Quote of the Day

Zero Dark Thirty - Because Kathryn Bigelow makes films like they're bombs about to detonate in her lap. Haunting, unflinching, never less than absorbing, with aspirations toward not just art but the "truth," even as the film never stops questioning the very notion of such a thing. - Zach Baron

It's funny because it is inadvertently true -- in Zero Dark Thirty there is no such a thing as "truth."

Also too, in college football tonight, 5 units on San Diego State (+3) over the LDSers in the Poinsetta Bowl in San Diego.

Open Thread.

< Senators To Zero Dark Thirty Filmmakers:Your Film Is Inaccurate | Thursday Night News and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Lets get festive.... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:42:29 PM EST
    or try to get festive.

    If you are as sick as I am of the same old dozen or so Christmas carols over and over and over again, here's some good musical tidings you don't hear everyday.  Christmas Must Be Tonight

    But I get ahead of myself...first a very Merry New B'ak'tun everybody.  The special lady is in Guatemala as I type, to participate in the ceremonies with the Mayan elders and shamans.  

    If anybody can help bring about the new peace-love conciousness we need so desperately, it is the special lady...she's got mystical love powers.  Don't bet against her, I'm tellin' ya! ;)

    All hail mujer especiales (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    Lady Dadler is in the midst of her own miracles.

    Lord hope I survive them.

    Go Aztecs!!  



    I hear that... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    Solar males are no match for mystical lunar females...it's why our Y chromosomed forebearers tried to hold the ladies down for so long, and still do to this day in some circles.

    Foolish suckas...embrace that moon!


    Yin-Yang, kdog (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:55:26 PM EST
    Yin is characterized as slow, soft, yielding, diffuse, cold, wet, and passive; and is associated with water, earth, the moon, femininity and nighttime.

    Yang, by contrast, is fast, hard, solid, focused, hot, dry, and aggressive; and is associated with fire, sky, the sun, masculinity and daytime.

    While I am not entirely happy with the concept that "masculinity" is associated with the daytime and "femininity" is associated with the night, I do agree that there has always been something mystical associated with the moon.  And I also agree with the the Yin-Yang idea that you cannot have one without the other- they are two halves of a whole.
    And, yes, I absolutey agree that males have long tried to hold the ladies down.  (Although I have a feeling that at least some of this had to do with the fact that, while females were always absolutely sure that children born of them are theirs, the males could never be sure, and they didn't want to waste their efforts to raise another man's child.  That, plus the fact that males tend to be physically stronger than females and learned early on that they could dominate the physically weaker.  Unfortunately.)
    "Embrace the moon," indeed, my brother.

    Makes sense though... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    the lunar cycles, the menstrual cycles.

    I think ya got the better end of that deal...the night time is the right time.

    The sunshine bores the daylights outta me, chasing shadows moonlight mystery....


    By the way... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    You should be there too! (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    Segue:  Shamans.  Tribal museum in Bhubaneswar, India, included photos of local tribe's shaman in action.  

    I should, I should... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:12:41 PM EST
    I blew my wad (and vacation time) in Veracruz.  But I did have a local brujo shake some herbs over me in Catemaco, so I got that mojo going for me;)

    Photos!?! You were there Oc, you shoulda got in on some live shamanic action.  On the San Luis Potosi trip in May we had hoped to visit the Huichol tribe for a little peyote ceremony action, but it was so far outta the way from the Huasteca region we ran outta time.  


    A young women apparently employed (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:39:16 PM EST
    or volunteering at the museum attached herself to me, and was explaining various exhibits.  But, when I enquired what the shaman was smoking, and suggested peyote, she did not reply!  

    also, Lonely Planet informed me that, at one Hindu Temple in Bhubaneswar (?), which non-Hindus could not enter, but, for a price, could view from an enterprising priest's glass-strewn rooftop, the rituals at this particular temple include washing a portion of it with a substance, including marijuana, daily.  Thought of you!  


    Peyote is eaten... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    not smoked, and it's a desert cactus...I don't think it grows in India.

    I forget the name of the place or the occasion in India, but the hindu shamans smoke all day long non-stop, with people offering them tidings.  My kinda party!


