Why is Obama strongly hinting that Charlie should resign, but has not a peep for ......

.... any of the repubican miscreants?

What's up with that? Have past presidents done that?

And when he says "jump", the Whitehouse says, "How High?"

that what was behind the quick push to get Shirley Sherrod out.

In my 50 years I've never seen a more cowardly President when it comes to taking on the right.

Never.

It's so obvious what they're doing. It's a good gig. It works. They'll keep doing it.

Any bets on which Black public figure will be next on the hit list?

A misleading headline turns into Obama, hinting that Rangel should resign. Mission accomplished I guess.

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

the hyperbole and conjecture around here is amazing.

attacking Social Security.

is indeed being attacked by anyone in this Administration?

Or is it based off of assumptions?

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

That's your proof?.

A google search on DU?

1st link : Guns and Butter - "Obama Plans Lame Duck Sell-Out of Social Security" with Webster Tarpley.
The Financial Reform Bill, including The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, more popularly known as the White House Deficit Commission, the Austerity Commission, or the Peterson Commission; the G20 meeting in Toronto; the effort to export the depression.

That's it? Nothing that Obama has said, Nothing that the Administration has in fact done to attack Social Security?

Are you kidding me? Assumptions, don't make fact.

1. Formed a Debt Commission by Executive Order and stocked it with appointees who have gone on the record as opponents of SS.
2. Put "everything on the table"
3. Allowed his Commission to "partner" with Pete fucking Peterson, the biggest funder of anti-SS propaganda out there.

"But that doesn't mean anything, wah! You're just making unwarranted assumptions, wah!"

assumptions, hysteria, and hyperbole.

Thank you for admitting that it was assumptions.

You are correct Obama did form this Commission by Executive Order, after the senate failed to do so.

Obama DID NOT "stock" it with appointees, he could only appoint 6 out of the 18. So the other claim is moot.
It takes 14 out of the 18 to even give a recommendation, they DO NOT have power.

Obama did say "everything is on the table", he wanted them to be free to look at the entire U.S. budget/deficit.
Entire context of what he said is here, I know it's not a soundbite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcLCoTcgL4Y

Nowhere in there does he mention attacking Social Security, in fact Social Security is not even mentioned.

Allowed his commission to "Partner" with Pete Peterson. Pete Peterson plays NO direct role with the Commission. He is not a member.
He is getting the message out there about deficits. He has even less power than the Commission who has NO power. He must be in negative territory. Unless you are afraid, he will get the public on his side about privatizing Social Security. That's not going to happen.



http://seniorliving.about.com/od/socialsecurity101/a/obama-social-security-budget-2010-.htm

"Nyah, nyay, nyah, nyah. I can't hearrrrrr yyyyoooouuuuu! La la la la la la!"

Seriously, though. Enjoy the commas, the participles, and whatever other semantic dodges you like.

Do you seriously believe that the commission isn't stacked to attack social security? I don't mean what out-of-context phrase or dropped antecedent you can find to bolster your position. I mean what is your true feelings about how the administration's direction on social security.

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

Problem. That is NOT true. That is what Republicans have claimed for a long time. As Krugman says, it is a lie. SS is a separate fund and is solvent. It is not part of the Deficit problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

The Baby Boomer generation is currently retiring, well some of them anyway.

SS fund. Another rightwing lie that Obama is perpetuating. A lie that has somehow gotten into the consciousness of even progressives.

And that quote is also wrong. It is a further example of how Obama has been moving towards the lies told by the right for decades.

The baby boomer problem was solved in the eighties. OBama needs to get some real economists, not privatizers, to inform him on the facts about SS. He is grossly misinformed. Either that or he agrees NOW, that SS should be privatized, and if he does and tries to do it, he will be a one term president.

And he DID blame the Deficit on SS. I don't have time to find it now, but I will. In fact it needs to be an OP so we know what we are up against.

More in benefits will not be paid out than are coming in. And the trust fund is in U.S. bonds, over 2 trillion, owed to the SS fund and must be paid. SS is good for several decades even if we do nothing about it. Iow, it is NOT an emergency. How come we did not believe Bush's lies about this, but are all too willing to believe the same lies when a Democrat tells them?

You are falling for the privatizers argument to get their hands on the Social Funds, a wet dream even Bush was unable to accomplish for them. And if , Democrats do it, that will be the end of this party.,

As every respected economist has said, it was one the biggest mistakes of this administration to put people like Alan Simpson, Pete Peterson and Erskine Bowles and Ryan on this commission and to allow them anywhere near the SS fund. It has NOTHING to do with the deficit. And despite your apparently being unaware of it, Obama certainly has said that it does.

