Don't think framing and marketing are important?  He brushes past an important truth about SS and its relationship to the deficit & how its being treated....

 

 

.

.

"Everything is legal if the government can see you"-  KRS-ONE

Original Post
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

Don't think framing and marketing are important?  He brushes past an important truth about SS and its relationship to the deficit & how its being treated....

 

If he brushed past Social Security's relationship to the deficit, it's because there is no relationship to the deficit that Social Security has.  

 

It's a lie for politicians to claim that Social Security has anything to do with the deficit or spending in the first place.  

 

The Deficit and Social Security are apples and oranges, neither one has anything to do with the other.  

 

Even when you look at the cost of Medicare, right now, Social Security's surplus (solvency for the next 50 years) takes care of that as it's simultaneously being replaced by present and future contributions until then.

 

Any rhetoric that attempts to tie Social Security to the deficit is no more than political attempts to socially condition the American people to actually believe that one has anything to do with the other, and to believe that there should be "cuts"(i.e., redirecting tax payers money to their pet project, special interest groups government subsidies and government contract) to social security to "help" the deficit.

 

The government "cutting" Social Security is equivalent to the government withdrawing money from American workers' Saving Accounts to so-called "help" the deficit, and to actually claim that Americans saving so much money in their Saving Accounts or spending so much of their money in their savings accounts on healthcare, has contributed in some way to the deficit.  

 

(And the interviewer was correct in saying the "so-called" deficit).  

 

Don't go for this shell game politicians are trying to play on the American public in an attempt to get their hands on Social Security funds.  And, since/if President Obama proposes to or makes a deal to touch one dime of Social Security, then he is/will also be betraying the majority of people that voted for him.

Last edited by sunnubian

If he brushed past Social Security's relationship to the deficit, it's because there is no relationship to the deficit that Social Security has.

 

That was the point he made.

 

And, since/if President Obama proposes to or makes a deal to touch one dime of Social Security, then he is/will also be betraying the majority of people that voted for him.

It appears that's is what he's purposing and why the progressives caucus is objecting.

 

He pointed out another fact that is missed (mostly due to ignorance of SS and its function).  SS is being treated as a source of revenue.  Rick Wolff (in one of the updates I posted) broke it down (regarding both how politically and what economic reasoning is....)

 

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

If he brushed past Social Security's relationship to the deficit, it's because there is no relationship to the deficit that Social Security has.

 

That was the point he made.

 

And, since/if President Obama proposes to or makes a deal to touch one dime of Social Security, then he is/will also be betraying the majority of people that voted for him.

It appears that's is what he's purposing and why the progressives caucus is objecting.

 

He pointed out another fact that is missed (mostly due to ignorance of SS and its function).  SS is being treated as a source of revenue.  Rick Wolff (in one of the updates I posted) broke it down (regarding both how politically and what economic reasoning is....)

 

Yep ... "Framing and marketing" indeed .... 

 

Considering that "Progressives" (aka the 'far-left') are pretty much the extremist opposites of "Conservatives" (aka the 'far-right'), I would take into consideration that BOTH sides tend to be adamantly (read: fanatically) protective of their own individual agendas.

 

In other words .... touching military spending is JUST AS objectionable to far-right Republicans as touching 'entitlements' is to far-left Progressives.  And, therefore, the complaints of each side usually tend to be skewed in their own separate directions, 

 

If the Congressman would have been completely honest, he would have pointed out that current SS recipients (nor their dependents nor their spouses) would not be affected by the proposal that the President has put forth.  And that future adjustments and proposals could be made to that proposal for the recipients that it would affect in the future.

 

The supposed "cuts" to benefits would not reduce the amount of money that that those affected are/will be eligible to receive.  And future "cost of living" adjustments are already calculated into the eligibility amounts based on when the recipient will start to collect it ... and the amount of income the person will have paid into it at that time.

 

Also ... the Rep. failed to mention the fact that the cuts to the military will be in conjunction with increased taxes on the rich ... which actually brings the amount being suggested towards deficit reduction heavier on the Republican side than the Democrats are being proposed to give up.

 

So ... yeah .... "framing and marketing" is everything!!    And the "Progressive" caucus has their own (extremist) ways of doing those things to achieve their own public sentiment to their side ... just as much as the "Conservative" caucus does.

 

However ... as I always have - and always will - (and apparently as the President does too!!!) I firmly believe that the equitable solution is 'somewhere near the middle'.  And NO resolution can nor will be found on the extreme ends of either side.

