The Catfood Commission Device is the most cowardly, cynical Congressional --

[elehhhhna]

Presidential maneuver yet.

Enough Politics. We paid for Governance.

[SunnySong]

1. I your going to kill a lot of people your going to need a committee. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[RoyGBiv]

4. Who is killing people?

Is it your contention that the members of the Deficit Commission and/or the President are planning to kill people?

[elehhhhna]

5. unless they're zeroing out the military biudget, yes.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Zero the military budget?

Seriously?

Just so I don't misunderstand you, are you saying that the solution to budgetary woes is to completely eliminate the military budget?

[elehhhhna]

19. why does this hyperbolic suggestion upset you so? think, man.

[RoyGBiv]

21. I'm asking a legitimate question ...

You mentioned zeroing the military budget.

Is this your solution to budget problems? If no, please say so.

[elehhhhna]

27. i was answering your Q:

Is it your contention that the members of the Deficit Commission and/or the President are planning to kill people?

I never said that. And, we've been killing people for 10 years now continuously, so now that we're broke,perhaps we should ease up.

[RoyGBiv]

30. That was not my question to you ...

Following a thread is not all that hard.

Let me repeat. You mentioned zeroing the military budget.

I asked for you to clarify for me whether you believing eliminating the military budget (which is what the word "zeroing" implies to me) is your suggested solution for budgetary woes.

I don't believe you seriously believe that, but since I only have your words to go by, I'm asking you to clarify.

[SunnySong]

7. If you cut money for healthcare and food... yes

If you raise the retirement age in an economy where people over 55 can't find work... yes.

When you cut social spending and instead spend the money to expand your war in Afghanistan you kill more than the Taliban...


YOU KILL AMERICANS>

[Subdivisions]

10. If they find a way to steal socsec, yes. n/t

[eridani]

45. Yes. They don't want us old farts to retire, and they don't give a damn about--

--the age discrimination that makes it so hard for us to find work. The other option is slow death.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Oh please ...

The Deficit Commission, or more generally a commission tasked with a specific issue, is a fairly standard device used by both the Executive and Legislative branches of government to explore those issues in depth.

Ya know, like we asked for ... not a President who just makes shit up as he goes along without bothering to consider things carefully?

That this particular incarnation has proved pretty much worthless doesn't mean it had to be so.

[elehhhhna]

6. that last sentence -- huh?

[Better Believe It]

8. Let's hope this commission does prove to be worthless and unable to "sell its entitlement" cuts to

Congress. That's the primary objective of the catfood commission.

[elehhhhna]

22. wow. that theory makes you a super-cynic

I like that.

So this is a bogus construct that COngress will valiantly dismiss with a flourish?

That's 3D chess, BBI

[Fumesucker]

9. More specifically these commissions are used to deflect responsibility..

Responsibility for unpopular decisions..

Which is exactly what's happening with the Catfood Commission.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Really?

Can you point me to the legislation based on findings produced by the Deficit Commission?

A bill number would be fine. I can look up the text myself.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[RoyGBiv]

18. I'm actually trying to have a dialogue here ...

If you will please do me the favor of speaking with me in a mature manner, we can continue.

And my credentials in history are impeccable, thank you.

[elehhhhna]

23. sorry. read my post 22 please. I think i get ya..

[RoyGBiv]

24. I don't think you're serious ...

I've not yet seen anything that indicates you would like to have a serious discussion.

[elehhhhna]

31. read # 22 and let me know if I'm getting your point. Or not.

otherwise you're wasting a lot of typing for something not serious.

Thank you.

[RoyGBiv]

33. You're not ...

...but then my point has yet to be addressed by you, so that's not saying much.

[HughMoran]

37. That post says nothing. This thread says nothing.

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[elehhhhna]

39. bug off then, Hugh. You're not contributing so much here, yourself.

[HughMoran]

47. I beg to differ

I'm adding to your outrage, you ought to be pleased.

The more the merrier, right?

[HughMoran]

32. disgusting

He's trying to have a dialog - apparently you have no answers, just smug.

[Fumesucker]

40. He's playing coy, sandbagging if you will..

The poster is a very sharp cookie and he knows exactly what is being said on this thread about the Catfood Commission.

[RoyGBiv]

49. For the record ...

...I was more than not simply trying to be polite and engage in a discussion if the OP was capable. What comes across as "coy" is more precisely an attempt to have the OP and one other explain their position rather than put words in their mouths. And I feel justified in pointing out that neither did so.

I admit to playing coy with you on the "legislation" bit. So for that, I apologize.

[Fumesucker]

50. No need to apologize..

I'm not always straightforward myself.. None of us is perfect, eh?

Although I think the use of the term Catfood Commission ought to give you a pretty good hint of what the poster's position(s) might be.

And I think the term is remarkably apt, I don't trust anything at all coming out of Washington any more.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... Won't get fooled again..

[HughMoran]

29. Don't expect an answer

It's the misdirected outrage that's important.

[elehhhhna]

12. Yep. Past it prologue, baby.

VERY well said.

[Fumesucker]

13. So you think the results of the Catfood Commission are going to be popular?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: v

[elehhhhna]

17. with certain people, yes.

Barbara Bush Sr., for starters.

