Skip to main content

We Kossacks used to love Nancy Pelosi. We wanted her to be Speaker again. Not today. Today the former Speaker was excoriated in the comments to Joan McCarter's Front Page post about Rep. Pelosi's remarks on the chained CPI proposal. It is appropriate that our community have a strong focus on preserving the integrity of Social Security. It is inarguable that the change to chained CPI would contract the amounts of future benefits to retirees. Fighting back should be our first impulse. Many Kossacks argue well that current benefits aren't enough and any roll back of future benefits is unacceptable.

That, however, is not what the argument is about in Washington. I too am vexed that chained cpi got into the mix with so little fuss, a lagniappe , as it were, Nevertheless, Former Speaker Pelosi was simply making an accurate point about the legislation being bargained over. Further given her position, she was the most appropriate to address the matter.

Here is the "tax law" truth behind her statement: whether or not we adopt chained cpi, we are leaving social security benefits untouched. Benefits are totally separate from the cost of living provisions and controlled by separate laws.

I used to study tax law. For a while, I practiced tax law.  Follow me out into the tall grass and I'll refer you to a statutory example of what I'm talking about.

When Nancy Pelosi says chained CPI is not a benefit cut, what she means is there is no talk of changing parts of the law like 42 USC Section 415:

(a)(1)(A) he primary insurance amount of an individual shall (except as otherwise provided in this section) be equal to the sum of—

(i) 90 percent of the individual’s average indexed monthly earnings (determined under subsection (b)) to the extent that such earnings do not exceed the amount established for purposes of this clause by subparagraph (B),

(ii) 32 percent of the individual’s average indexed monthly earnings to the extent that such earnings exceed the amount established for purposes of clause (i) but do not exceed the amount established for purposes of this clause by subparagraph (B), and

(iii) 15 percent of the individual’s average indexed monthly earnings to the extent that such earnings exceed the amount established for purposes of clause (ii),

This statute, those to which it refers and those others upon which it depends, establishes the amount of a retiree's benefit. Their are lots of ways for Congress to tinker with primary benefits in order to cut the future overall Social Security expenditure. From Section 415, for example, its easy to tinker with the formula for average indexed monthly earnings or with what constitutes earnings., No one is talking about this kind of benefit cut. The benefit every one qualifies for upon retirement remains unchanged. Obviously, tinkering with future adjustments to benefits as the chained cpi proposal does slowly, relelative to current law,  impoverishes retirees over time. But it is still different, legislatively,  from how Congress would go about enacting direct cuts to primary benefits

Politically, it is only good sense to point out this distinction and this time Nancy Pelosi gets the job of making the lemonade. Maybe, too, Kossacks shouldn't be too quick to throw Madam Pelosi under the bus. She may yet come in handy to causes many of us cherish.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (24+ / 0-)

    Aren't you glad that the clueless won't get a chance to run the country again, just yet? Yeah. Me too.

    by LeftOfYou on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:01:17 PM PST

  •  asdf (17+ / 0-)

    Ah yes - your desperate 'distinction' will come in SO handy when next year's COLA for my SS Disability is 0.4% instead of 1.9%.

    I;m sure I can get my grocer and electric company to overlook the difference in my food and electric costs.

    Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

    by GayIthacan on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:11:55 PM PST

    •  I think the point is (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, Bulldozer, artisanrox, CS in AZ

      this change doesn't mean the the initial amount of future retirees is lower. It doesn't whittle Social Security away for future retirees. It would be much more unfair to tell my son that he has to pay the same 12.4% but will not receive the same benefit level. Considering how few hourly workers get any type of minimum cost of living wage increase it is hard to maintain that for retirees. This type of fight is going to keep popping up, this wrong headed downward income pressure, until we strengthen labor and the worker. This is just one more side effect of years of efforts against the middle class.

      A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by notrouble on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:24:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So why doesn't President Obama fight for some.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        notrouble, chuckvw

        ..type of supplemental wage insurance program?