    Hindu Kush. A strain of MJ. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:56:45 PM EST
    Guatemala and a little (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    bit of a Mayan dialect....love it.

    I lived in Guatemala...some time ago....

    Which town is she in?


    Chichicastenango...n/t (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:41:49 PM EST
    Ah. This is where LOP (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    suggested hiking up a trail to observe pre-Columbian rituals.  So, we did.  It was kind of infant baptismal ceremony in front of an Easter Island-like statute.  Flowers, statute smoking a cig.  And the father wearing a Megadeth t-shirt.  quite memorable.  

    Mainly Ladino (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:01:09 PM EST
    but in Kiche land....Lake Atitlan is a favorite for ex pats and not to far from Chichi....

    Where did you live? (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    Alta Verapaz (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:01:55 PM EST
    and primarily in the Polo Chic....

    I'll keep saying it (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:08:25 PM EST
    again, and again, and again:

    Why does Obama have to make the simplest problem into something so complicated that the American people have no idea of the issues involved?

    Here's a crazy idea:
       Social Security?.....raise income cap

       Medicare?......Negotiate drugs

    So simple anyone can understand it

    Arguments against?....there are no arguments against

    Crisis solved.

    If Obama's goal was to actually solve (4.67 / 3) (#31)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:12:32 PM EST
    those two problems, he would do exactly what you suggest. The income cap would be raised. Medicare would negotiate drug prices. Heck, Medicare would open enrollment to younger people if the real goal was to strengthen the program.

    It seems to me that Obama's goal is to begin to dismantle those two programs. His actions are certainly the actions of someone who desires the weakening and ending of SS and Medicare, not those of someone who values those programs and seeks to strengthen and preserve them.


    Putting those ideas in a bill (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:55:39 PM EST
    would show how much support they have.  And, there probably is a bill or two with those ideas already in it.....

    Everyone watches Lincoln but few see the compromise that Thaddeus Stevens swallowed to pass the Thirteenth Amendment....

    The situation is so confused now it is hard to know what proposals are real, and what is being said off the record between the parties.


    The Thaddeus Stevens (none / 0) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:03:54 PM EST
    moment where he bites his tongue and gives in for the sake of progress was to me the key part of the movie.

    Arguments against? (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:16:29 PM EST
    how about the majority of the House won't consider it much less vote for it.

    How much more are you willing to put on (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:07:32 PM EST
    chopping block to get the Republicans to vote for the legislation?

    So far Obama has agreed to the Chained CPI which cuts benefits in numerous program, will eliminate eligibility in numerous other programs and raises taxes on the working poor and the middle class.

    Here is what McConnell says is necessary for a deal:

    In an interview in his Capitol Hill office, Mr. McConnell (R., Ky.) said if the White House agrees to changes such as higher Medicare premiums for the wealthy, an increase in the Medicare eligibility age and a slowing of cost-of-living increases for programs like Social Security, Republicans would agree to include more tax revenue in the deal, though not from higher tax rates.

    Here are a few of the things that the Republican House passed tonight:

    - Cuts to food stamps that could knock millions of low-income Americans out of the program;
    • Cuts to Meals on Wheels, a program that delivers meals to seniors or other individuals who are unable to prepare their own food;
    • Cuts funding to health exchanges that will be created under Obamacare and funding for Medicaid included in the same law;
    • Cuts to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law that will yield no cost savings, but will make bailouts of big banks more likely;
    • Denying the Child Tax Credit to the parents of American children, if the parents are undocumented immigrants.

    What if this combined package is the minimum that the Republican House requires to get a "yea" vote?  


    I suspect (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:17:58 PM EST
    None of what was voted on in the House tonight will be required in the House, nor included, as tonight's vote was for protection in gerrymandered House districts (and protection for Boehner's Speakership)...  and McConnell's opinion is meaningless as he won't be one of the 60 Senators anyway.

    Senator Grouch (McCain) (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:38:19 PM EST
    signed the Feinstein statement that Zero Dark Thirty contained false representations regarding torture.....

    I hope she gets shut out of the awards....