 

Hence, the reason why a "fiscal cliff" was even created in the first place.  

Considering that "Progressives" (aka the 'far-left') are pretty much the extremist opposites of "Conservatives" (aka the 'far-right'), I would take into consideration that BOTH sides tend to be adamantly (read: fanatically) protective of their own individual agendas.

LOL

 

I cannot speak for Sunnubian but wouldn't be surprised at an objection to this idea.....especially since its both debunked and shown to be unsubstantiated time and time again.  Not to mention, in the U.S s  "the far left" has been defined (by Right Wing radio et al ) as any thing NOT conservative.   SS, universal heath care, and free college educations are NOT far left positions by any means.

 

Outside of that, Im not quite sure what point you're trying to make. 

 

 

However ... as I always have - and always will - (and apparently as the President does too!!!) I firmly believe that the equitable solution is 'somewhere near the middle'.  And NO resolution can nor will be found on the extreme ends of either side.

 

The point is not about "picking your side/extremist" to support. IMHO that is a phony option based on a false premise. 

 

**In an ironic twist, your post underscores my reasoning for posting The History of NeoLiberalism."

 

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

Considering that "Progressives" (aka the 'far-left') are pretty much the extremist opposites of "Conservatives" (aka the 'far-right'), I would take into consideration that BOTH sides tend to be adamantly (read: fanatically) protective of their own individual agendas.

LOL

 

I cannot speak for Sunnubian but wouldn't be surprised at an objection to this idea.....especially since its both debunked and shown to be unsubstantiated time and time again.  Not to mention, in the U.S s  "the far left" has been defined (by Right Wing radio et al ) as any thing NOT conservative.   SS, universal heath care, and free college educations are NOT far left positions by any means.

 

Outside of that, Im not quite sure what point you're trying to make. 

 

  

 

Okay ... hold on!!  Am I really ... really ... supposed to take an extremist's definition of who or what, is or is not, an "extremist" seriously???    'Cause that would be hilarious at the very least!  

 

But secondly .... the point I am trying to make is ... that it's just as one-sided/stubborn/ridiculous/bullheaded/unrealistic/unproductive and constituent-agenda-driven for "far-left Liberals' to say and believe that "not one penny of entitlement programs should ever be touched for any reason whatsoever" ....

 

.... as it is one-sided/stubborn/ridiculous/bullheaded/unrealistic/unproductive and constituent-agenda-driven for "far-right Conservatives" to say and believe that "not one penny of tax cuts for the rich should ever be touched for any reason whatsoever ...."

 

That's what 'extremism' is.  Untenable and irrational beliefs either on one side or the other.    And simply put ... the "far-left" is one side of the same spectrum ... as the "far-right" is the other.

 

(P.S. ..... However ... with you sounding about as staunchly "Liberal" as anybody I've ever met .... I wouldn't expect you to agree with me!  So, I never do!)   

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

 

However ... as I always have - and always will - (and apparently as the President does too!!!) I firmly believe that the equitable solution is 'somewhere near the middle'.  And NO resolution can nor will be found on the extreme ends of either side.

 

The point is not about "picking your side/extremist" to support. IMHO that is a phony option based on a false premise. 

 

**In an ironic twist, your post underscores my reasoning for posting The History of NeoLiberalism."

 

 

Exactly!!!   

 

"The point" is about finding fair and equitable AGREEMENT .... that generally resides somewhere in the middle!!

(P.S. ..... However ... with you sounding about as staunchly "Liberal" as anybody I've ever met .... I wouldn't expect you to agree with me!  So, I never do!) 

 

 

 

 

Exactly where did this idea that "the truth is in the middle" come from?  What does it mean to "move the middle"? And is there any reason to believe that "the middle" is a true equal distance between the two supposed "extremes" (however you define them)?

 

 

Check out the post on Neo-Liberalism, there has been a clear (meaning non conspiratorial) shift how the middle ground is perceived.   Anything "non right" is considered extreme left, while the middle is a choice between Far Right and Right.  Im not making this up, lol, there are numerous books, articles and studies (detailing the amount and times particular viewpoints are expressed) that illustrate this.

 

Define Left.

 

Define the policies or ideology of the left.

 

Define Far Left

 

Define the policies or ideology of the Far Left.

 

**Pick your favorite polling institution and look at their data.  Match the attitudes reflected in the data with what we are told is the "best" possible solution politically (on any issue) OR the most viable solution politically**

 

***if you're really feeling it....look up some studies on 'What Americans think income distribution is....what they think it should be.......and what it actually is** 

 

Then revisit your definitions and see what you find. 

