are people starting to mistrust "Progressive" sites like FDL yet?

[27inCali]

I don't doubt at all the sincerity of those who have spoken up particularly loud about SS. They are are absolutely right that fucking NO ONE should be messing with SS unless it's raising the cap on taxable income, and if the irresponsible 'journalists' who have been pushing this BS meme were right, then hell, I'd be screaming "Cat Food" too. But at what point do we start to realize that a lot of so called "Progressive" writers are yanking our chain all the time? scaring the hell out of us about our own leaders, driving traffic to their site with speculative sensationalism? How many times do they need to be caught being dead fucking wrong about their paranoid, divisive postulations before people start taking it with a grain of salt?


Is our President not to the Left enough? - I can agree with that. Are there a lot of ACTUAL policies that good strong Lefties are gonna feel the need to criticize? yeah. Let's drop the speculative BS and get back to what's actually happening.

We absolutely need strong pressure from the Left again and again to remind our leaders of what we sent them there to do. We gotta put the heat on them when they don't listen. By why do we have to split the Left half of the spectrum in two every couple of months because of some bullshit Progressive bloggers have dreamed up? And yes, there are ways to keep pressure coming from the left that don't include constantly denigrating the leader of our party or disseminating paranoid fantasies that sound more like Tea-Bagger lore than anything we should be reading from self-proclaimed Lefties.

I think folks would do well to realize that a lot of Progressive bloggers made more money and got more attention in the days of Bush, and will do just fine if not better financially should the Rs returned to power -hell, the energy that they spend dividing Lefties upon each other, you'd think that this is what they were trying to achieve all along..

[Enrique]

1. people were all pissed of FDL was speculating about the public option

telling us, "wait for Obama's big speech, you'll see!"

I'm glad FDL and others were calling it as they saw it, and it's even more important now with Social Security.

[mzmolly]

4. Who said wait for the big speech? FDL called many things wrong.

Thank goodness people like Ezra Klein were around to counter the fact challenged.

[Enrique]

5. thank goodness for both Klein and FDL

I trust FDL more, maybe you trust Klein more. I'm glad they're both there.

[impik]

8. You didn't see them asking to wait for the speech when they came up with their stupid lying BS

Losers.

[mzmolly]

19. Nope. Didn't see "them" saying wait for the speech.

I did hear all the horror stories surrounding covering an additional 30 million people in the HC reform bill, however.

[brentspeak]

16. FDL called what wrong?

Please enlighten us.

[mzmolly]

18. Sure.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/jane_hamshers_10_reaons_to_kil.html

[brentspeak]

21. After which, Ezra Klein was proven wrong by his own reader comments:

"You" probably don't have these plans, which are tilted towards the rich, not the middle class."

This is pretty close to incorrect.

Geographic variations in care is significantly more of an issue, meaning states like California, Massachusetts, New York, Florida are disproportionately impacted by these taxes. There have been a number of studies looking at this impact-- none suggest that this is about the rich having "Cadillac plans." In fact, the new Health Affairs has an article suggesting that 4% of the total variation in premium costs are accounted for by overly generous benefit packages. As others have shown, variations in care is a key driver instead.

The taxes may be good policy, but they will unquestionably impact the middle class in certain states. It actually causes me to doubt whether these taxes will be in force in 2015-ish when the taxes starting kicking-in for a reasonably large chunk of people. Based on the project impact, there's a reasonable chance these taxes are pulled long before any real increase in tax revenue is seen.

Posted by: wisewon | December 21, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"People on Medicare are not going to be paying money to private insurance. People with employer-based care will not see their situation change."

And people who have satisfactory coverage in the individual market -- a population that you ignore every time you write about the issue -- will see their premiums rise considerably as the new provisions are implemented before the mandate. For some reason, liberal talking heads don't think the think the 40+ million who are paying their own way today are unimportant. The focus has been on a) protecting people whose bills are paid by someone else and b) finding ways to fund more of the same.

I think its shameful that neither you, nor any of the other liberal bloggers you cite all the time seem to have given ten minutes thought to those who are already in the individual market. You routinely brush all objections aside by implying that the critics are ungenerous.