What is making people very nervous is 'WHY' did he appoint so many enemies of SS to a Commission on the Deficit. In fact why did he go back on his word and form a Commission at all?

Waiting until after the election won't work, HE needs to remove Simpson, Peterson, Ryan and Bowles from that Commission. Better yet, disband it or keep SS out of the discussion as it has nothing to do with the deficit. As Krugman said, it is already so discredited, it should be disbanded. What was he thinking?

I haven't bought the right wing version of anything. Those are the stated facts.
I never denied Obama said it, only that there was context to what he said.
There is a deficit, in that more benefits are being paid out than being paid in.
Does that mean the government will not pay it? Of course not, because they are in Government backed securities, which is not the same as market securities.

Democrats are NOT trying to privatize Social Security, Republicans are. If Democrats had not blocked these attempts, they would have had their way long ago.

Barring, the people you list, and what their past statements, may or may not have been, is there something wrong with a Debt Commision? Do you think the 4 people you list, will be able to sway the 14 others? There are 18 members are there not?

I can understand some angst, but to go so far as to say Obama is attacking Social Security? Or the people he has placed on a commission, that don't represent the whole commission, means that the commision is going to attack Social Security? I don't understand it myself. It's like some sort of guilt by association, assumption hyperbolic nonsense.

"as every respected economists" do you have links for that? How many economists are we talking about here?

Also do you have a link to where he went back on his word to form a Debt Commission?

It is a separate fund, paid for by those who paid into it. So to tie the two together is very misleading.

It is not in 'crisis' as we are being told.

Check out James Galbraith, Paul Krugman and others easily googled for facts on the SS fund.

HERE is one link which documents Obama's position on SS from the campaign through his inauguration and how it 'evolved' as he got closer to the WH and how his position on Commissions changed.



Also troubling is who he is influenced by. It is definitely not people like James Galbraith or Paul Krugman who were supposed to be invited to 'talks' on the deficit. But NY Republican Columnist David Brooks gets his attention every time.

Those four are not the only Republicans who are advising him on SS. In fact, he appears to have NO progressive advisers on this issue, and only includes them after he has already met with Blue Dogs and Republicans.

This is a serious issue and anyone who cares about the Democratic Party needs to be ready to fight this WH should they do what Obama himself has stated. Across party lines people will rally against any cutting of SS benefits, or raising of the retirement age or as Bernanke has pretty shockingly stated as a possibility 'repeal SS'.

I can provide lots of information on this, from many sources. This is the last New Deal program the right has failed to privatize and one of the reasons many people voted for Democrats, after Bush showed their intentions. If a Democrat were to be one to do it, there would be no more reason to vote for Democrats than there is to vote for Republicans.

does NOT say that Obama was opposed to having a Debt Commission. What it does say is Obama was opposed to a commission dealing with Social Security. The Debt Commission is looking at the entire U.S. deficit.

He did not go back on his word.

I will take some time and look at the 2 economists you list.

"he appears to have NO progressive advisers on this issue, and only includes them after he has already met with Blue Dogs and Republicans."

Does he include progressives or have No progressives? I'm a bit perplexed by this statement. It's contradicting itself. Maybe that's not what you meant. I know sometimes, I type too fast, and have to reread. Please explain this.

"This is a serious issue and anyone who cares about the Democratic Party needs to be ready to fight this WH should they do what Obama himself has stated. Across party lines people will rally against any cutting of SS benefits, or raising of the retirement age or as Bernanke has pretty shockingly stated as a possibility 'repeal SS'."

Can you explain what Obama himself has stated?

The only cuts/changes I've seen the commission members talk about are to entitlement programs.

and military spending is specifically off-limits.

what a farce, you can't rationalize it.

I've seen some folks around here tie themselves in knots rationalizing.

and that's what we voted for, after all.

If they look at other things like Medicare and Medicaid, does that mean they're not looking at Social Security when they actually are?


Yes, he did go back on his word.

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

"I don't agree with a poster, so I'll show them, with an attempt at snark"

:rofl:

fishing, horseback riding, crocheting, singing. Please go enjoy those. Lighten up on the comma's though they don't become your ROFL smiley. They taught that grammar in the 8th grade. Did you miss it? Maybe out fishing, horseback riding, crocheting, singing?

:rofl:

Look! No comma's!

:eyes:

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! Night night baby have fun fishing, horseback riding, crocheting, singing.

I'm flattered that you are paying attention to something.



:hi:

Yep. Keep it up.

"comma's"! That's too funny. :rofl:

I love when a grammar lecture comes with a grammatical error.