You know .... I don't even like Joe Lieberman (never have!!) but ... when one has a desire to seek "agreement" and/or "middle ground" ... on some things two people with opposite views can agree!! 

 

 

Outgoing Sen. Joe Lieberman criticizes colleagues for putting party above country


By Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge, Jordyn Phelps & Sherisse Pham | Power Players – 



Sen. Joe Lieberman reacts to school shooting


Spinners and Winners

 

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has seen a lot in his 24 years in the U.S. Senate, but the outgoing senator says he has never seen Congress more divided or less productive.

 

"We are exactly where our first president George Washington warned us not to go, where members of Congress would put the interest of their party or political faction, as Washington described it, higher than the interest of our country," says Lieberman.

 

"If you look at the record it's either the interest of the party or a rigid adherence to an ideological position that says I will only take 100 percent of what I want on this piece of legislation or I won't vote for it," adds the senator. "When you ask for 100 percent in a democracy where compromise is necessary, the whole country ends up with zero percent."

 

Unfortunately, one of us seems to have no desire to seek "compromise/middle ground" ... which is why you and I will probably never be able to come to such an amicable agreement.  

 
 
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

 

Check out the post on Neo-Liberalism, there has been a clear (meaning non conspiratorial) shift how the middle ground is perceived.  

 

 

Ummmm .... "perceived" by whom, exactly??  

 

Anything "non right" is considered extreme left, while the middle is a choice between Far Right and Right.  Im not making this up, lol, there are numerous books, articles and studies (detailing the amount and times particular viewpoints are expressed) that illustrate this.

 And "books, articles, studies" .. by who??  

 

PLEASE ... PLEASE help me understand .... not just who's opinions/"perceptions" these are supposed to be ... but more importantly ... why do you find them to be important??  And MOST importantly ... why should they be important to me??  

 

I say this in ALL seriousness, M.C .... I couldn't care less about some abstract, unknown, and frankly, (in this case kinda ignorant) "opinion" in somebody's book, article, study, on TV ... or a YouTube video.

 

As someone who constantly laments the "wrong" messages and perspectives being given out ... especially to our people ,, to inflict erroneous influence about things that aren't necessarily true ... I have to ask ... why would you give a statement like that any credibility ... and then try to hold it up to me for a viable response ... when, in fact, something like that doesn't even deserve one!!

 

I mean, think about this, M.C.:

Anything "non right" is considered extreme left, while the middle is a choice between Far Right and Right.

 .... does that statement even MAKE SENSE to you??    And if it does ... please, pleeeaase, tell me why?????????  Because that's got to be about the dumbest thing I've heard in a really long, long time!! 

 

"The middle is a choice between Far Right and Right." I mean .... Huh???   No, I'm not saying you made it up ... but somebody else sure in the hell did!!  And sounds like they might have been on some kind of hallucinogenics. That can't make enough sense to be taken seriously.

 

It's a matter of 'somebody's' opinion!!  I don't know whose ... but there's nothing that makes it true, right, nor correct ... just because somebody thought it!!  Especially if it's the concept of some extremist with an agenda!!  

 

The only thing that should be important in determining the FACTS of something .... are the FACTS!!!  REAL numbers ... VIABLE facts ... MEANINGFUL statistics ... CREDIBLE experiences ... a COMPLETE accounting of EVERYTHING that's going on in that situation!!

 

**Pick your favorite polling institution and look at their data.  Match the attitudes reflected in the data with what we are told is the "best" possible solution politically (on any issue) OR the most viable solution politically**

 

Why would I (or more importantly, you) prefer to believe what some (God knows who?) person wants to TELL me is a viable political solution .... when I have both the access and the intellect to view the same actual data that shows the facts ... and can formulate my OWN opinion of what a "viable solution" should be??

 

None of those CNN/MSNBC/FOX/CBS/ABC/NBC commentator's opinions are 'the gospel' or somehow 'dipped in gold' just because they tell them on TV.  And I hope you already know that.  The same goes for 'somebody's' opinion in a book, article, study or anywhere else.

 

You should ALWAYS be able to decipher fact from opinion.  And use and accept EACH for their true and due value.  And quit listening to "other" people.  Unless you have some inability to think for yourself. 

Last edited by EbonyRose

I say this in ALL seriousness, M.C .... I couldn't care less about some abstract, unknown, and frankly, (in this case kinda ignorant) "opinion" in somebody's book, article, study, on TV ... or a YouTube video.