I didn't vote for Obama to increase the divide between haves and have nots -- and that includes those who have corporate benefits and those who do not. I voted because I wanted a *universal* health care plan. What we are now getting is an even more rigid stratification.

Posted by: Athena_news | December 21, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

""You" probably don't have these plans, which are tilted towards the rich, not the middle class. " -- Ezra Klein

So why then, are 2/3 of employers saying that they will be cutting back coverage to come in under the limit?

"Or are you going to just stamp your feet and whine that it's your RIGHT not to have to pay for your share of medical insurance costs?" --

As opposed to the 80% of citizens who are content to be charitable with other people's money? How can someone who doesn't pay anywhere near market rates for his/her coverage have the nerve to condemn those who do for voicing legitimate concerns about the consequences?

To be clear, there is a thriving market for individual coverage today. It is not perfect but the fact is, most of the people who do are currently paying will be adversely affected by this bill. They will not be eligible for subsidies and their premiums will become more expensive.

Ezra and his ilk always talk in terms of "average families" but the average is made up of a wide range of situations...and talking about families doesn't help the millions of singles who, even if they are "eligible", are unlikely to ever see a dime of subsidy.

Posted by: Athena_news | December 21, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, you can't accuse Jane of being "misleading" and at the same time pretend like the excise tax won't eventually hit almost everybody. CWA has an eye-opening report on the tax:
http://files.cwa-union.org/healthcarevoices/091217_CWAExciseTaxReport.pdf

As for bending the curve, you are the one being misleading. Your numbers are cherry-picked and your assumptions are rosy. CMS shows health spending at 21% of GDP in 2019.

What's the alternative? As someone who will probably benefit from subsidies, I say do nothing. I don't want my neighbors to have to pay for me to buy expensive insurance I can't afford to use. I want real universal health care.

Posted by: bmull | December 21, 2009 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Klein's arguments are utilitarian: if total uninsured goes down, then it is okay if some (millions) of individuals are screwed over, as long as costs/health improves.

FDL's arguments are rights-based: a bill that increases health and decreases cost is still unjust if a significant number of people are made worse off by it (say, but the mandate).

It doesn't matter how many times you say mandated insurance decreases the total number of uninsured, if you don't confront her basic accusation that it makes a lot of people worse off.

Posted by: Ulium | December 22, 2009 1:58 AM | Report abuse

[mzmolly]

22. I don't see the proof

you suggest exists in the commentary.

[jefferson_dem]

14. The way "they" see it is in the exact same way the teabaggers do ...

In terms of extreme inflexible opposition to every signature policy achievement of Obama and the Democrats during the past two years.

[27inCali]

26. because it didn't go far enough....

but damn, you can't always get it all at once, sometimes you gotta win one battle at a time.

I'm looking at some of the things we won and wondering what it had been like if Obama had been the inflexible Left version of bush a lot of these cat's wanted and I'm thinking we would have spent most of our time losing symbolic battles that would make the hard Left feel great about themselves but would do little to help the people hurting right now.

sorry, but for me, if it's half a loaf of bread or making a symbolic point, I'll choose the half loaf every time -and then come back the next day for the rest/

[jefferson_dem]

33. Aye. I'll take real progress over hollow symbolism any day.

[27inCali]

24. Joseph Lieberman is the only reason there was no PO

him and every Republican in the Congress that refused to govern and give their ideas instead of just opposing everything.

they are to blame.

instead of blaming and denigrating party leadership and dividing the party upon itself, why don't we focus of getting the filibuster reformed and the House back in 2012 so we can pass that fucking Public Option in 2013?

are we here to get Liberal priorities done or to just vent our frustrations at a few easy scapegoats?

[former9thward]

34. No Obama is to blame since he said originally HCR had to have one.

He could have vetoed anything that didn't. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32718713/ns/politics-white_house/

[ClassWarrior]

2. Sort of like all the energy that you're spending here, trying to divide us from lefty bloggers?

:eyes:

NGU.