Jeb.

Boehner.

I could go on all day.

[RoyGBiv]

20. To whom are you responding?

Did someone in this thread make the claim that the Deficit Commission's report would be popular?

[Fumesucker]

26. I thought I was responding to you..

Either DU had a brain fart or I did, I'm not sure which..

You certainly seemed to be implying that the results of the Catfood Commission were not going to be unpopular.

If your credentials in history are impeccable then you know damn well why this commission was set up the way it has been, you really shouldn't play coy about it.

[RoyGBiv]

28. I'm sorry, what?

Explain to me please how this:

Can you point me to the legislation based on findings produced by the Deficit Commission?

A bill number would be fine. I can look up the text myself.

Can be interpreted as suggesting the results would be popular.

Or, I could refer to my comment above in which I implied that the results of this commission's work would be pretty much worthless.

Not following you here ...

[Fumesucker]

35. You should really, really stop playing coy..

I've read enough of your posts to know you are a long way from stupid.

People are calling it the Catfood Commission because it is a dead certainty, given the makeup of the commission, that it is going to recommend cuts to entitlement programs if it makes any recommendations at all. The secretive nature, the fact it won't issue a report until after the midterms, the membership.

One thing we have learned over the last few years is that the time between when it's too early to know what's in the final legislation and the time when it's too late to do anything about it is around negative three weeks. People are getting in some preemptive complaining on this particular scam.

Every single fucking thing Washington does these days is a scam of one sort or another, the trick is to find out which damn shell the pea is under before the deal is struck.

[RoyGBiv]

43. No ...

People are calling it the "Catfood Commission" because a certain blogger who is popular with certain groups called it that.

But, I am in no way playing coy with regard to your comment regarding "popularity." I in no way implied that anyone would find it popular. Your question in which you imply I stated that was in response to my request for legislation written based on the commission's report.

Now, of course, that bit is playing coy because as we both know there is no such legislation, the point being that the hysterics generated by the commission is just that, hysterics.

If you want to know my opinion, I think the Deficit Commission is worthless and that nothing it suggests will be popular. I think it is focusing on the wrong things, and I think absolutely nothing of substance will result from it. Is that cynical? Perhaps. I'm more of a mind to call it a prediction based on history. Oh, something will be done, but whatever it is will have only a tenuous connection to the commission's work, and it is certainly possible that the commission will be used in that case in an attempt to deflect blame. However, based on what's come out so far, I'm more inclined to believe it will be Republicans who will present that sword because they're the ones screaming for cuts, cuts, cuts. Sadly too many Democrats are letting them get away with it, and that's their fault, but the *point* is that whatever happens will take place in Congress.

[tkmorris]

16. Exactly so

This whole things appears set up for Democrats to avoid paying a political penalty, insofar as they are able, for what I assume will likely be very unpalatable recommendations from this committee. That is why there will be no vote on anything until after the mid-terms. Not only that, there will be no transparency. Any talks (after the initial couple of public meetings) will be held in private. This way those running for re-election cannot be asked to take any positions on what is being discussed.

They will still have to vote on it eventually however. It's too late to change much else, but when the recommendations become public we need to put Congress' feet to the fire about it. They need to know that voting for cuts to SS, or privatizing it, or any other such silliness will be a career ending move.

[burnsei sensei]

25. +1 nt

[DJ13]

34. Responsibility for unpopular decisions..

I'll say.

The parties responsible (the commission, any Congress member who votes for it, Obama himself) will become pariahs to the average American.

(Though they wont care, Pete Peterson can set them all up for life after politics...)



In another recent survey, three quarters of respondents favored increased social spending over deficit cutting. "With unemployment close to ten percent and millions still out of work, it is too early to start cutting back benefits and health coverage for workers who lost their jobs," said 74 percent of voters, while only 21 percent agreed with this statement: "With the federal deficit over one trillion dollars, it is time for the government to start reducing spending on health care subsidies and unemployment benefits for the unemployed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/mayberry-machiavellis-oba_n_636770.html

[RoyGBiv]

36. Interesting ...

That doesn't seem to jibe with the previous poster's contention that the intent of the commission was to deflect responsibility.

If those who might make unpopular decisions based on the results of this report are to become pariahs, how is it that the commission managed to deflect responsibility?

[Fumesucker]

38. The deflection will work with some people..

As the old saying goes, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

[DJ13]

46. Its an attempt to deflect responsibility

A poor one though, as Obama originally wanted Congress to authorize a similar commission, that was supposed to have enough authority that any decision they made was supposed to get an automatic vote in approval under the bill Obama wanted passed.

Now theres a lot less cover, which will probably be the only good thing about this.

[Hissyspit]

51. There doesn't need to be a deficit commission at all.

Which is the OP's point. See John Kenneth Galbraith: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8674977

[WillyT]

41. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said... K & R !!!

:yourock:

:hi:

:kick:

[HughMoran]

48. Oh, dear

Saying absolutely nothing is that exciting?

Oh, it's outrage and that's what counts.

Silly me.

[WillyT]

52. Yeah Silly You... You Keep Kicking All These Threads You Disapprove Of...

Keepin 'em alive.

Wassup with that?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[RoyGBiv]

44. .