Sid

:rofl:

They taught that in the 8th grade too. :rofl:

Sid

Obama Mocked Commissions Then Established One



There is no doubt that he was against commissions, and for all the right reasons. As the Coalition of Progressive Groups said in their letter to Congress in an attempt to stop this commission, 'it is a stealth way to get something unpopular passed with an up or down vote without going through the proper procedures'. (paraphrase)

He is not leading. He has said that he is 'agnostic' about SS. How can any president be agnostic, especially a Democrat, about SS? We depend on Democrats to protect social programs like SS from Republicans. Now we have a Dem. President inviting them in when they public threw them out.

And then he appointed as Chair, Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson as co-chair of the commission a man who called seniors 'old geezers who don't want to give up' part of their money. And when questioned recently about using this commission to privatize SS and cut benefits, he became angry saying that they were going to be helping 'the lesser people'.

Since those he has been most influenced by are people who have been targeting SS for a long time several of whom are on the Commission, the Commission itself has become known as the 'SS Commission' and many see the establishment of it as a 'debt' commission as merely an excuse to go after SS without scaring people until the deed is done. That could happen during the period after the Nov. elections in a lame-duck Congress.

As for what Obama himself has said, over and over again he ties SS and Medicare to the deficit.

And what is Grover (drown the government in a bathtub) Norquist doing making recommendations to this Commission?

ATR President Grover Norquist Testimony at Obama's Deficit Commission

I don't have time to provide any more information right now. But there is a lot more, none of it very promising. But what many people, especially people who voted for Democrats want to know is, why is this President seeking advice from people like Lindsey Graham, Grover Norquist, Alan Simpson, Pete Peterson, Judd Gregg et al? We didn't vote for Republicans did we?

Dozens of organizations, advocates for seniors, the disabled, SS etc. have co-signed a letter warning that messing with SS will have dire consequences. But looking at those who are in charge of this commission, and taking Obama at his word that he himself now is 'agnostic' (a huge difference from his position in the campaign) about SS and will look forward to the findings of this Commission (they've already said that benefits will need to be cut) it is making many people very, very nervous and Obama has done nothing to allay those fears. This could seriously affect Democrats in Nov. and Nancy Pelosi among others, are clearly worried.

Nearly 80% of the population is against touching SS. And we have a president who has yet to take a leadership role and start fighting off those Republicans who have for decades been waiting for an opportunity to get their hands on the huge SS fund to gamble in the casino known as Wall St.

As of today, they appear to be closer than they ever were to achieving that goal. We were able to stop George Bush and it cost him a lot of political capital even among Repubs when he tried. Are we doing nothing to let this president know that he too will suffer the same fate if he doesn't stand up NOW and start assuring people that Republicans will not be making these decisions. The public didn't like their ideas. Did he not realize that? Why is he so interested in what they think?

I cede the point, Obama did in fact mock them, once. McCain must be pissed that Obama mocked him, and then went and created one, to deal with the deficit. I don't look at that as a "gotcha moment" though. The deficit in this country is horrible, thanks to Bush and his cronies. I don't fault Obama for creating one, to get different ideas. That's all they are is different ideas.

Something I realized, and I thank you for that link. I did some searching. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is the same thing as the "Deficit Commission". I wasn't aware that they were one and the same.
It lists their members here: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/members.

From your 1st link:



Obama knows the frustrations of good legislation, getting lost in procedural maneuvers, that frankly stall it unneccesarily. He's been there. That's what and up-or down vote is.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_down_vote

They need 14 out of 18 votes, to even give their recommendations to Congress.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-establishes-bipartisan-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-an

I do understand some angst like I said, but we are talking about 4 members, in an 18 member commission. The entire thread here was started with "Obama is attacking Social Security". That's an absolute, with no basis in fact, therefore it is an assumption. They have to get 14 members to agree, then it's sent for an up or down vote with congress. The President doesn't have to sign off on anything. This has to go through a lot of hurdles, and frankly, I don't think we are going to see too many people go for privatizing Social Security, or attacking it, destoying it, whatever term that has been thrown around. NO Democratic President is going to do that to Social Security. All this talk about Catfood Commission, is another way to UNECESSARILY scare seniors. AND for what, because a few members out of 18, have supposedly said in the past, things against Social Security. It's what the right does so well, FEAR, FEAR, which is why I am against it. It's a broad brush attack on the entire commission, who is trying to find ways to tackle the entire U.S. deficit, which does need to be tackled.

Thank you sabrina, for the debate. I admire someone who can rationally talk about a subject. I do understand your worry about having those few members on there, but for me, a few members does not make an entire commission. Even if say, those few members were to somehow get all of them to agree to privitize Social Security, the Commission has NO enforcement power. You are talking about Congress and the President. It would have to go through those hurdles, and it's failed in the past, I don't see it happening, and especially not under a Democratic President.