    If it's Thursday, it ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:09:06 PM EST
    ... must be John McCain trying once again to inject himself into the national conversation, and solicit yet another invitation to one or more of the Sunday morning gasbag shows. I bet the odds are better than even that he's successful.

    As for me, I'm going to have to reserve judgement on Zero Dark Thirty and its depiction of torture until I can finally watch the film for myself. (It opens out here a week from Friday.) I'd love to jump into the fray, but I simply can't discuss with confidence any film I haven't seen. And from my vantage point, there seems to be an awful lot of people talking about ZDT at present who apparently haven't seen the movie, either.

    As for the Oscars, the present Hollywood buzz would have us believe that this year's race will probably be primarily between Lincoln, which I've seen and do highly recommend, and Les Miserables, which I have not. Wouldn't surprise me if that ultimately proves the case, given that Tinseltown traditionally does tend to love its sprawling historical epics and big splashy musicals.

    (Now watch the winner be some quirky little crowd-pleaser, like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.)

    Well, I'm off to the airport shortly to pick up Elder Daughter, who's coming home from college for the holidays. Her nonstop flight from JFK arrives 48 minutes early this afternoon, which is good because that means that we'll be out of the airport and on the freeway heading home before rush hour. Have a good evening.


    Argo is good too (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    Funny and exciting....

    House passes (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:02:46 PM EST
    their Sequestration replacement bill 215-209 giving money back to defense and cutting funding to Medicaid, CHIP, Meals on Wheels, ACA, and more.

    Coming up next their vote on Plan B tax bill.

    Boehner (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    may not have the votes for Plan B. Still trying to hustle votes when the vote was scheduled. Would this signal the end of him as House Speaker if he doesn't have the votes and it fails, or he cancels it?

    Is there a tally online yet? (none / 0) (#22)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    Provided that all Dems voted "nay," that vote count means 19 Republicans crossed party lines to oppose. I'd love to see the names of those who will be targeted by the tea party in 2014. In any case, since Boehner has spent the entire week putting together easy-to-veto votes on bills going nowhere fast, I'd say he is definitely scrambling to fend off the likes of Eric Cantor for speaker.

    Plan B vote canceled (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:19:55 PM EST
    until after the holidays. Boehner can't pull it off within his own caucus.

    The House (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    is done and going home for Christmas.

    So is President Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:41:52 PM EST
    The Obama family is scheduled to arrive in Honolulu on Friday night, and will once again be spending the holidays over on the windward side in Kailua.

    The president should let all the Bush tax cuts expire, and renew negotiations after the holidays. They can always make whatever tax cuts they choose to retain retroactive to the first of the year.


    Has Boehner officially adjourned (none / 0) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:24:23 PM EST
    the House? Is this session of Congress at long last over?

    They still technically (none / 0) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:31:54 PM EST
    have three days (Wed thru Fri) next week I guess.

    Boehner's accomplishment? The Dow Futures just dropped 250 points after his stunt.


    Kelly O'Donnell on NBC Nightly News (none / 0) (#27)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    just told me that the House is going home. Maybe Boehner and Obama will have some sweet sweet phone calls over Christmas, but maybe they won't.

    And even if those two hammer something out the entire Congress would have to pass it. I don't see how that happens before the new Congress is sworn in on January 2, 2013.

    And the new Congress will have a number of Democratic members who won either election or reelection in November with a promise that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would not see cuts and those making over $250,000 would see their taxes rise. I wonder if Pelosi will really be able to deliver their votes for an Obama plan that makes safety net cuts. I think perhaps not, and I think that may be one reason Obama tried to cut such a bad deal with Boehner. He doubts he will get the votes in the new Congress to so obviously screw the poor and working class.


    Well, Pelosi thinks chained CPI makes (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:04:00 PM EST
    Social Security stronger, if you can believe that - and, sadly, I actually can believe she thinks that.  She's nothing if not a good little do-bee, so I've no doubt that if Obama wants chained CPI, that's what she will fight for.

    Thank goodness for the Bold Progressives:

    Earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she would support President Obama's proposed Social Security benefit cuts -- even arguing that using the "chained CPI" would not be a benefit cut after previously telling President Obama "that House Democrats will not vote for any trims to future benefits in Medicare or Social Security, even a tweak to the cost-of-living index," according to her hometown paper.

