsister]

128. I feel just as overwhelmed by those raging against the President,

on a Democratic blog, so we're even.

[AgingAmerican]

129. They arent raging against the president

They are raging against his Social Security proposal as they should.

[Sheepshank]

150. Noope, SS is the just the most recent rage

...do NOT pretend it's the only rage that has been mounted specifically against Obama day after day after day after day.......

Are these constant and unending rages designed to help mobilize the base? Without any concrete action EVER? Nope, it's designed to demoralize and undermine the Dems. Watch for same people with the same rhetoric over and over. It becomes pretty transparent once you realize what the fuck is going on.

[AgingAmerican]

171. Rage against the strawman

The OP is the most thin skinned, hateful, invective screed against Democrats I have ever read on any DEMOCRATIC blog.

[L0oniX]

58. That is the largest pile of bullshit I have ever seen on DU. You could grow mushrooms on it and...

get high.

What don't they get about how much of a betrayal Obama bringing anything about SS to the table is? ACA was a bad enough compromise with the fucking corporations ...now this shit.

Rmuse is just another weak minded stupid asshole worshipper caught up in a reframing tornado of flying piss.

[Art_from_Ark]

102. Your post is priceless

I'm adding it to my "Best Posts of DU" folder

[frylock]

64. yeah, emoprogs like Bernie fucking Sanders just need to chill the fuck out..

what absolute twaddle.

[Hekate]

70. The ritual floggings have commenced.

Good article, Babylonsister.

[Cha]

71. Let 'em rage with their hyperbolic tantrums.

"IMPEACH!!!!1111" and threaten to stay home again in 2014 with their lazy defeatist attitude. And, RAGE on the Newtown, Conn Gun Tragedy Thread because President Obama dared to talk to the Victims Families.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2644685.. Oooops that one got hidden.

Same thing in 2010 over Obamacare. Look how that turned out..

"Markey only Senate hopeful on the side of women's health" and who voted for OBAMACARE..

Peter Lucas was right to identify the Affordable Care Act as a key issue that distinguishes the candidates for U.S. Senate. ("Markey only candidate to back Obamacare," April 2) Indeed, four of the five candidates are on the wrong side of women's health.

The Affordable Care Act is the single biggest advancement in women's health in a generation, providing access to preventive care, including pap tests, breast exams and birth control, with no co-pay. Opposing "Obamacare" means these candidates are turning their backs on the 47 million women who benefit from health-care reform, including 1.2 million women living in Massachusetts.

The no-co-pay birth-control provision alone saves women an average of $600 per year on health-care costs, and makes a full range of birth-control options available to more women. Improved access to contraception means better health and economic outcomes for women and fewer unintended pregnancies. When women can access high-quality, affordable preventive care, including birth control, we all benefit.

MARTY WALZ

h/t She http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2645617

[MrSlayer]

72. More pushing of the Third Way lie that liberals stayed home in 2010.

The liberals did not stay home. The people that stayed home were all those extra young and minority voters that came out to vote for Obama in 2008. Couple that with a Bagger base that was rabid over the lies they were fed and the recipe for disaster was complete.

Doing the bullshit he's doing is depressing to a lot of us but no one is staying home over it. I vote in every single election and so does every liberal that is serious about politics.

This is just another way the corporate sellouts of this party try to get us to accept their bullshit policies. "Oh, you must want a Republican" or "We'll if you hate these policies so much, why didn't you vote for McCain/Romney?" As if we're fucking imbeciles that do not realize that those people would be worse by many degrees. As if we should just eat the shit sandwiches they send down to us because what the other side is serving is even worse.

Sorry but fuck this noise. You don't offer to cut SS if you have no intentions of doing it. No one puts on a rubber unless they intend to fuck. Now it will always be a part of every negotiation until they negotiate it away. Yay!

There is nothing wrong with Social Security, nothing. It is not a problem that needs addressing for another twenty years. If anything has to be done, simply raise the cap. Why is no one of consequence suggesting that? Asshole Reagan did it, it should be an easy sell.

Find that answer (it's quite obvious) and you'll find the root of all our problems.

Here's a hint, it's not the left.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

90. And many of the coveted moderates and independents who voted for O in 2008...

voted for Republicans in 2010. They always leave out that inconvenient little truth. Very dishonest. Tsk.

[veganlush]

76. EXACTLY!

Thank you for your post!

[Nika]

78. babylonsister makes the complaint that a legitimate disagreement with a bad proposal

damaging SSI benefits then disappears without contributing herself to an important dialog.

Where did you go? Do you have input to points raised on this thread? And if not, why not?

[Summer Hathaway]

104. Huh?

If you want to call out someone like BabylonSister, you might be perceived as somewhat more credible if you (a) learned the basics of grammar and punctuation, (b) didn't ask her if she has any "input to points raised" when you obviously have nothing to contribute to the discussion yourself, and (c) didn't call out someone like BabylonSister in the first place.

[frylock]

158. fuck that. the OP was another shit and run post blaming liberals for obama's poor decisions..

fuck. that.