[27inCali]

23. pointing out that THEIR interests aren't always ours

what is in our interest?

a strongly unified Left that doesn't implode at every legislative let down and sends a message of strength to the center that gains broader support for Liberal ideas.

what is in the blogger's interest?

lot's of traffic to their blog.

those two very different interests occasionally have converged, but lately have not.

right now, a lot of bloggers are doing what is good for them, not the movement.

[dionysus]

3. they offer a product that is in high demand by those who have decided that, at all costs,

obama must be painted as a RW plant, despite what reality indicates.

[frylock]

6. "nope"

[phleshdef]

7. I've mistrusted Jane Hamsher herself for quite a while. She is a nasty, negative Coulter of the left

Anyone that acts like she does should be regarded with skepticism. Being right on ideology doesn't make you a good person with honest intentions.

[Odin2005]

40. There is that Establishment-promoted False Equivalency BS again!

:eyes:

[Supersedeas]

52. another attempt to marginalize the progressive wing by equating them with the extreme RW

[DirkGently]

58. But it does differentiate you from a dishonest fascist like Coulter. Bad comparison.

[impik]

9. No one takes those sites seriously anymore. It's a shrinking fringe

Just see how much slower the traffic is over at Kos.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Yuugal]

11. and Bingo was his name-o!

[jefferson_dem]

13. Do you mean that in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way...

or do you seriously agree with the extreme post that has just been deleted for violating DU Rules?

[jefferson_dem]

12. "Obama followers...for what he really is."

Dude. That :crazy: rhetoric is literally indistinguishable from what one will hear from ...

[Joe the Revelator]

15. What's fdl? I've been away for awhile.

[boppers]

27. fire dog lake

They're pot-stirrers.

[brentspeak]

17. Your self-contradictory and bogus screed reminds me why I should trust those blogs even more

"I think folks would do well to realize that a lot of Progressive bloggers made more money and got more attention in the days of Bush..."

Oh, yeah. progressive bloggers are just rolling in the dough... :spray:

[27inCali]

25. you are putting words in my mouth to make your argument

slow down and read what I wrote.

I don't think they make a lot of money. They make more money when they get more traffic. They get more traffic when there are more Conservatives in power and grassroots Liberals are freaking out about it and trying to organize on line.
When the Dems took over the WH and Congress, they lost their best boogie man to drive enthusiasm and interest in their sites and columns -so they slowly turned on Obama, pounced on every misstep and have turned him into the new boogie man they needed to keep their rebel-rebel schtick going.

I'm not saying every last thing they have reported on the leadership is BS, not at all because there has been plenty to criticize. But most of it has been blown out of proportion and/or taken out of context and a lot of valid and important criticisms have fallen to the way-side to make room for inaccurate, scurrilous bullshit that doesn't do iota one to advance a Liberal agenda.

besides, these bloggers amount to little more than a bunch of arm-chair quarter backs who, if thrust magically into the leadership, would be fucking clueless about how to build a consensus for Liberal reforms.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Watch this video: Obama's Deficit Co-Chairman Speaks on Social Security

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/06/17/alan-simpson-cutting-social-security-benefits-to-take-care-of-the-lesser-people-in-society/

Every lie about Social Security in one convenient spot for easy reference, including some I'd never heard - for example, did you know that in 1983 we didn't know there was a baby boom? It's a fucking howl!

[27inCali]

29. I'm thoroughly aware of what a Right wing tool this guy is

But I think this whole deficit panel has been for one purpose and one purpose only -to create cover to drastically slash the military budget.

think about it. If you are a center-left president with a R house and you wanna cut the military budget, what do you do? maybe, appoint a panel of conservative deficit hawks to give you cover to do so?

that's the explanation that makes sense to me. If you really wanna cut the budget -the military budget is THE place to cut, not SS -SS isn't costing any money for another fifty years and we can fix that raising the cap.

I don't get why people keep expecting Obama to commit total political suicide, when he's really just positioning himself to achieve the next priority -cut the deficit/military budget.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. It's not political suicide if both sides do it

We have to vote for someone.