    A defiant Congressional Progressive Caucus -- which has 75 Members in the House -- pushed back, releasing a statement declaring:

    Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) are standing up against a proposal to cut Social Security benefits by changing the way we calculate inflation...Tying Social Security to chained CPI is a benefit cut and members of the CPC will not vote for a deal that cuts the benefits that millions of Americans rely on.

    Republicans in the House should be going home in shame, as should Nancy Pelosi, but it's clear that shame is a concept and an emotion that is completely foreign to them.


    With any kind of luck the local (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:34:36 PM EST
    offices of Congresspersons will be under siege.  

    I would hope and push for the Dem. House (none / 0) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:07:41 PM EST
    caucus to toss Pelosi out and elect a new leader if I wasn't so sadly and absolutely sure that they would just replace her with another faux-progressive. Someone like Van Hollen, provided Hoyer didn't somehow get the votes.

    Speaker Pelosi (none / 0) (#45)
    by Politalkix on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    is a very able leader. More power to her!

    Let's at least be clear (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:39:55 PM EST
    in the argument. No one is going to get a smaller amount from SS than they do now even if the chained CPI is in effect. Their check still goes up. There are plenty of arguments to make against a chained CPI but insinuating they will get less than they do now is a false argument.

    Who has made that claim? All the comments (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    about chained CPI that I have seen or read discuss the fact that chained CPI will reduce future benefits.

    So, the actual dollar amount that someone receives today will not decrease. What will decrease is the actual dollar amount of benefits people receive next year and the year after and five years out, etc. If the current CPI continues to be used people will receive more in monthly benefits in future years than they will receive if chained CPI becomes the standard.

    Chained CPI is a ridiculous COLA measure to use, especially for the elderly and the sick. It does not take into consideration the very costs that affect seniors and the sick the most, among them the rising cost of medications and medical care. Also, it does not consider the rising cost of such necessities as heating fuel, which is related to the price of oil and natural gas,  and rents.

    And Social Security has no bearing at all on the deficit. There is no good reason for Obama to even be talking about this. It is just meanness and callousness.


    That would be accurate (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:38:37 PM EST
    It's not a cut (SS is never cut), it just averages out to less of an increase.

    And my math could be off but I believe if it was to go into effect this January (which it won't), the average social security check for a non-married SS recipient will increase somewhere between $2.50 & $4.00 less per month than it would under the old CPI plan.


    What I am getting from your comments (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:52:36 PM EST
    is that you consider $4 less per month in SS to be insignificant. If that is true, you are so very wrong. To someone with limited income, like the many people for whom SS is their only income, that $4 means quite a bit.

    My only income is SS. Even with the COLA for 2013, my expenses exceed the COLA increase. My Medicare premium is rising. My Part D premium is rising as is the actual dollar amounts I must pay for the medications I currently take. My rent is increasing. My car insurance ditto. Even the local paper is raising its subscription rates, although the daily paper is not a necessity.

    I rarely eat meat. Too costly. So, choosing to buy cheaper pork if the cost of beef rises will not be a decision I make. Other things, things I do buy, like dairy and eggs and bread and vegetables and fruit are going up in price. Should I give up vegetables and fruits and just eat rice and beans? And then switch to cat food when some speculator on the commodities market decides to make a run on rice futures, and rice becomes first hard to find and then too expensive?

    And you do know that the cut in benefits increases the longer one lives. So, a $4/month loss now will be more in 5 years and much more in 10 years and more still in 15 years and so on.


    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:29:12 PM EST
    all economic indicators point to higher commodities, especially food, going forward. World population is growing exponentially and food shortages have already reared its ugly head. Combined with the effects of climate change ( global warming) food riots, as we've already seen, will become more frequent. China is a huge buyer of American farm land, as are other developing countries.

    I hate to be a pessimist on the future but you don't have to be a financial wizzard to understand what I'm saying makes sense. This year alone 75% of American farm land was officially designated as suffering drought.

    The chickens are coming home to roost.