Rational, fact based and civil.


It could start a trend and then where would DU be?

when the boomers began retiring.

The plan WAS ALWAYS for benefits paid out to be larger than contributions during this period. THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY THE REASON FOR CREATING A INCREASED SURPLUS IN THE TRUST FUND IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Now the catfood gang are saying that this PLANNED drawdown shows that SS is at risk for insolvency.

COMPLETE, UTTER BULLSHIT.

I'm not going to debate with someone who refers to the Debt Commission, which is trying to work on this countries deficit problem, as the "catfood gang"

There is no evidence to support that 4 members are going to be able to sway the other 14, if in fact that is what their goal is.

"catfood gang" "catfood commission" is being used to scare seniors, when there is no basis, just hyperbole.

Do you agree that its main purpose is to be drawn down when boomers begin retiring, or do you not?

If Social Security expenditures exceed revenue coming in, I say that would be according to a plan that has existed ever since 1983. Do you agree with that or not?

and its leaders, and entitlement cuts are the only thing the commission is talking about.

and i really don't care if you want to debate or not. the fact is, you have no arguments besides "wah! don't call it a catfood commission!"

it's an easier target, I guess.

It's because they are ideologically opposed to democratic-socialism.

it appears they might be. The problem is that they don't go after rethugs, as you said, when THEY are involved in corruption and misdeeds

Last I checked, Pres. Obama is our own!

in his own party.

The OP is basing his post on the misleading headline from this article:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Obama-Rangel-Should-End-His-Career-With-Dignity-99667264.html

Fine.

We don't agree but your answer gave a giggle :)

.... tomorrow morning. The words were Obama's not some mistated headline

Exactly where is he "hinting" that Rangel resign?

EDIT ADD: It's the same clip that the writer for that NY station based their misleading headline on:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6730111n&tag=related;photovideo

Now, exactly where in that clip did Obama say Rangel should resign? He referred to Rangel being at the end of his career - which is true. The man is 80 years old. Obama stated that he hoped Rangel could end that career with dignity. However, you conflate that with other Democratic legislators who are absolutely calling for Rangel to resign.

As for your other point, it is a pointless point. Obama wasn't asked about the scandals of republicans. And frankly, had he brought them up in that context, he would have been condemned as deflecting the question.

You know all this but you choose to paint the landscape in your own colors. That is your choice. Just don't expect me to play along.

Then come back you tell me. Fair euff?

That is all I will say.

"He is at the end of a great career and I'm sure he'd like to end it with dignity. I hope that's what he does."

Now you can spin that any way you wish. I've been clear how I interpreted it.

By the way, that clip ought to make it clear to everyone what was said. In turn, that will allow people to draw their own conclusions. In doing that. I am positive no minds will be changed.

That's the thing about a lot of his statements. Anyone can see anything in them.

"Fucking retard(ed)", however, was pretty clear to me. Not even Rush ever called me that, but Obama's right hand man did.

Yes he spoke badly of Rangel.

And he seems to be succeeding. That's why I voted for him.

That sounds like a really childish, silly reason to vote for anybody.

And how did you know it would piss me off. I actually supported him before the election and said so right here.

"You" are representative of the naive people who are new to the political process and don't understand the political machine. You supported him , as you say, and you actually thought he was going to change the world in a year or two. That's nativity at it's finest. So I voted (in part) to watch your kind whine for my entertainment. Maybe childish, but there is/was no other person that would have made anything any different than it is now.

I'm probably old enough to be your father or grandfather.

I voted when I was first able to, but was politically aware long before that, starting with union politics when I was a young child. But I don't owe you that explanation.

I am smart enough to know what inertia is and that nothing changes that fast.

But see, here's the thing. Obama hasn't done ONE FUCKING THING for people like me who are never before considered themselves rabid lefties. I was pretty mainstream liberal back in the day. Obama is so far to my right he may as well be a repubican, except in this day and time, that passes for a Democrat. But that's beside the point. All he actually neeed to do was throw us a bone now and then.

Instead, his alter ego calls us "fucking retards" and no one is bothered by that.

So don't try to throw around that line of shit you're trying to feed me.

And yes, there's no maybe. If that was why you voted as you did, you're childish and we have nothing more to say to each other.

:nopity:

:eyes:

:thumbsup:

Really, do you realize how rude you are?