Bowles and Simpson are the two most outspoken critics of Social Security from their respective parties. Bowles came within a whisker of slashing it under Clinton, thank goodness Congress stopped him and Gingrich. I cannot fathom a reason for putting these two in charge of this committee other than to insure that there's a recommendation to slash Social Security.

I guess we'll see. I'm expecting that the Commission's plan will be largely implemented in March when the debt cap has to be raised.

[27inCali]

38. you got good points

I have no doubt that cutting SS is the next step in the fascist agenda to destroy the American working class and I'm totally aware that a lot of the drastic economic reform this country desperately needs just isn't going to happen with the current system, and I'm all for getting vocal about SS and reminding Dem leadership what's expected of them and what the consequences will be if they screw us on such an important issue, but I think they know what a boon it would be to be able to paint the Rs in 2012 as the dicks that wanna cut Gramma's SS and cast themselves as the heroes. That's what I expect to happen. If anything, they are going to raise the cap on taxable income and pretend that this is a big concession to the Rs and use this to press for a related Dem priority in return.

[Ramulux]

28. I dont get what you are talking about

What exactly have websites like FDL done to make you so mad? You're conspiracy theories about progressive bloggers criticizing Obama to put republicans back in power so they can make more money are paranoid and childish. I literally dont get why Hamsher and the people at FDL piss people on this site off so much, they are on our side and pushing for the same things most of us want, they just dont play the game and aren't afraid to call it like it is.

[jefferson_dem]

32. FDL is not on "our side".

Hamsher goes on FauxNews to smear the president and democrats... She opposed health care reform, financial reform, extension of unemployment benefits, tax cuts for the middle class ... She sees herself as kindred spirits with teabaggers, teams up with Grover Norquist, portrays Dems in blackface... Sorry, not "my side".

[27inCali]

35. they spend more time attacking Ds than Rs

they take Democratic wins and convince their readers it's really a loss. Every time there is a compromise because of the mathematical realties of the Congress, it's not we tried but came up short, it's really all a conspiracy among Dem leadership to shoot themselves in the foot and totally betray the base.

In the end of the day, most of these folks are spoiling for a third party from the Left and feel like they need to drive a wedge between the base and leadership to do that. It's a wrong-headed and dangerous idea because it only leads to a divided Left and an intact Right. I'd rather spend time picking off corporate plant Ds in the primaries and replacing them with strong Liberals.

[dionysus]

60. but it drives web page hits, which is all they care about.

[socialshockwave]

31. I get annoyed

at members of the Left who praise repressive regimes like China's, Hugo Chavez and others - that really have no regard for rights and generally lie and manipulate to get their way.

It's sickening to see "praise" for North Korea and Chavez, as well for Hezbollah.

[27inCali]

36. Liberals should remember they make up about a 3rd of America

the other two thirds are Rs and Indies.

Rs will never work with us, indies will if we do a good job of selling ourselves and that's all we need to achieve a lot of the change we want.

don't know how we do that if we spend most of our energy pointing out to everyone who shitty our own party is.

[StarsInHerHair]

56. yet 80% wanted public option......go figure

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

44. You are comparing Chavez to the Commies-in-name-only Fascists in Beijing?

:crazy:

[SidDithers]

37. "driving traffic to their site with speculative sensationalism"...

you've hit the nail on the fucking head. :thumbsup:

Sid

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[27inCali]

41. you don't have to viciously hate someone to think they are being counterproductive

or a little insincere.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[DirkGently]

59. This would apply equally to Obama and Hamsher, yes?

[Clio the Leo]

42. Rachel Maddow tells the truth ... and we adore her.

Ah, the great paradox.

[Odin2005]

47. because she doesn't cross the line and attack the Establishment Narrative of party politics.

Crossing that line would put her job security in peril.

[Clio the Leo]

48. It's the old honey/flies metaphor...

..... and there's a reason why we've been using that metaphor for centuries.

[JuniperLea]

64. Sure she does...

She's a worry wart and it's one of the things that sets her on a bad course.

[avaistheone1]

55. Only at times have you adored her.

[SidDithers]

50. And the Hampster acolyltes love her...

because she feeds their insatiable appetite for stickin' it to the man.