    Try living on rice and beans (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Amiss on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:05:38 AM EST
    If you are diabetic, which I am. My rice allowance is 1/3 cup, cooked rice, it is a carbohydrate. Diabetics must limit their carbs. My total for a day (and this is pushing it) is 60 grams. My Doctor had a fit with me today because my A1C is rising. Anyone wonder why? I went through pancreatitis once (no I dont drink and we dont smoke) and can eat very very few raw vegs or fruits, even if I could afford to buy such "luxuries", they are verboten in my world.
    Just so you all know how dire these few dollars are to a senior, Obama and the Republicans are killing me each and every day.

    I'm not arguing one way or the other (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:10:40 PM EST
    just stating the math. As a lifelong penny pincher (which allowed me to quit my job recently when I no longer enjoyed it), I'd be happy to take the $4 a month if I was old enough for SS. Being unemployed I'm probably spending less a month than even you. And 4 bucks is 2 pounds of boneless skinless chicken breasts when they are on sale :)

    Now, I'm assuming based on non-confirmed rumors that there will be no effect from this on SSI or the elderly. If that isn't included I could fall off the fence.


    President Obama and Speaker Pelosi (1.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Politalkix on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    do not have the luxury to make seniors their only constituency, they have to help everyone in the country, including young people mentioned in this article whose situation is even more dire. They cannot just say no to compromises under any circumstance-people need unemployment benefits extended and the country cannot afford another recession at this time and more layoffs.

    Rediculous. (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:54:14 PM EST
    Ask any "young person" if he/she would trade places with a senior.

    Youth, by definition, is a benefit in itself.


    Seniors are not the only people who (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:12:12 PM EST
    are affected by the chained CPI. It determines benefits and eligibility for a vast number of programs for people of all ages and tax liability for the young and the middle age as well as seniors. IIRC COLA calculations are used in a large number of federal programs. Listed below are just a few:

    Social Security retirement, disability, and survivors' benefits (disability and survivor benefits are not restricted to seniors), veteran benefits, and government pensions.

    The new index could reduce the number of people eligible for programs such as Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps, school lunches, housing assistance and home heating assistance.

    The tax increase associated with the chained CPI is not age specific and would hit the working poor and the middle class the hardest.


    Total misconception that the chained CPI (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:24:30 PM EST
    only impacts seniors.

    First of all, it's important to note that the CPI formula doesn't affect just Social Security. Rather, it appears in hundreds of different places on both the revenue and spending side of government. Almost every government retirement, disability and income-support program pays annual cost of living adjustments that are linked to the CPI. On the tax side, dozens of elements, from the standard deduction to limits on contributions to 401K plans to the earned income and child tax credits, are adjusted every year based on the CPI.

    If you think Obama and Pelosi are (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:16:13 AM EST
    acting out of an abundance of concern for young people, well, you are a fool. Obama has made clear that his loyalty is to Pete Petersen and his gang of 1% bloodsuckers and to the big banks and Wall Streeters who got us into the Great Recession and caused so much of the damage to old and young alike.

    And, since Social Security has no impact on the deficit and is not part of the general budget, screwing with it will not free up money to help anyone else.  

    Obama is once again squandering the good will and support of the American people. He has no reason to give up anything to Boehner. The American people have already made clear that they hold the GOP at fault for any deadlock or gridlock or whatever. They have made abundantly clear that they do not support cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. They do not support ripping the safety net to shreds. They believed Obama and voted for him when he said he would not cut these programs.

    They do support raising taxes on those making over $250,000, which was Obama's promise to the voters. They do support cutting the Pentagon budget which is so bloated and out of control it is a national disgrace.


    Your memory is selective (none / 0) (#65)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:04:30 AM EST
    You forgot to mention that Obama promised that there would be no sequestration which meant that he indicated he would compromise.
    You have resorted to lying when you say that BHO is ripping the safety net to shreds. You have not been able to provide any solution regarding how to extend unemployment benefits for those who are unemployed, how to wrangle some money for infrastructure development that can help the economy and how to prevent sequestration job losses which is going to further erode the tax base and have therefore resorted to name calling. You would also be lying if you suggest that seniors as a collective demographic group helped the President win. They did not. The majority of them voted for Republicans. Some of them (and some who will soon be seniors)who did not vote for the Republicans were proudly calling people who voted for him, fools and idiots. It is now interesting to see that they want to shape every aspect of the President's agenda (now that he has won) to fit only their narrow concerns while trying to throw the people who worked hard to re-elect the President under the bus!
    Seniors should not be thrown under the bus (for moral reasons, irrespective of how thy voted), however they should learn to share a seat in the bus with other people. If the President and Speaker Pelosi can make them take a seat without handing over the keys, more power to them!