[Starry Messenger]

169. You mean like someone learning the proper definition of "apologist"?

[AgingAmerican]

176. The OP is a divisive temper tantrum

Is the OP supposed to be some sort of twisted call for unity? Perhaps the message got lost in all the spittle...

[Nika]

205. I merely asked a question.

Curiosity is no crime. I thank you for that input, but I would add that if you are accusing me of being petty, you are hypocritical for immediately turning into a grammar and punctuation connoisseur.

Thanks for sharing, have a good day.

[Summer Hathaway]

80. Please do not attempt

to feed some people here with facts. Their preferred diet consists of rhetoric, misinformation, skewed logic, and a healthy dose of perpetual outrage.

[AgingAmerican]

134. Where do you guys get this stuff?

n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

87. Still not convinced. But keep the Crap Blogs coming...

they're fucking hilarious!

[Rex]

92. +1

nt.

[delrem]

89. Dems should present Dem budget, R's should try to force compromise. nt

[tridim]

136. Right, and that's exactly what will happen. The Dem budget hasn't been presented yet.

Read the article in the OP.

[DeSwiss]

91. The Professional Left Is Handing Republicans Precisely What They Want, Thanks To Obama

/fixed

[sheshe2]

97. K&R! n/t

[whatchamacallit]

99. Hahaha

Fuck Rmuse!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

109. Immasmartypants' distant cousin?

Great political minds of the 21st century!

[sheshe2]

116. Cute. N/T

[WorseBeforeBetter]

118. Not as cute as this...

Since we're doing LOLcats, and all...

[AgingAmerican]

117. Chained CPI is Handing Republicans Precisely What They Want

And they will use it to pummel Obama and the Democrats in 2014 as destroyers of Social Security.

And we are just supposed to stand here obediently silent? Obama not touching Social Security is a "Unicorn" now? What the hell?

[tridim]

137. The Republicans want SS privatized.

Why do emoprogs always forget what Republicans actually want?

[Dragonfli]

140. I thought we had to offer up cuts because THEY wanted them? They don't want these cuts?

Great news! that means that we don't need to offer them and we can finally retire this chained CPI scheme to a storage shelf over at the Heritage Foundation Where it belongs!

You republiprogs make up funny names, do you do fart noises too?

[AgingAmerican]

180. The Republicans want SS to just go away so they can steal the money

What is an "emoprog"? Is that supposed to be some sort of insult?

[AgingAmerican]

184. How does offering up SS to the republican chopping block keep it from becoming privatized?

Please, do tell.

[tridim]

190. It doesn't because SS wasn't "offered up to the GOP chopping block"...

By the President or any other Democrat.

[AgingAmerican]

195. It's in Obama's budget proposal, proposing to cut SS and Medicare - AKA chopping block

They tried cutting it once and it cost them the midterms (06).

Now they have a Democratic president doing their bidding for them.

This "third way" thing is a flaming mess.

[tridim]

197. Now Medicare is cut too?

[AgingAmerican]

199. Yes, $305 billion over ten years

All in the name of Republican austerity

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/201597791.html?refer=y

[tridim]

204. Obama also proposes $305 billion in cuts to Medicare over a decade...

"including $156 billion through lower Medicare payments to drug companies and higher premiums or co-pays from wealthy recipients."

NOT benefit cuts.

Why did you leave that part out? It's kind of important, don't you think?

[AgingAmerican]

211. Obama budget cuts Medicare benefits and provider payments

Daily Kos

"On the other hand, the proposals for seniors aren't a positive move. At least Obama didn't include the hike in the Medicare eligibility age that he had previously offered to Boehner, but what he does include could be another hit for seniors, on top of the chained CPI. Cutting out Medigap policies would increase out-of-pocket costs for seniors. Those costs have been steadily and steeply rising [pdf] for seniors already over the past two decades. Adding more means testing to the program (wealthier individuals already pay higher premiums for Part B, the part that covers physician services and supplies) shifts the program further from from universal coverage and opens it up to more and more means testing, and toward a stigmatized and politically vulnerable poverty program."

[link:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200686/-Obama-budget-cuts-Medicare-benefits-and-provider-payments|here

[Comrade_McKenzie]

120. And they conveniently leave out this excerpt from the article that started it ALL:

Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[blackspade]

142. Then what is the point of doing it?

financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries

This leaves working and middle class families to bare the brunt of this policy change. Where are the financial protections for already stressed families in a broken system that will just continue to stumble along from crisis to crisis until it collapses?

Social Security is not an issue in the budget deficits and has no business being part of that discussion.

[amborin]

143. means testing SS is a step toward destroying it e.o.m.

[QC]

200. !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=284540

[TheKentuckian]

122. If anyone actually believed all that crap

Then the reaction would be a critical piece of the theater not a knicker twister.

But no it is another lash out full of all the "hip" and Limbaugh like little quips of hate for the left and smug nonsense based on self justifying mythology.

[blackspade]

124. Drivel.

[bowens43]

135. Wow,what a mind numbingly stupid article.

tame for this jack ass to sit down and STFU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

138. I demand my back pay! n/t

[OnionPatch]

141. I'll tell you why I'm miffed

Because a DEMOCRATIC president is supposed to protect Social Security.