Sid

[johnaries]

53. No, she doesn't, as anyone who can use Google can attest. nt

[Clio the Leo]

43. We want to hold Obama's feet to the fire yet swallow the media's message whole hog.

Cracks me up.

[Raine1967]

45. I'll trust FDL and her PAC more when she actually supports progressives.

Progressives. http://www.osborneink.com/2010/12/nixon-had-a-word-for-people-like-jane-hamsher.html

She is first and foremost a self-aggrandizing publicity whore whose Accountability Now PAC has so far given $0 to progressive candidates in the first two years of its existence while spending $285,272. If she ran a non-profit this way, it would get shut down. As things stand, the PAC (which also counts Kos and Glenn Greenwald as operators) has only made noise.

Accountability Now PAC started in the wake of Greenwald’s Salon eruption over Democrats voting for FISA telecom immunity. In what he aptly described as a “strange bedfellows” campaign, the PAC’s foundation came in the heady days of Ron Paul triangulation and was always aimed at attacking Democrats from the left.

This was reflected in her media appearances. Hamsher’s kill-the-bill madness included an appearance on FOX News just months after her own call to boycott the network. She later returned to that channel spouting nonsense about cap-and-trade. Her recent appearances on Lawrence O’Donnell leave me convinced progress is not her purpose.

Jane has a troubling problem with transparency and truthfulness. Her web ad company took money from BP while Hamsher simultaneously attacked the Sierra Club for doing the same. The numbers for Accountability Now complete the picture: Jane Hamsher is a for-profit fringe phenomenon.

Accountability Now PAC began with $15,841 from BreakTheMatrix, a Ron Paul organization — meaning the money trail leads to the same libertarianism that spawned the tea party.

there are links there.


bold face mine.

I do not trust her motives at all.

[jenmito]

49. How can anyone trust them? Did you see THIS thread?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=595233

[SidDithers]

51. Missed that thread. Thanks for the link....nt

Sid

[JuniperLea]

63. Yeah, that one was especially vile...

The only FDL lies I allow myself to read are those posted in threads like you linked here... beyond the pale. I'm surprised every time I see them used as a source here.

[jenmito]

66. Yeah...

I was shocked at first that those quotes weren't from freepers! But now I realize I shouldn't have been surprised at all!

[quiller4]

54. I don't trust Hamsher and FDL but that is nothing new.

[DirkGently]

57. Easy to agree any deal to cut SS is CONDEMNED and move on. But there is this:

OBAMA: Actually, I think that if you talk to economists, both conservative and liberal, what they'll say is the problem is not next year. The problem is, how are we dealing with our medium-term debt and deficit, and how are we dealing with our long-term debt and deficit? And most of that has to do with entitlements, particularly Social Security and Medicaid.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/10/131949362/transcript-obama-on-taxes-economy-and-start

Not a cause for concern? What's the benign interpretation of a statement like that?

Let's also not forget that those "leftwing bloggers" have a fair track record. The President wasn't going to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy either. Then, almost seamlessly, the argument became that he wouldn't preserve them "permanently."

When considering whom to trust, and who is dealing in "BS," what lesson should we take from the tax deal?

What are we to make of the President's incorrect conflation of "entitlements" and the "deficit?"

[OKNancy]

61. Since he will NOT be messing with Social Security

I certainly hope people will get it that FDL has an agenda. That one: bring down Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=598108&mesg_id=598108

[JuniperLea]

62. Yep... and they have had that agenda for quite some time now...

I refuse to read FDL anymore... some of the out and out lies were way to close to the RW propaganda. Killed the link, got rid of the favorite, removed the cookies, and will never click again. With that kind of "friend" who needs enemies?

[Jakes Progress]

65. Come on.

You know the WH would have made such a strong statement long ago if they had wanted. They ran their trial "leaks" of their plan to try to win republicans with SS cuts and sat back to see the reaction. The earful they got from places like FDL and DU are the reason they have pulled back.

If we sit on our hands and stifle our voices until politicians do what they will always do (vote to promote themselves) it will always be too late. Protest early and often.