        Bush gave seniors another entitlement, a prescription drug benefit which Senator Kennedy described as a great first step.  And he didn't pay for it.

        President Obama is cutting the cornerstone of the Safety Net, Social Security, at a time when the bond market, pricing the 10-year bond at 1.80%, is telegraphing that the US has neither a deficit nor debt problem.

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

        by PatriciaVa on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:32:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well maybe they could give us merit increases (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jabney, corvo

        or promotions instead of COLAs.  My retirement savings would go a lot further if I could still buy a gallon of gas for $0.36.  

      •  No. It's not hard. It has never been hard that way (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jabney, Bulldozer

        What is hard is watching the Medicare Part B go up so far that the net is less than it was the prior year. Nobody in SS  officialdom has been complaining about the burdens of the COLA.

        And the cut is not only for SS but for veterans and a lot of others, and where, now, is that money supposed to go? Not into the separate programs from which it is taken, but for some pay by  unfunded credit republican bills such as the 300 billion in unofficial DOD expenses which are not in the regular budget but are still bills which have to be paid, while the vets of those unfunded wars get cut. .

      •  It is lower than it would be (0+ / 0-)

        if the proposed change is not enacted.

        In oher words, a cut.

        I hhave no idea when Republican silliness became the way to go on this particular issue.

        IT is false and morally wrong.

    •  The President has already said he will not (5+ / 0-)

      accept chained CPI without guarantee protections for those earning the least amounts of Social Security.  It will only be applied to the wealthiest.

      Here is more explanation

      http://www.thepeoplesview.net/...

      "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

      by mumtaznepal on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:51:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And he wants revenues outside the program being (0+ / 0-)

        cut as well.

      •  That is an impossibility (0+ / 0-)

        unless it is a balnket means test and only Social Security recipients earning amounts in excess of certain levels have this change applied to their benefits.

        Such a plan would basically have a negligible effect on the spending levels. But Obama project 12 billion a year in savings.

        These two things do not add up.

        By contrast, agreeing to a tax cut for income up to 400k instead of 250k would have a larger negative impact on the deficit.

        There is no logic in the President's proposal or the arguments raised to defend it.

        The idea I think is not that the proposal makes sense but that it is necessary to get the GOP to agree.

        But the GOP did not agree so that argument fails as well.  

        •  They'll never do what I want (0+ / 0-)

          Raise the cap and exempt the first 5k or so of income from payroll taxes.  Don't mess with the benefits, play those little accounting games.  Front-load the means testing.

          Nobody ever much cares what I think, but that's what I'd like to see.  But the Powers that Be will all blow a gasket about raising tax load on income between $100-250+k.  For some reason, that particular income bracket appears to be profoundly sacrosanct.

          What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.? -- Nicholas Kristof, NYT --

          by Land of Enchantment on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:00:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Stop VILIFYING HER! (7+ / 0-)

      ....by discussing the impact of her proposals on your life.

      LEAVE HER ALONE!
      AND STOP BEING MEAN TO OBAMA!!!!!

      o.O

  •  It's all true... from a certain point of view. (7+ / 0-)

    I mean, the actual effect is the exact same thing, but TECHNICALLY it's not a change to the actual amount.  Just the amount you get every month.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:16:17 PM PST

  •  If you owned a perpetual bond that paid a.... (5+ / 0-)

    ...9.00% interest rate, and the company which issued the bond subsequently modified the annual interest rate to 8.75%, the rating agencies would immediately declare that company in default, as the income stream of said bond has been cut.

    That's Chained-CPI, the brainchild of the Econ professor whose recommendation helped me get my first job on Wall Street.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

    by PatriciaVa on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:18:26 PM PST

    •  ??? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LeftOfYou, FG, billmosby

      Your bond gets no CPI, if you are taking the return as income the annual amount doesn't increase at all. I think you have an inherently flawed model.

      Chained CPI is still a fucked up idea, but that's because the "I" in "SSI" stands for insurance, not investment.

