Are you suggesting that the PCCC is making this shit up?

You know, I get a lot of these "fundraising ploys" from Obama too.

other than to give them a cursory glance. I sent them money to get elected. I don't need to keep sending them money for who knows what.

That's why Durbin posted about SS cuts on FB?

That's why Warner said it on national television?

So they are part of this progressive ploy? Or are you really saying that PCCC just made this all up in order to raise funds? Explain to me how this is a ploy exactly. I notice you avoided explaining it in your response to JR.

Please proceed.

this GOP congress is NOT going to pass tax revenue increases. So it makes the Republicans look increasingly inflexible all the while knowing they won't go for it.

P.S. Even if they did, there are about 1000 ways to fix social security that don't involve chained CPI.

And how does that make it a ploy?

Really, who made those Dems, including Obama, put SS on the table? Who made them do it?

The word ploy means something. And simply responding to actions and words by others is not a ploy. That is a basic function of democracy. For you to try to characterize it as a ploy says something. Of course you can't really seem to do that, so you should stop using that word unless you can prove it.

I actually pay attention to what he does--not to the chicken littles with their ridiculous storm clouds always over their heads.

Again, no good ploy explanation? You accused the PCCC of a ploy, let's hear all about it. How does this ploy work exactly?

this claim has no valid basis in anything Obama has done in the past, so one must chalk it up to throwing red meat to the base. It seems to be working.

And Durbin posted on FB and Warner spoke on national TV.

So one more time... explain how this is a PLOY. You made the claim so back it up or stop being so frivolous with your accusations.

Please proceed.

but it's not true.

You have yet to explain how this is a PLOY. You offered up false "facts" which I just refuted but since, I presume, you can't really show this to be a ploy, since it isn't, you try to pretend you did in a headline.

So you can't explain how this is the PLOY you accused it of being. I thought not.

Not once has any Democrat ever felt the need to call any of the issues they have taken on AND SUCCEEDED with, 'ploys'.

This is something new. Trashing Liberal Organizations that have been actually working on issues and succeeding over the past number of years?? I sure hope it's just because you are not familiar with them.

Do you know anything about this Organization. Do you know ANYTHING about the issues they have taken on and the huge successes they have achieved FOR DEMOCRATS??

which is evidenced if you go visit their site

http://boldprogressives.org/

The very first thing I encountered was a splash screen asking for my information to join them and to donate. Then, after I cleared that, the whole home page is a subdued palette of blue/white/black except for a bright red donate button in the top right corner.

As I said, nothing wrong with that. I am sure they will continue to do a lot to promote progressive things we all want such as Elizabeth Warren's goal of reinstituting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall.

HOWEVER, when judging the relative veracity of their claims, I do not forget they are a progressive campaign organization whose every communication is followed with a "please donate".

I even compared it to Obama's group that constantly sends emails asking for donations. I certainly have nothing against Obama fundraising in principle.

BUt I also know that amped up rhetoric is going to get more people motivated and donating than objective truth.

offered up by Dems, but you have yet to illustrate just how said PLOY works.

And you did so in order to be dismissive of SS cuts, meaning there was nothing to see there, when in fact, SS has been put on the table. Or you meant that PCCC is somehow making the Dems put SS on the table or at least make it appear that way on FB and TV and press briefings. I don't really know since you refuse to describe how this PLOY you accused PCCC of running actually works. So how is this a PLOY?

Please proceed.

they are to work for these important causes WITHOUT FINANCING from somewhere? Would you prefer that our best Liberal Fighters take money, like their Republican counterparts, from Big Business, the Koch Bros??

Why did you even bring this up?? Most Dems GLADLY donate to those willing to do more than post on internet forums for the issues that are so important to us.

They deserve EVERY DIME they get and MORE and I can't imagine ANYONE trying to distract from what they are doing by complaining that they actually ask for voluntary donations.

You do not have to donate even though you benefit as a Democrat from all the work they do.

They are so right about this Social Security Issue and I am thrilled they are on top of it before it's too late.

They are a progressive organization. Good. No problem.
They use fundraising to fuel their activities such as advertising against Republicans and conservative policies. Good. No problem.

They have purposefully exaggerated the notion that entitlements are under attack by Obama and Dems so they can fundraise. Not cool.

that they haven't been doing MORE to raise awareness among Liberals of the fact the President has included SS cuts in his budget. HE did that, NOT PCCC.

