I think that various parts of this article on Democrats’ struggles to win the white working class are flawed: it is silly to claim that Sarah Palin might beat Obama, for example, and it is even more silly to discuss the shift of the white working class towards the Republican party without mentioning Civil Rights and race-baiting. But I think this is right:
The focus on Social Security and Medicare is pitch-perfect; those programs set the basic infrastructure for economic security for the middle class. But once he throws in Medicaid, a program for the poor, Obama again stokes the conservative narrative that big government taxes the have-a-littles to help the have-nots. Ethnographies of the white working class consistently document white workers’ view that, while earlier social programs were designed to help “the working man,” since the 1970s, liberals only care about the poor.
The Democrats need to stick to a central theme: that Republicans are proposing to eliminate the programs that allow Americans who have worked hard all their lives, doing everything responsible people are supposed to do, to pay for medical care and keep their homes as they age. Medicare and Social Security are the rewards for the settled life. Republicans propose to replace those programs with inadequate substitutes that will return seniors to where they were before government provided safety nets: the poorest group in the country.
Democrats need to move on Medicare, it’s a clear opening to go after voters who buy into all the “I tighten my belt, the gubmint needs to tighten theirs” bullshit, tell them that the Republicans want to raid their piggybank and give the money to the rich — which is exactly what the Ryan plan does, despite what the whores at PolitiFact would tell you.
This involves more than Obama pounding the 11-dimensional bully pulpit and telling Republicans to get their damn hands off Medicare. I hope that we see something like what happened in Wisconsin, we need protests and other grassroots-type activity all over the country. These efforts are slow getting off the ground so far, and that’s okay, there’s plenty of time. If you can, though, keep an eye for out these efforts, as they get off the ground. I’ll be posting about them as I find out about them, and I’ll be attending local events. Let me know what you hear about in your area, via comments and email, as things develop.
Whenever I go down this road, I get a lot of comments like “liberals never do anything”, “what are you doing, lazy ass blogger” and so on. The truth is, it’s easy to get involved with something like this, and every little bit helps. If you’ve got a Republican Congressman, go to a townhall and ask why he or she wants to get rid of Medicare, for example.
MikeJ
I think most people who make the argument that the Dems need to focus on the middle class so that they aren’t seen as “merely” helping the poor just want to fuck over the poor. The fact that you can always win votes by finding some other group to fuck over is just a bonus.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
Yet when i try to do something i get banned.
It would help a lot if you and mistermix would wet nurse EDK somewhere else until he can perfect his act. It fucking grosses me out and other ppl are starting to catch on.
you just infuriate me right now, you dumb kumbayah mothafuckahs.
Comrade DougJ
@MikeJ:
I do too, but in this case, it’s the right way to make the argument.
Villago Delenda Est
What amazes me about this is that Bachmann actually put the VA on the cutting block for a time, until she retreated, rather abruptly.
This indicates the actual agenda…fucking over EVERYONE who has paid into the system in order to enrich the Galtian overlords…who when they speak of parasites, are profoundly projecting.
Veterans, especially combat veterans, even if they returned from the battlefields in one piece, have already given their lives for their country. They are transformed by that experience…the fresh faced 18 year old kid out of high school is gone, replaced by a guy with a different visage altogether.
If you don’t like paying for veterans’ benefits, STOP CREATING VETERANS. It’s really that simple. The costs of war go beyond the guns and bullets…they keep accruing for decades afterwards. All of you are paying for my service, and the service of other vets, right now. Most of you acknowledge this and have no problems.
But the Galtian overlords don’t want to pay for shit. None of it. They are the most obscene collection of freeloaders on the planet. They want to steal labor, they want to steal blood, they want to steal freedom….while saying the exact opposite. And morons buy into this!
Libby
Sadly my CongressCrazyPerson Foxx doesn’t announce she’s going to hold an event in my very red town until after the fact. Happened again this week. She sneaks in to bask in the attention of a select group and then twits it after she leaves. Her website doesn’t tell her schedule and even the local Dem org often can’t find out where she’s going to be. I’m reduced mostly to outraged LTEs. But I guess that’s something. The elderly demo here isn’t online but does read the paper every day.
