Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Shrill works

At least on the relatively trivial task of taking destroying Social Security off the table at a White House conference sponsored by Democrats. Nevertheless, shrill worked. More like this, please. Much, much, much more.

He's only been in office thirty days, and already shrillness has prevented him from helping the right destroy the last shreds of the New Deal! Yay!

NOTE Speaking of shrill, I just have to link to this again. Yves can really bring it.

0
No votes yet

Comments

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

But according to your link, "progressive" activists in the Obama administration have bought completely into the lie that S.S. is in trouble and needs to be saved. To me, that's the more important story here.

We may have temporarily dodged a bullet, but the gun is still loaded. And as I've said before, a well intentioned incompetent person can lead to disater as much as an ill intentioned competent person.

Submitted by jawbone on

quote:

One liberal activist who weighed in against the proposed task force told me that some within the administration are ready to attempt "one more fix" for Social Security, thinking of the 70-year-old benefits program "as an equation to be solved" and the Obama team as the mathematicians on the case.

"We just think the timing is terrible" to formally open such a Social Security task force now, this activist added. "At a time when the economy is terrible and people are losing their 401(k)s, you want people to feel more comfortable about their retirement." (My emphasis)

Sounds like a breather, but we should expect more WH efforts to "reform" SocSec.

One battle down, war not over.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Hence my statement above:

And as I've said before, a well intentioned incompetent person can lead to disater as much as an ill intentioned competent person.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Helen: And it'll be solvent until 2040.

Gibbs: Uh, because, uh, we need to cut the deficit.

Helen calls out the damn lie about Social Security and mentions how hard people are already struggling while Gibbs just fumbles around. To me, it's obvious that the White House knows they're looting Social Security, right when we're facing a disastrous economy. If anything, Social Security benefits need to be increased in order to help stimulate the economy and yet they're going to cut them.

ht: Jane at FDL. Read her latest post on it.

Submitted by jawbone on

going to be messed around with. He almost broke through the bamboozlement fog in his first response to Helen:

There are many issues in front of us, but we are not going to get ourselves onto a sustainable path of fiscal responsibility unless or until we address many of those issues. (My emphasis)

But he caught himself in time to prevent the public from seeing clearly what is going on behind the curtain.

This is no time to relax, even take the breather I thought we were getting. No, the pushback has to be continual and loud.

Now, as to Josh and his obstinacy in not making this an upfront issue? On the front page? Wow. He really wants to keep whatever access he has, doesn't he? Or is at least cowed into not addressing this SocSec issue, formerly one of his standout efforts.

BTW, Elana Schor of TPM was on MSNBC tonight and in talking about Repub criticism of Obama brought up Hillary Clinton saying, in that 60 Minutes interview, that Obama was not Muslim "as far as I know." Ms. Schor said the words in quotes in the most sarcastically disdainful snide tone imaginable, with accompanying facial expression. CDS is alive and well within at least this one TPM writer.

It was infuriating to see someone of the left perpetuating that canard against Hillary, and I have to admit I will now have to evaluate her reporting in light of how she reacted. How does her DCS affect overall reporting?

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

How did she tie republican criticism of Obama into Hillary's comment?

Why would she even bring up that incident, in which Hillary kept saying, "What are you talking about?" until finally, finally she said those fatal words: as far as I know.

Elana, what are you trying to do here? Why bring it up?

Submitted by jawbone on

The Repub stuff was mindless. But then Elana compared that to Hillary and her tone hardened and I looked at the TV. Sorry, can't remember the preceding "discourse."

And, what you write is spot on. But for some people, it was what they wanted to hear and use against Hillary. Darn.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

when it came to Hillary's negatives. Now, I think, it's all about her being in a better place than Elana' s hero - he's in deep doo-doo.

He wanted the job; he's got it.

Hillary has her job, the one that was offered to her.

Elana got her donkey.

Be happy in the life you have chosen, dearie. :)

Submitted by jawbone on

works hard to deflect and obfuscate. The last SocSec exchange follows (from Jane's post)"

REPORTER #5: Back to Social Security. Any speculation about a task force or whatever aside, do you think that it's politically and practically possible at this time to tackle major Social Security reform when you've got all these other big economic challenges that the president's been talking about doing?

GIBBS: I think that the discussions...all of what we're talking about, whether it's fiscal responsibility, financial stability, health care, education, energy independence, recovery -- are contained in the larger economic challenges that the country faces now. The President understands he wasn't elected to preside over a series of fundamentally easy choices and decisions to get us from where we are to where he knows this country can be. Some of those decisions will be hard -- he's made many of them in a budget that you'll see on Thursday -- but I think the president understands that we have any number of big challenges that have to be addressed, and that we can't shy away from.

REPORTER #5: Do you think your Democratic allies have the political stomach to deal with tackling major Social Security reform now?

GIBBS: I think that it is going to be hard...I think that it's going to be hard to address a lot of our challenges without dealing with all of them at the same time. (My emphasis)

Say what, Mr. Gibbs?

I was feeling a lot better about SocSec and Obama before reading all this.... Ah, a fool's paradise.

Oh, kudos to the reporters for follow-up questions! Now, why couldn't they have done this during BushCo's years??

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

In my post earlier today on this same subject.

Social Security DOESN'T NEED ANY FIX. Fix Social Security bipartisan-speak for LOOT Social Security.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Even talking about raising the income ceiling is joining the social security is in trouble frame. If you raise the ceiling, the inevitable "compromise" will be to cut benefits as well. IIRC, this is what Krugman has been saying for a while.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

knows the score. I wish she were 20 years younger.

What cowards and fools and enablers the rest of them are.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

while Chimpy was prez. They made sure of that.

The fact that she hasn't shamed the rest of them into better reporting is tres sad.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.