    Amusing to see how people are using troll ratings (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:09:53 AM EST
    in this thread! Just saying....

    I don't understand what you mean with (none / 0) (#52)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:13:53 PM EST
    this :

    Now, I'm assuming based on non-confirmed rumors that there will be no effect from this on SSI or the elderly. If that isn't included I could fall off the fence.

    Are you saying that you don't think chained CPI ill affect SSI and the elderly?


    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:23:54 PM EST
    there are rumors the chained CPI offer won't effect SSI or those who have been collecting SS for either 15 or 20 years (I've seen both numbers mentioned).

    It's why I prefer not to yell until I know all the details. At the same time, if we wait for the details I would agree that it's sometimes then too late to yell.


    I don't know where those rumors are (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    coming from, but they are wrong. Every discussion of this has been about chained CPI's effect on SS. Even Obama, when questioned about going back on his campaign promise to not cut SS benefits, responded with his usual yammering about the need to make the tough decisions and how there will be pain and tough cuts must be made.

    Chained CPI will start affecting people who receive federal benefits, including SS, as soon as it is passed.

    Even if the implementation was delayed for 15 years, chained CPI would still be wrong policy. It would still adversely affect those who could least afford it.

    I am not opposed to cuts in SS or Medicare only to the extent that they might affect me personally. I am opposed to these cuts for future beneficiaries. I oppose these cuts for my nephews and my godchildren and their children.

    If we have learned nothing else from the Great Recession we have learned that Wall Street is populated by conmen and grifters who will take people's hard-earned retirement money and gamble it away. The only sure thing as far as retirement income is Social Security. We should be increasing benefits, not cutting them.


    The loss would be cummulative over time (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    First of all, this is a benefit cut of about 0.3% a year, as Dean Baker points out. He adds that "This loss would be cumulative through time so that after 10 years the cut would be roughly 3 percent, after 20 years 6 percent, and after 30 years 9 percent." Actually if we started using chained CPI in 2002, we'd be 3.6% behind today. That's well over $1,000 a year, and the situation grows worse over time. So the greatest impact would be on the oldest seniors, which happens to correlate with the poorest.

    I would expect (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:14:36 PM EST
    all Dems will vote for a proposed deal should one be forthcoming. And it will likely be easier to pass in January than it is now.

    Are you saying you believe all Dems will (none / 0) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:17:51 PM EST
    vote for a proposal that contains chained CPI? That the Progressive Caucus and all the others who have said over the last few days that they will not vote for such a plan are lying to us?

    I'm saying (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:29:57 PM EST
    the Dems will vote in lock step as needed. No one will block a vote in the Senate, and then they will be free to vote differently as long as it has 51 votes.

    Same in the House. As long as there are enough votes to pass they will be free to vote anyway they want.

    Progressive Dems are not going to get in bed with the Tea Party.


    "The Dems will vote in lock step (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:03:54 PM EST
    as needed."

    Just had to repeat that statement. It brought back memories  of all the discussions of how the Republicans voted in lock step with Dubya. IIRC voting in lock step wasn't viewed as something positive then.


    Depends (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:14:43 PM EST
    on what side of the fence you're on.

    If you favor more gun control, how would you feel if the Dems didn't vote in lockstep against an assault weapons ban and it lost?


    I guess it would depend on (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:21:35 PM EST
    whether or not it was a good bill or a bad bill.
    Some pieces of legislation don't really do what the title implies. Also, some can do more harm than good. Case in point would be the chained CPI.

    Boehner's cute gimmick failed (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:51:42 PM EST
    No surprise, who would want to stick their neck out the tea party for a cute gimmick?

    I thought it was self-evident (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:44:32 PM EST
    No, "coherent, plausible, empirical, or
    logical," argument against.