Comrade DougJ
@Libby:
There’s got to be a way to make that work against here too, letters asking why she’s afraid of her constituents and so on. You can also protest outside her local offices.
eric
How about the kickbacks in the form of bribes that the wealthy (e.g., Koch brothers) pay to republicans to do their bidding.
Napoleon
As far as I can tell my congress person Steve LaTorette does not appear to be having events although he has had them in the past.
Proudhon
Medicaid isn’t just for poor people – it pays a large proportion of nursing home costs (used to be around half) much of that for middle- and upper-class elders who have sheltered assets in trusts (that’s gotten more difficult, but not impossible by any means) or who have been allowed to retain substantial equity in homes.
For those who wish to inherit from parents, or for those who are approaching nursing home age themselves, medicaid eligibility is a big deal.
Emphasizing the nursing home care aspect of Medicaid is a winning issue for Dems with the middle class.
rikyrah
I will continue to disagree with you about Medicaid.
it’s time that this President and the Dems broke it down about Medicaid.
I will repeat it again…
the average recipient of Medicaid DOLLARS
is the parent or grandparent of some MIDDLE-CLASS WHITE PERSON IN A NURSING HOME.
or, some WHITE DISABLED PERSON.
THAT IS who takes a higher percentage of Medicaid dollars.
period.
and, it’s time that Medicaid is stopped being scapegoated by Rosa and her 3 anchor babies, or Shaniqua and her 4 kids by 3 baby daddies.
if it was just them, Medicaid DOLLARS COULD BE CUT BY MORE THAN HALF in this country.
NO, it’s time to bitchslap all those Middle-class White folks and ask them if they have the funds to pay for Mom/Grandpa’s Nursing home.
jcgrim
Medicare and SS might be the Dems rallying cry for re-election, but both parties have traded away public schools and public service workers to Wall Street for outsourcing.
Here are a couple of grassroots organizations that are springing up against public school privatization, spawn of Obama’s Sec of Ed Arne Duncan. Obama gave away public education as his bipartisan marketing tool.This gift to Wall Street makes him look like a reformer but instead opened the floodgates of public money to the private financial sector.
Diane Ravitch plugged this march in Newsweek:
http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/
http://parentsacrossamerica.org/
Here is part of a bill moving through the TN leg thanks to our right wing legislators and spelled out in Obama’s Race to the Top mandates. Public School vouchers follow students to outside edu-consultants with no accountability:
"Serious" Superluminar
I don’t think mere protesting will cut it. You need to do something more direct, and violent. I don’t suppose many will agree with this sentiment, but there it is.
Comrade DougJ
@rikyrah:
I am for preserving Medicaid. I am for expanding it to a universal program.
I think that politically we should emphasize Medicare and Social Security for now.
BOSS BITCH
@Libby:
Does she have a newsletter/e-mail alerts that you can subscribe to? Maybe you should send her a few nice letters and dupe her into thinking you are a supporter, get invited to her townhalls and then wham!
Omnes Omnibus
@ “Serious” Superluminar: Define violent as you use it here. And take the quotation marks out of your name; they make replying to you a pain (unless that is your purpose).
stuckinred
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: Out of meds?
tom p
A whole lot of medicaid goes to older people who have run thru their savings and now need help to stay in a nursing home. It would help if this was pointed out loudly and repeatedly.
stuckinred
Christiane Amanpour is giving Franklin Graham a fucking forum for his insanity.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@stuckinred: you didn’t read my comment?
here, i’ll hit the replay.
Like protesting is going to help when BJ front pages libertarian fifth columnists.
MikeJ
@Libby: Even though I don’t live in Reichert’s district, I try to keep an eye on the web site for both the King and Peirce County Republicans. His “townhalls” are often just to those groups, and it’s also interesting to see what the Republicans have to say about what they do or don’t like about him.