      A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by notrouble on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:29:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is pettifoggery (18+ / 0-)

    It's a reduction in benefits as the term is popularly understood, even if not quite in the strict legal definition. People will be receiving less money.

    •  You made me look a word up! (0+ / 0-)

      No fair :/

      Ok, I understood it immediately from context without even reading the rest of your post... something I think speaks volumes regarding how appropriate its usage is here.

      And, ok, I like learning new words.

      But, no fair! :P

    •  To be precise, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bulldozer

      they (for which read I, for one) will be receiving less more money, so to speak. I'll still be getting more than I do now, just a little less more.

      Assuming the powers that be don't just decide that because they think they won't be getting any, they cut us ( and me) off entirely. If the other side keeps trying to pound "you won't be getting any social security when you're old" into today's young people, sooner or later they will agitate to pay less. People of my kids' generation are starting to talk that way.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:41:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Luv that word (0+ / 0-)

      Lets face it.  Democrats are now lying just like republicans.  Remember when we used to scoff at republicans who said that they are not cutting anything just slowing down its growth?

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:11:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The site has been full on temper tantrum mode for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NewDealer

    24 hours, posting worst possible pics they can find of POTUS and Pelosi is pretty funny.

  •  Here's the thing. The Dems have stated over and (19+ / 0-)

    over that SS is not part of the deficit. That in itself is a fact. It went from off the table to now it's on the table by a Democrat (Obama) and not a republican. He opened himslf up to being bludgeoned to death in 2014 by doing this. It's just not smart politics.

    It's just piss poor negotiating on Obama's part. Look I voted for him twice and I do support him. He would be better off serving his constituents by being on the bully pulpit and let Pelosi & Reid deal with Boehner.

    I understand that we need extentions to unemployment benefits to keep this economy moving. I understand we need infrastructure funding to keep this economy moving. I understand that we need tax revenue to keep this economy moving.

    What I don't understand is President Obama putting SS back on the table after he campaigned that he would protect it.

    " The whole world is about three drinks behind" Humphrey Bogart.

    by flatford39 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:21:08 PM PST

    •  Social Security (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bulldozer

      I understand that we need extentions to unemployment benefits to keep this economy moving. I understand we need infrastructure funding to keep this economy moving. I understand that we need tax revenue to keep this economy moving.

      What I don't understand is President Obama putting SS back on the table after he campaigned that he would protect it

      The only thing that will be on the table when all is said and done is the Speaker's head.You seen to not remember past negotiations when Medicare was "cut".Was it? NO! The reductions in that program came from payments to doctors and hospitals.No benefits to actual patients were touched.I trust the President,and in the end the Republicans will end up buying a pig in a poke.

      •  While I see your point there is another one (5+ / 0-)

        I agree that the Speaker's head will be on the table. Unfortunately it's likely to be joined by the head of the Minority Leader, who I generally support as she is also my Congresswoman. In 2014 however things might be different. Why would Obama hand Republicans a weapon they can use against him and the Democrats in Congress? Why?

        They surely will do that; after all they were able to get a significant portion of the voting public to believe that the proposed Medicare payment reductions were in fact cuts to patient benefits.

        More to the point however, the comparison you've provided does not fly. In this case it is PRECISELY actual benefits to actual recipients which are proposed for reduction. Although there is a certain kind of sense to the diarist's point that the manner by which the initial benefit is calculated will not be changed, the fact remains that the value of that benefit, over the course of time, will decline relative to what it would otherwise have been. The extent of that decline in value has even been quantified. At 0.3% per year it works out to a reduction in payout of just short of 10% over a theoretical payout time of 30 years.

        Suppose you were hired and given a starting salary with the promise of future raises of a certain percentage annually only to be told, after you started working, that those future raises would be smaller than you'd previously been promised. Suppose you've invested sufficient time and energy in that same employer such that you have no possibility of changing careers so as to get yourself better raises that would make up for what you've lost. How would you feel about it?