Sure, I get pissed when the right pulls all their shenanigans, but I didn't vote for them, spend money on them, and I sure as hell don't count on them to protect me. What the president is offering is more than bad policy. It's betrayal.

[Armstead]

144. "Symbolism" does matter /nt

[Capt. Obvious]

145. Several bingos in this thread

[carolinayellowdog]

162. Bingo indeed-- great post

nothing but a bunch of catchphrases

[bullwinkle428]

191. This bingo card gives me all kinds of warm & fuzzies!

[Zorra]

147. Smells like teen spirit.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

148. That about sums it up. Obama = BAD, BAD, BAD!!! Meanwhile, *crikets* on how Republicans are

deliberately attempting to destroy this economy for political gain.

This has been the theme of the entire Obama administration: point the finger at him FIRST, say NOTHING about the Republicans who refuse to compromise on ANYTHING!!

[treestar]

167. ^^^This

That is why it is so damn insane and indefensible. Instead of giving Democrats support, the only thing that would pressure Republicans, they let Republicans know their support is soft.

[AgingAmerican]

183. "point the finger at him FIRST"

Who is offering up SS? Who is putting it on the table?

Sadly the answer to both questions is OBAMA

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

202. Even apart from the SS issue, this has been happening ever since the man but his hand on

the bible.

[Andy823]

203. Yes and don't forget

The right wing media. They are doing a great job of ignoring everything else and keeping this issue on SS on top of things. The republicans are having a civil war, and right now it looks like the talking heads are doing their best to start on within the democratic party also. This reminds me so much of 2010 when the same things were going on to try and divide, or get democrats to stay home and not vote by "teaching the president a lesson" or other BS like that.

[fredamae]

153. Don't, please try to steer

my positions to one that allows "silence" from Anyone.

What, does the Corporatist Wing of the Dem Party Fear the "Retarded, Whining Professional Left" will go all "TP Action" on them?

I call BS. We've been asked to stand down before, and it worked out real nice for the Requesters--not so much for the rest of America.

"They" try to label this as a Far Left reaction--but in Truth and what they don't tell you is that the "little folks of the GOP" don't want oil in their backyards and don't want to eat cat food either.
What "they" don't tell us when they try Not to say "it" says it All. Listen to what isn't there and you'll be a bit wiser.
This may simply be "damage control" - because maybe it's having results--they'll Never tell you that.

[Mnpaul]

155. The Third way folks are the real "professional left"

I showed that Third Way makes itself useful by providing a faux “liberal” or “moderate” “Democratic” quote machine that can be used to discredit Democrats and Democratic policies such as the safety net. I gave examples of how Third Way gave aid and comfort to the effort to defeat Elizabeth Warren and the effort to unravel the safety net. Third Way continues to prove that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/11/wall-street-uses-the-third-way-to-lead-its-assault-on-social-security.html#more-3690

A bunch of Wall St financiers posing as a "liberal think tank"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

157. For the Father Knows Best wing of the party, blame the left is easier than standing up to the Repugs

And, embracing Republican policies is just swell as long as sell-out has a (D) after his name.

[deutsey]

187. Does being a "Professional Leftist" mean I should be getting paid for my views?

If so, I believe I'm owed some back pay.

[bemildred]

193. What about the "Professional Right" are they important too?

[Rex]

209. Wow, a hit and run article that is full of crap.

And the OP is not around...my my. At least everyone here is paying attention and not fooled by this line of crap. It is an old canard by now, shame that DUers peddle it here and then run away afraid to answer questions. Shame really.

[AverageJoe90]

212. Sadly, I think you may be right.

There are reasons to be critical and be concerned, but what we don't want to do, is repeat the mistakes of 2000 & 2010, that contributed to our defeats then.

[KamaAina]

213. Why inflict this on us?

Are you mad at us for some reason?

First, if DU were a city, it would be large enough to have its own bus sytem, community college, mall, etc. So if one poster accuses the President of “wanting” to be the Democratic President who destroys the New Deal, or that he is deliberately punishing retired and elderly Americans to curry favor with Republicans, that means all 200,000 or so of us are members of "the professional left", whatever that is.

Second, I can't speak for dKos, FDL, or whatever, but DU has directed plenty of good old-fashioned American outrage at repuke governors across the land.

Third, despite what its Wiki entry says, the Center for American Progress is hardly a "progressive public policy research and advocacy organization". Take a gander at its executives and fellows:

http://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/

Executive Committee

John Podesta, Chair

Carol Browner, Distinguished Senior Fellow

Distinguished Senior Fellows

Tom Daschle

Lawrence H. Summers

That says to me "middle-of-the road, Third Way corporate Dem", not "progressive".

</rant>

[MisterP]

214. they had people like this writer in Haiti

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)

they even rewrote the Lord's Prayer

"Our Doc, who art in the National Palace for life, hallowed by Thy name by present and future generations. Thy will be done in Port-au-Prince as it is in the provinces. Give us this day our new Haiti and forgive not the trespasses of those anti-patriots who daily spit upon our country."