Libby
@Comrade DougJ: That’s a good angle I hadn’t thought of. Thanks.
Libby
@BOSS BITCH: She does have email alerts but I don’t seem to get them. I think the screen out registered Dems.
stuckinred
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: You continue to be so stupid, what is wrong, why do you do this, is it it the disease?
stuckinred
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: You continue to be so stupid, what is wrong, why do you do this, is it the disease? Take a walk, get away from the computer.
Cat Lady
@stuckinred:
You do know that watching those shows only encourages them, right?
Libby
@MikeJ: Yes, my klepto-Congresscreature keeps to a small circle of local friendlies and ribbon cutting ceremonies for veterans. But on a slightly related note, just noticed a short piece in the local rag from a few days ago where my local, very GOP, City Council is deciding whether to register official outrage to the legislative mayhem going on in Raleigh now that they gave the keys to the GOPers for the first time in 100yrs, or whatever. Seems they’re hellbent on abolishing legislation that dates back to the 30s, offering local aid to cash-strapped cities. Issues of concern: Extraterritorial jurisdiction, billboard signs, annexation and eminent domain. Buyers remorse abounds…
Donut
@Comrade DougJ:
Couldn’t agree more with you about how making this an appeal to the middle class is the right way to go. Wisconsin got trucking because people could see how their kids’ teachers were getting fucked by the GOP. And germane to the previous thread, I think that if we are seen screeching at Congresspeople like the Teahadists did in 2009, we risk losing that argument. If we’re just seen as politically correct liberals “protecting” the poor (aka leeches, in tea party language), then are not on good ground. We win this fight by talking to our lower and middle class neighbors and making sure they get to the polls in 2012 – we turn out the same numbers as in 2008 and we will have a chance at taking back the House, keeping the White House, and holding the Senate. Things will still be dysfunctional, god knows, but better than the alternative.
"Serious" Superluminar
@Omnes
I don’t see how the quotation marks could make a difference one way or another to replies, but I’ll go back to the regular nym if it’s difficult for people (no they weren’t meant to confuse peeps, just snark at Sully back when he mattered).
I was thinking industrial sabotage by ‘violence’ though. And this is speaking as someone who took out his city’s telecomms infrastructure for a couple of days as a teen ;-) On that occasion it wasn’t part of anything organised per se, but if it was I think there’s enourmous scope for putting real pressure on some assholes. Like I said, perobably not a popular proposition, but there are possibilities here that shouldn’t be discounted.
Donut
Steve Singiser has a pretty good post up on DK this morning that uses polling data to show how tailoring a message to not only the base, but also to “moderates” (people who are liberal in ideology but don’t like the word Liberal – a lot of Gen-Xers in that group, I am guessing) is probably key to Democratic victories next year…
Shalimar
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: What exactly do you think you try to do? As far as I can tell, the only thing you ever do is call Kain names. Which seems like the definition of a blogger sitting on her ass bitching instead of doing something productive to change society.
Bob Loblaw
So I’ve noticed. A great many people have put it in their minds that they are the vanguard of the Democratic or progressive or whatever movement and want to make sure everybody on the internet knows it. Mysteriously, they’re often the ones who don’t actually do anything themselves. Funny world.
The name of the game shouldn’t even be Obama’s reelection in 2012. That is more assured already, and even if isn’t a lock, it’ll follow if the rest of the plan can come together. The primary goal should be winning the House. It’s going to take 30 seat flips. The Republicans control a lot of redistricting. It isn’t going to be easy to keep winning these gigantic cyclical swings over and over. But even if Obama wins a second term, he’s a good 70% useless without a Democratic House.
Comrade DougJ
@Bob Loblaw:
I’m not quite as confident about re-election as that, though I’m pretty confident, but I agree very much with your central point.
El Cid
National approval ratings for whites re Obama / Dems are heavily affected by region.
The South and the mid- to -north-eastern West (i.e., Montana) are far more conservative.