Long ago,  I learned there's a difference between an opinion and an informed position.  You're correct in that anyone can have an opinion (including no opinion).  However, merely having an opinion doesn't make it right (acceptable) or wrong (dismissible).

 

The question is what is your (or my) opinion based on?  

 

Lets keep it 100....there are no shortage of people who formulate opinions based on nothing!  Absolutely NO knowledge of the subject AT ALL!  Is it an opinion? Yes.  Do I give it the same amount of weight as someone who's spent the last 15 years doing field (or secondary) work, making their methodology known and open for critique?  Nope.

 

 

.. does that statement even MAKE SENSE to you??    And if it does ... please, pleeeaase, tell me why?????????  Because that's got to be about the dumbest thing I've heard in a really long, long time!!

 

.. Huh???   No, I'm not saying you made it up ... but somebody else sure in the hell did!!  And sounds like they might have been on some kind of hallucinogenics. That can't make enough sense to be taken seriously.

 

One of the things I've noticed in discussions on social justice issues, economic and geopolitical issues etc, is the lack of ideological context for the decisions being made.  I am serious about the middle being right and far right, that's based on knowing what  neo conservatism (neo liberalism outside the U.S.) is, what fuels its ideological reasoning and the policies that are crafted as a result of that.  

 

I was serious when I asked you to define the policies of the Left (and Right for that matter) and do some simple comparative analysis.  Heard of the term "Liberal bias" or the declaration of the NYT being a "Liberal Newspaper"?  Why is that and who are the ones calling it that? If they are liberal--what is that in comparison to, since they don't self describe they way and people who do self describe as liberal don't see the NYT's as liberal.

 

Its about controlling the range of ideas.  The choice between total governing rule by market forces (that's an actual position on the Right) or corporations who are allowed to make decisions on governance as long as its deemed not going too far (that isn't remotely a Left position). 

 

This isn't really a novel idea.  Its simple concept.  You push far beyond what you'd really expect (in a negotiation or debate) making what you'd really like to walk away with feel a bit more reasonable.  And in doing so, you've shifted the range of what's offered for consideration in the next cycle. 

 

The health care discussion is a good example.  Why did President Obama state from the beginning "we need to come up with a Market based solution?"  When you understand the ideological reasoning at play you see why Single payer-Medicare for all was off the table from the start and not even allowed to be scored by the CBO.  The "Public Option" was a sold as a compromise (and possible stepping stone to a single payer system), and then it also wasn't included.

 

Add ideological context to the mix and the picture looks a bit different.  Why did Margret Thacture coin the phrase There Is No Alternative (commonly referred to as TINA)?  Alternative to what?  Where did the Heritage Foundation, The Kato Institute, and The Business Roundtable come from?  How and why are the ideas that originate from those institutions freely discussed with little or no objections?  There's a lot attention given to the Koch Bros and ALEC legislation because its so blatant, but its been the norm for some time. 

 

 

 

 

The only thing that should be important in determining the FACTS of something .... are the FACTS!!!  REAL numbers ... VIABLE facts ... MEANINGFUL statistics ... CREDIBLE experiences ... a COMPLETE accounting of EVERYTHING that's going on in that situation!!

I think you misunderstood my point.  One thing about scientific polls (not CNN, MSNBC,FOX etc)--they include an appendix of how the survey was conducted. So if you're so inclined you can make a judgment their statistical methods (sample sizes, extrapolations etc.).  But this also demands a bit of understanding of the significance of how data is collected and the real degree of its accuracy.   Outside of that, why do you keep making references to sources I DONT cite?

 

 

 

 

 

**just for clarity--I do not subscribe to the idea's or labels "left and right".  It implies a false sense of necessity for balance (i.e. you need to have a bit of both to be whole or complete). That is false as a matter of history.

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

Lets keep it 100....there are no shortage of people who formulate opinions based on nothing!  Absolutely NO knowledge of the subject AT ALL!  Is it an opinion? Yes.  Do I give it the same amount of weight as someone who's spent the last 15 years doing field (or secondary) work, making their methodology known and open for critique?  Nope.

 

 

 

Well ... all that's well and good, but my point is .... an opinion - whether "informed" or not - is still an opinion. And somebody else's opinion, at that.

 

And the thing about opinions - whether based on facts and data or not - is that they oftentimes can be 'tainted' when driven by agenda.  And the better, more reliable indication of what is closer to the truth .., are the actual facts and data themselves. (Which, of course, can be tainted in their own way ... but that's another thread!)