        There is simply no getting around that unpleasant fact.

  •  Pelosi is strengthening Social Security by (9+ / 0-)

    cutting the amount of money that hits my bank account every month from here to eternity.  

    I will leave it to the wonks to explain the technicalities of the laws and the math.  

    The Republican Party will explain the cuts to the American people and if they can't do it I am confident that Jon Stewart will have a good laugh running clips of Democrats claiming they are strengthening Social Security while showing a graph of how your benefit payment declines over time.

  •  I just don't understand... (6+ / 0-)

    How Obama and the rest went so quickly from "SS and Medicare are not on the table" to Social Security becoming the centerpiece of the carving block.

    who do they think they are fooling?

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent me a big plea letter for funds as I am now considered a "DNC member" for supporting BHO last summer. I think I will wait till this little piece of the pie comes out in the Grand Bargain and mail the article back to her in the pre-paid envelope. I will totally ignore the little message about using my own stamp to save the DNC some money. I might add a few metal washers to increase the weight. Maybe then somebody will know that actions have consequences.

    What Fresh Hell is This? -- Dorothy Parker

    by chazz509 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:23:34 PM PST

    •  After 2008 election (0+ / 0-)

      ... I unsubscribed to all those emails.  Donate to some of these people, if you're a small donor like me, they spend ALL the money you gave them asking you for more money.  Drives me nuts sometimes, gets annoying.  Life felt better when I wasn't getting a coupla dozen emails a day, AFTER the election, still asking me for money.

      What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.? -- Nicholas Kristof, NYT --

      by Land of Enchantment on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:06:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Social Security never should have been put (10+ / 0-)

    on the table, period. It has nothing to do with the deficit and to allow it to be brought into the mix for discussion is a significant betrayal of our country's trust in what the President of the United States stands for.

    I will not be able to manage with the cost of living going up and up, and the benefit each month going down.
    Period. I am scared of what the future portends. And will get a gun to use to end my misery before the new laws set in. I believe in facing realities.  Period.
    Byrnt

  •  If I might.... (5+ / 0-)

    I was struck by an e-mail I received from my very right wing sister in law (read birther) this morning complaining about this change.  It is possible that Obama has set a trap for Boehner because even conservatives don't like this.

  •  spoken with all the empathy and compassion of a (10+ / 0-)

    lawyer. "This legislation that will cut the amount of income you get when you retire is not really a cut because of semantics." Go fly a kite! And no one is vilifying her, just pointing out where she appears to be enabling the President to stab us in the back.  

    Power to the Peaceful!

    by misterwade on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:32:29 PM PST

    •  i am villifying her for hypocrisy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      and lying.

    •  Chained CPI also increases income taxes by.... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Faroutman, sfbob, misterwade, jabney

      ..about US$ 100B over 10 years, mostly on the working poor...

      Everything you need to know about Chained CPI in one post

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Here’s how it works: Numerous government programs, most notably Social Security benefits and the income thresholds for tax brackets, are indexed for inflation. But inflation can be measured in a number of ways. The tax code, for instance, uses CPI-U (Consumer Price Index – Urban), which measures prices for consumers in urban areas, to adjust the income cutoffs for different tax brackets. Social Security uses CPI-W, which is like CPI-U but only counts prices paid by urban wage-earners, not all consumers.

      .......