If you don't want people to criticize the President, then tell the President that he should avoid 'compromising with Republicans'. Especially on issues that are certain to get a huge negative reaction.

You are blaming PCCC for something that never should have happened and for which they are not responsible.

THAT is what makes no sense. I and every Dem I know care about the Elderly, the poor, children, the most vulnerable people in this country, that is what Dems are about. And any Dem President should know that when his own party sees even a slight opening of the door to those who are trying to harm them, he is going to hear from those who elected him.

I don't think the President needs you to defend him. He knew the reaction this would get. He's a smart man. Maybe he wanted this to happen so that he could blame it on us?? Did that ever occur to you?

This fact is not in dispute.

Senator Warner stated on "Face the Nation" that "We all know at the end of the day...Democrats are going to have to give on entitlement reform."

This fact is not in dispute.

Where is the exaggeration?

that is broad statement. this organization says erosion of title reform continues apace. with no evidence.

This usage has been in play for a few years now.

Here's what I don't get: maybe Social Security won't get cut. But how can it hurt Progressives to be loud and insistent that Social Security not be touched? That's how politics works - carrot and stick. Touch Social Security, you get the stick (i.e. Progressive anger and lost votes). Protect and strengthen Social Security and you get the carrot (i.e. Progressive approval and votes).

When Democrats toss around terms like "entitlement reform" and there is only a tepid (or no) response, the notion that Social Security cuts are acceptable is strengthened.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/dont-let-dems-cave-disaster

At least not for the people.

You flat out accused PCCC of a PLOY. Please, lay it out. How does this PLOY work, step by step? I'm not getting it.

You are revealing that the left is susceptible to the same tactics as those we ridicule on the right.

Maybe you shouldn’t have used the word “ploy?” That clearly struck a nerve.

when you can't provide proof of your own accusations.

No nerve struck at all, I'm simply holding PW accountable for his accusation. And he has yet to back it up with an explanation.

So here, this one's for you:

Oh, that must mean I'm right, I posted a thing. That always works.

on behalf of PW, I offer the words "BASIC FUND-RAISING TACTIC" to replace term term "Ploy."

Please proceed ...

and accusation he obviously cannot justify or explain and apparently he has a difficult time admitting he was wrong.

You can replace words but you can't change the fact that he accused them of something devious with no retraction.

He talked about it in an internet session with his supporters around a week or two before he caved. He told us he wanted the public option. Then we got a bill without it. That is caving.

Obama is talking about the chained CPI. That is a cave-in. I'm a senior and I will not vote for anyone who supports even the slightest cut in either the minimum wage or Social Security or Medicare. The average Social Security benefit for 2012 after the COLA was estimated to be $1,229.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/colafacts.htm

If you compare that to minimum wage, you figure a person works 40 hours a week, every single week and you have 2080. Federal minimum wage is $7.25 or $1,256 per month. So the minimum wage is slightly higher than the average Social Security benefit, and approximately 1/2 of Social Security beneficiaries receive less than the average benefit by definition.

http://jobsearch.about.com/b/2013/09/29/minimum-wage-increases-for-2013.htm

If you only earn minimum wage all your life, presumably your Social Security benefit could be less than minimum wage. And minimum wage is pretty much the minimum to keep you alive.

So, anyone who supports any cut at all to Social Security will not get my vote ever. They have no sense of right and wrong, no sense of justice. I want to see the minimum wage increased. I believe Obama supports that, or at least he says he does.

What you are equating are two different things. Because Obama compromised on the creation of something good and new that we haven't had (affordable health care for all Americans) then he caved. Therefore, he will cave on taking away something that we are used to and need to survive.

Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable premise.

The veto power is there for a reason. Obama should use it when Congress does not pass good bills.

I want Obama to veto any bill that involves any kind of decrease in Social Security or Medicare.

I wouldn't have used the word "cave", but since you're using "ploy"....

He started out saying he wanted a permanent fix to the debt ceiling. He didn't get it. I don't particularly blame him, but he will change his mind on things.

He "caved" on the public option.

He's "caved" on Gitmo.

He "caved" on mandates.

He "caved" on tax increase on those over $250K (raising it to over $400K).

I truly believe he'll agree to chained CPI among many other possible choices given half a chance to make some sort of deal. You can calling caving, capitulating, compromising, or negotiating. The end result is the same.

As Pretzel Warrior indicated, the CCPI is going nowhere … just as it has the last two times it was raised … except to continue to make republicans show that they are unserious about everything they claim to want as a sign President Obama (and the Democrats) are acting in good faith.