 

Just because somebody holds themselves out as an "expert" doesn't mean they are.  And a rational, reasonably intelligent person should - and in most cases can, formulate their own opinions, based on that same information and data, for themselves.

 

It may turn out that your opinion is in complete agreement with that other opinion.  Or it may turn out that the TRUTH is that there are other factors to be considered that make your/their opinions different.  

 

However ... you need to FIRST have an understanding of what is being said and what the issue is REALLY about.  Which is not something you generally get just by listening to other people's opinions.  YOU need to have an understanding of the TRUE nature of the issue ... otherwise all you can do is just get taken along for the ride.

 

To that end, you don’t seem to exhibit a TRUE understanding of POLITICS …. in and of itself … as it’s its OWN animal!!!  And, in fact, you don't seem to have much of a desire to do so.  Therefore, you are basing your opinion on what you’re hearing other people say … and what their opinion is!!  Which is why I have been imploring you (obviously unsuccessfully) to gain a better understanding of the real-world workings inside of the political arena.  So that your opinions are based on YOUR interpretation of what is factual and what is not.

 

 

**just for clarity--I do not subscribe to the idea's or labels "left and right".  It implies a false sense of necessity for balance (i.e. you need to have a bit of both to be whole or complete). That is false as a matter of history.

 

Well ... just for further clarity ... I don't subscribe to those ideas or labels, either!!    But not because of some implication of 'a false sense of necessity for balance'.

 

The reason I don't give those labels any credibility is because their basically made-up “definitions” used more to divide and create chaos than being anything of any substantive nature.  In other words ... it's a bunch of "White people speak"  …. relatively new to the political vocabulary and are of little consequence to the actual political process.

 

The reason why what is "left" and what is "right" and why names/titles/labels such as  "progressive" and "conservative" are so confusing IS because they are so arbitrary … and the line that determines who is what and where along that spectrum gets blurred, shifted, redefined or eliminated at whim!!

 

As you alluded to …. one person calling another a “Liberal” … doesn’t mean they are!!  In fact, too many times it’s done simply out of a desire to be derogatory towards that other person!!  And the term “Blue Dog Democrat” (aka a “conservative” Democrat) is actually an oxymoron!!  Because there is no room for “conservatism” in the Democratic Party platform agenda.

 

The fact is, if you look at political history … as recently far back as the Reagan days, you rarely, if ever, heard those terms used as part of political vocabulary.  Simply because there wasn’t the kind of fractured ideological division that you have today.  Therefore, such “labels” weren’t really needed.

 

The same will be true (in the future) of the term "Tea Party Conservative."  While it's common political language today ... the fact is ... there WASN'T a "Tea Party" until two years ago!!  

 

It’s kinda like Christianity … and the fact that you have a couple of hundred different denominations (interpretations) for what is essentially the SAME religious belief.  But this person doesn’t want to agree with that person or be caught thinking like somebody else …. so you’re left with what are essentially a bunch of broken, scattered pieces to what is the SAME (ideological) belief.

 

Well, in politics … there are only TWO factions that are of any importance … there are DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS.  Period.  And where the 'rubber hits the road', being one or the other is really all that matters when it comes time to vote (create laws/legislation) … or to support their Party’s agenda (or not).

 

 You want to talk about the health care bill and the lack of the option of a “public option” being a part of it  … but you’re totally missing the POINT of that omission …. by feeding into the MYTH that the Democrats had a “super majority” in the Senate at the time.  The fact is … there were 60 Democrats in name only …. because five of those so-called “Democrats” were really Republicans (ideologically-speaking) and not “Party supporters” that could be expected to ‘tow the Party line.”

 

The reason why there isn't a "public option" option is NOT because the President refused to put it in.  It's because it wasn't going to be voted into the law even if he had insisted on putting it in.  Period.  So the President took what he could get. 

 

And while I’m sure that means NOTHING to you … it is the REALITY of the reason why there is no “public option” included in the new health care reform law.  However … listening to the opinions of others that don’t understand that is what gives YOU the wrong opinion, yourself!!  But .. if you look at the “facts and data” of POLITICS and understand how it works ... you would know this to be true.

Since President Obama has been elected to govern this country, 300 million inhabitants of the United States have also become Presidents of the United States.  Everyone's running their mouths 24/7/365 about how to govern this joint, and not much is getting accomplished.  
Everyone's a genius these days (in their minds). 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×