      The results by using chained CPI for taxes are also striking. The Tax Policy Center calculated the income tax increases that would be caused by a switch to chained CPI. They’re not big — a little more than $100 a year for most families — but they’re oddly regressive:

      The group getting the biggest tax hike is families making between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. Their increase is almost six times that faced by millionaires. That’s because millionaires are already in the top bracket, so they’re not being pushed into higher marginal rates because of changing bracket thresholds. While a different inflation measure might mean that the cutoff between the 15 percent and 25 percent goes from $35,000 to $30,000, the threshold for the top 35 percent bracket is already low enough that all millionaires are paying it. Some of their income is taxed at higher rates because of lower thresholds down the line, but as a percentage of income that doesn’t amount to a whole lot.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:57:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The death of a thousand "not a cuts" (6+ / 0-)

    The technicality in this note is astounding, almost to the level of Pelosi's statement. Agreeing to change to Chained CPI does not cut SS payments in January, nor anytime in 2013. This is sophistry, because in 2014, and 2015 and every year thereafter, the COLA adjustment will be just that small bit less, and the next year less, and the next year less again - forever. That is a "cut" from current law whatever verbal juggling you want to do.

    It is only a tax lawyer who could manage to write "this is not a cut". It is a death of a thousand minute cuts.

    The current standard CPI is problematic as the COLA adjustment for seniors, as their (our, mine, ...) "market basket" is skewed from the impact of inflation on the general population (whether the standard CPI works for the them or not). Chained CPI is a thumb on the scales for SS inflation adjustment, whether or not is might be a "good idea" for general government use (e.g., for tax bracket adjustment).
    I am wondering, in fact, if the apparent eagerness of the administration to embrace this has more to do with tax collection than its impact on Social Security.

    •  Again, the second part of any bargain that has (0+ / 0-)

      chained CPI in it, is guranteed protections for receivers of SS so their amount doesn't fall.

      http://www.thepeoplesview.net/...

      "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

      by mumtaznepal on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:55:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is total BS. Almost 40% of retirees (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando, aznavy, corvo

        depend on SS for almost all of their income. There is NO provision to exempt ordinary retirees.

        And why is it fair to penalize ANYONE who has paid all their working life into SS?

        If you exempt 40% of the retirees, then why do it at all?

        It is a stupid stupid idea and hands the Democrats a ticking time bomb to hold in their little hands from this day to forever.

        The Fierce Urgency of Later

        by Faroutman on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:46:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's not total BS. I'm angry SS is even (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bulldozer

          on the table at all, let alone CPI being discussed. And I let plenty of lawmakers know it today.

          But the ridiculous Obama-sux hysteria over 1 part of a potential bargain that will likely never occur, that to be accepted would have to include another part to protect beneficiaries, is bull shiat.

          "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

          by mumtaznepal on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:08:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  likely never to occur? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            majyqman, misterwade, corvo

            I don't like anyone gambling with the heritage of FDR especially when it very personally affects my life and millions of others.

            It is extremely stupid because Obama himself has said previously that a small rise in the cap on income would solve the SS shortfall for many decades AND Social Security can NEVER add to a budget surplus or Federal deficit because it is not to be considered a budget item by LAW.

            I am in favor of sensible, sane reform ideas that don't needlessly hurt millions who are already struggling on the income they have now.

            It's just a stupid stupid idea for seniors, for the legacy of the Democratic Party and for the future viability of the Democratic Party.

            The Fierce Urgency of Later

            by Faroutman on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:22:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  IF it is not likely to occur (0+ / 0-)

            is our defense why are you defending it?

      •  Again (0+ / 0-)

        That makes no sense.

  •  this diary is the height (9+ / 0-)

    of disingenuous logic-chopping and pedantic obscurantism.

    In plain English: a reduction in benefits is a cut. No matter how you slice it or whatever euphemisms you employ. This change reduces benefits. Ergo, it is a cut.

    As for Pelosi, this isn't about her personally but the policy she's trying to push, which is wrong-headed, unjust, cruel, and destructive. I can oppose the policy while reserving judgment on her personally, or her past effectiveness as Speaker of the House.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:55:47 PM PST

  •  The problem is, it wasn't on the (9+ / 0-)

    table.  Obama put it there.

    It isn't even something that will add to or lower the deficit.   It's simply something that the republicans want gone.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:59:20 PM PST

  •  I'm not vilifying her... (9+ / 0-)

    I'm pointing out that she is trippin' with her pronouncement that a chained CPI would "strengthen" Social Security.