It was "Fucking Retarded". I am DEFINITELY not a Rahm fan, but this quote is taken out of context.
A few(mind you a few) democrats at that meeting said that they were going to start airing ads against Conservative Dems.
When you consider, that chances are, you will not be able to get a Progressive IN over those Conservative Dems, in those RED districts where most of them come from, it seems counter productive. While his choice of words were over the top, he is right in this instance.

While I don't care for Conservative Dems, they are a necessity right now, in order to get ANY legislation across. The Republicans are blocking everything. What needs to happen is getting a bigger majority, and that means picking off Republican seats, in toss up districts, and/or unsafe seats. Going after the Conservative Dems, is not the way to go, especially if they are in RED districts. That is a waste of time, energy and money. We needs more Left leaning democrats, but you won't get one from a Red district.

"Obama is so far to my right he may as well be a repubican" hyperbole nonsense

You must be to the Left of even Kucinich, and that's saying something. hyperbole too, I know.

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

What in what I said makes you think I am a republican?

Most of us supported him because he told everyone that the 'political machine' you are talking about hasn't worked for this country and he was going to 'change' it.

I guess HE was naive because according to you, it can't be changed.

Which means YOU voted for a very naive person in order to piss off naive people? :rofl:

I think the laugh is on you! Lol, sometimes I just love DU.

:bounce:

:applause: :bounce: :applause: :bounce: :applause: :bounce:

So I'd say he's 5 months too early. :shrug:

'Five months too early' or 2000 years too late ....

""You" are representative of the naive people"

So you are wrong, I did say something about it. And then I fucked up..lol.

...Politico for their misleading headline?

What's up with that? Have past DUers done that?

:rofl:

Indeed.

:rofl:

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

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

..... refutation of the essential facts.

The actual link to the actual clip of Obama's actual face with his actual mouth actually moving to form the actual sentiment cited in the OP is posted in this thread.

But you go ahead and snark and obfuscate and collect your high fives.

read the entire response

:hide:

What are you talking about?

But if one only reads headlines,
they may assume such.....
and then go on to mislead others in the process.

I think that's how the game "telephone" is played.

And Frenchie ....... it was Obama's own words, in a CBS promo. Watch tomorrow morning. You'll see.

Buh Bye, Sugyuppums.

Your OP doesn't provide any quotes.......
just makes insinuation....similar to something Fox would do.

See Ya round at election time Stinkypoo! :hi:

The man's own words, on the teevee, all day, on CBS, as promos for his interview with Harry Smith that will be aired tomorrow.

See ya Starbucks in the ayem, sugarplum, we'll all be there to laugh at the doubters. Join us.

and giving an actual shit" sometimes are two different things Stinky.

Isn't Charlie Rangel 80? How much longer do you think he would be in the House?

Sid

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8854850

Stinky, you are late! :spank:

Edited to add another:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8855363


This seems to be a common theme today. Where is it coming from?

why should he attempt to remove the stench from the oppositions nest?

Imagine how it would look to bring up things from the past.

If a Repuke scandal surfaced now, that would be different.

my garden does need some. thanks

...tend to trip over themselves to not upset the nasty meanies in the GOP. It's just not nice, you know?

bush boy would NEVER throw a repug under the bus. No matter how bad their crimes

Obama will do so in an instant,,, Acorn, Shirley Sherrod

Obama is a two-face, he's not a real traditional dem, he's a corporate dem, just like 95% of his appointees

Like Bernanke and Gates, both of them bush repug appointees, kept in place by Obama

He's also king of the lawyer weasel speak. It's hard to pin down what he really said, just like this instance. He's implying that Rangel should go, but it's sort of easy for the MSM blinder Obama apologists to defend him, because it's weasel words.

K and R

Rangel is a progressive

Obama doesn't like progressives

All saying the same thing.

Take a Politico/CBS quote/teaser out of context... rinse... repeat.




Obama didn't say, imply, or hint that Rangel should resign.

I don't like it one bit, either, Stinky The Clown. I'll change my mind when Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of their treasonous crew are on trial for lying America into war; gross criminal negligence in ignoring the threat from Al Quaeda and Hurricane Katrina; abusing their office to spy on and prosecute innocent Americans and Democratic politicians; and a whole lot more that an unfortunate number of DUers seem to have forgotten.

For bullshit in the OP.

What, specifically, is bullshit in the OP?

The OP is fact packed. You may not interpret it as many of us do, but the facts are the facts.

He said the chargers are disturbing...which nobody *should* disagree with...and that Rangel should consider a graceful exit. By the way, Pelosi just said pretty much the same thing on "This Week".

Whatever.

My point about "bullshit" is more about the intent of the OP than the content (which is obviously loaded).

true facts I posted were bullshit, which they weren't.

Try being more honest.