It worked the last two times and it’ll work this time, too.

Here let me spell it out for you one more, again …

Why it hurts republicans …

Republicans demand movement on “entitlements” … President Obama places on the table CCPI … the left freaks out (showing that President Obama is acting against his base, i.e., willing to compromise) … But the offer comes with a demand for more revenue (something that the left ignores during their freak out) … republicans are caught in a pickle; if they accept the CCPI along with the increased revenue, they face a primary challenge because they caved on tax increases AND they are hurt with a significant portion of their mid-term base - the elderly. If they vote against the CCPI, they face a primary because they didn’t cut “entitlements” AND they are hurt with those fed-up republicans and independents that want to see governance, if not compromise, by once again proving the “obstructionist” label, true. The republicans have, once again, refused to take what they asked for.

Now, why it won’t hurt Democrats …

Listen to what sitting Democratic legislators are actually saying about CCPI … Those in safe districts are saying “CCPI? Hell no!” Those in purplish districts and the Democratic leadership are saying, “CCPI? Well, we’ll think about it (against my base’s wishes); but only if the republicans will give in on significant revenue.” Republicans will not do the level of revenue required for CCPI to be put to a vote in the House or the Senate, nor will they do sufficient revenue for President Obama to sign the thing into law.

So fear not … CCPI is going nowhere except to further damage the republican party.

that he accused them of perpetrating.

I see you didn't either. I'm not discussing hypotheticals here, I've done that already. So you can take your condescension elsewhere, especially since you are not addressing the point we are discussing, PW's accusation of a PLOY, which PW obviously cannot answer with an explanation.

I didn't think it necessary to explain that a non-profit agency that survives on fund-raising, would use comments, events or prognostication that directly involve the issues they advocate for or against, as an opening to ask for money.

I thought it is pretty much a basic fund-raising tactic ... Oh, you're upset with the term "ploy" ...

People need to learn that words have meanings and that's why I pressed PW for an explanation that he failed to deliver. Because it was not a ploy, as you just proved.

Let's start with Merriam-Webster's definition of "ploy" since your definition but it is very mild, but I see it serves your point.

Here's the Oxford Dictionary definition:



It is a fundraising tactic to see a potential issue - in this case a very real issue - and raise funds so you can get the message out against it or support candidates against it.

However, Pretzel_Logic went so far as to dismiss PCCC's email that quoted the statement that Dems would have to offer up SS reform as a fund raising "ploy". "Ploy" implies deception. There was nothing deceptive about that email. By using the word "ploy" he is saying that they are tricking people into donating, which is absolutely not the case. SS has been offered up, by at least three Dems now, not the least of which is Obama himself.

So yes, I agree with everything you said in your last post except for the watered down definition you found.

Pretzel_Logic should either explain how this is a "ploy" or he should retract his statement. I don't expect him to do either.

President's Organizing for America that also ask for funds?

Nope, of course not.

Pretzel logic from you.

and you know what else that's called? Of course you do. It begins with H and ends with Y.

urging people to contact Warner. I have done so. Glad AARP is working on this.

PCCC is an EXCELLENT organization. I am glad they are involved in this as they have had had lots of success in the past and a huge membership.

He caucuses with the Democrats but that doesn't make him a "D."

I didn't write it.

I was questioning the article...sorry!

the F-35, need to be eliminated or reduced, when the effective corporate tax rate is 7% instead of 30+%, and when forms of income like capital gains, dividends, and the so-called "carried interest," all of which mostly inure to the benefit of the most wealthy, are taxed at much lower rates, and the highest marginal rates remaining at near historical lows? Oh, I hear you: taxes can't be raised because Republicans have pledged their allegiance to Grover Norquist to not raise taxes, so raising taxes is not on the table, leaving only entitlements to be savaged. How f*cking convenient. Now ain't that so fu*king special? So, my Dear Senator, why don't the Democrats have the will, courage, and political balls to take the stand not to cut entitlements?

in Obama's debate on domestic policy with Romney.

No, we don't all know, and I won't accept arguments premised on that falsehood.

He should be replaced as soon as possible.

Both would be Republicans if the Republican Party had not gone off the deep end.

We need to threaten them with being actively primaried with a lot of feet on the ground telling of their calumny.

Wyden, too, if he sells us out.

We may be very busy these next few months lining up honest Democrats to challenge those who sell out.

Only the trolls in the Dem leadership would consider it a "concern".