    She and President Obama and other dems may think they can sneak this by the voters but they are mistaken.

    ::::Btw, can I say how much I loathe diaries that reduce complicated and important topics to personality contests?
    ::::And that trade upon the personal popularity of politicians(Obama/Pelosi) to shield bad policy from criticism?

  •  It saves money by magic. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando
  •  Now I remember! (3+ / 0-)

    I remember why, after the 2008 election, I stopped visiting DailyKos after using it as my lifeline leading up to Barack Obama's first election. And why I am not going to be back anymore after again clinging to this site in the weeks leading up to the 2012 election.

    The hysterical, hyperbolic, defeatist rants about how Obama is a traitor, Pelosi is a traitor, the Democrats are just GOPs in disguise, there's no difference between the two parties ... JESUS F-inG CHRIST! GIVE ME A BREAK. It's fine to be worked up over particular issues, and perhaps this Chained-CPI issue is one of those. But to turn a negotiating tactic that hasn't even played itself out yet as the end of the progressive movement as we know it -- this is exactly WHY progressives have such a hard time getting constructive things done.

    Those on this site who have spent the last few days comparing Obama to W, or Gingrich, or worse, need to go back to the pre-election blogs that many of THEM posted, pointing out how while our president isn't perfect and isn't always progressive, what he has accomplished is nothing short of remarkable given the obstacles. They should go back and read their posts about all of the things Obama has done, from ending DADT to ending an illegal war to saving an iconic American industry and its 1 million UNION jobs makes us so grateful that the GOPs aren't in charge.

    But they won't, because the election is over and rather than have reasonable dialogue we eat our own, assume the worst about our party and our president and throw tantrums.  The imeciles at RedState must be laughing their asses off at us right now.

    That's all. See you in 2016.

  •  Daily Kos holds accountable (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    misterwade, jabney, corvo

    a once-beloved leader who stabs working people generally, and Democrats in particular, in the back.

    A thousand Sharkeys are invading a thousand Shires every day across our country.--James Wells

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:43:51 PM PST

    •  Stabbed in the back? (0+ / 0-)

      Don't ou mean "mows down with a machine gun?" Or "betrays like Judas?"  Why not throw in some hitler and Benedict Arnold and George Wallace too?

      Stabbed in the back, Jesus.  Sometimes I thnk we deserved Romney to win so we didn't get too cocky around here.

      Progressives are not the president's only voters or con students, or anything like a majority anywhere.  

      •  Con students = "constituents" (0+ / 0-)

        Stupid autocorrect.

      •  this has nothing to do with progressivism (0+ / 0-)

        over 60% of Americans want these programs left untouched.
        Unless you think that over 60% of Americans are progressives. In which case we are very like a majority right here.

        Don't you even try to move that Overton window.  Defending Social Security is so not progressive, even Republicans want to do it.

        You're confusing "progressive" with "gives a damn about the American people."

        A thousand Sharkeys are invading a thousand Shires every day across our country.--James Wells

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:28:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Even right here in this thread (0+ / 0-)

    Babyish tantrums and naive idealism, the perfect combination with some nice whine.  Fair weather fickle supporters of the President.  Unrealistic zero compromise politics.

    Might as well be redstate.

  •  Give ma a break! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, corvo

    It's a cut.  At least tell the truth

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:09:18 AM PST

  •  Absurd (0+ / 0-)

    You contradict yourself when you say Pelosi was accurate when you write:

    "It is inarguable that the change to chained CPI would contract the amounts of future benefits to retirees."

    This is what Pelosi said was not so.

    Your diary makes no sense.

  •  "We Kossacks used to love Nancy Pelosi." (0+ / 0-)

    Not this Kossack.

  •  I've known Nancy since she was on the SF Board of (0+ / 0-)

    Supervisors. I trust her more than anyone in House leadership, and most of Washington.

    RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

    by hideinplainsight on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:48:46 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site