If you break out approval ratings so, it turns out that Obama & Dems have much higher approvals in other regions than national figures give.
Approaches in different areas need to proceed, therefore, on different assumptions.
Scott
@Libby: Gmail accounts are cheap and plentiful. Make a new account with something other than your name (maybe something like “[email protected]” to give it that special “I’m angry and old and not experienced with the Intarwebz” vibe), and see if you can get them to put you on the mailing list…
Scott
@Shalimar:
What exactly do you think you try to do? As far as I can tell, the only thing you ever do is call Kain names. Which seems like the definition of a blogger sitting on her ass bitching instead of doing something productive to change society.
Being as crazy as matoko is damn hard work.
jayackroyd
Two points.
1) Medicaid is the insurance program of last resort for everybody, not just “the poor.” If you need long term care, you lose the house and go on Medicaid. And do not think that people do not know this. The issue arises in every extended family at some point–in my case Great-Aunt Mary–when there is no alternative but a nursing home, and no money.
2) Obama is targeting Medicare. B-S, via the Third Way, offers the same plan as Ryan–“premium support” for seniors moving into the PPACA exchanges. This “voucher” business is a flat out lie, intended to create a false distinction between Obama’s preferred system.
Moreover, Henry Aaron, the guy who thought this stuff up is waffling. Here is one position he staked out in an interview with Ezra. http://wapo.st/fseMph
Here’s another where he seems to contradict the notion that “premium support” for elderly participation in the insurance exchanges is actually a good idea. http://bit.ly/g1RXxl
IAC, the administration and Ryan agree on the most important element–to eliminate Medicare as we know it, and replace it with private insurance exchanges.
Oh, and by the way, eliminate Medigap coverage, to increase out of pocket costs and reduce “utilization.” See section 3.3.3 of the B-S report.
Bob Loblaw
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
As Balloon Juice goes, so goes the nation!
And the crazy just keeps on coming.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bob Loblaw: Well, when she’s right, she’s right.
Comrade DougJ
@jayackroyd:
That is depressing, I will read up on it.
zach
What’s the Democratic response when the Republicans inevitably say: “Democrats want to get rid of Medicare — they passed Obamacare which rations healthcare; bureaucrats will decide whether or not you health care is worth it. We want to save Medicare by letting seniors choose what’s best for them. The Republican Path to Prosperity saves trillions of dollars in healthcare costs without telling seniors how they should live their lives.”
Remember this is the GOP that successfully swept the 2010 elections by saying that the stimulus cost jobs, that TARP cost a trillion dollars, that Obamacare raises the deficit, and that Obama raised taxes and expanded government. No one called them on it. It won’t be as easy as repeatedly pointing out that the GOP wants to end Medicare; they’ll respond “No we don’t — you do!” Fox News will back them up, and the rest of the media will say, “Democrats and Republicans disagree on what’s best to do with Medicare.”
I think that Democrats are somewhat deluded into thinking that victories in 2006 had a lot to do with opposing Bush’s Social Security privatization push in 2005/6.
Davis X. Machina
The GOP
primarydick-measuring contest rolls on:Rick Santorum,who doesn’t actually have a seat at the table, since he’s an ex-Senator. in a desperate grab at relevance, , has announced his price for lifting the debt ceiling — repeal of ACA.
jayackroyd
@Comrade DougJ:
http://bit.ly/i2uK8r
http://bit.ly/hge8KN
http://bit.ly/fO61EJ
This goes back to 1995. Just like Dole-Daschle.
We have three health care systems in this country: The VA, with providers on salary, Medicare, a single payer plan, and private HMO/Insurance. The reason we have the worst health care at the highest per capita cost in the OECD is that so many people fall under the third, failed, system.
And the administration wants to convert the first two, the more successful, models into the third–which is a failed example of crony capitalism.
They know people will hate this policy. So they don’t advocate for it directly. But, really, read the documents.
B-S:
3.3.3 Restrict first-dollar coverage in Medicare supplemental insurance.
(Medigap savings included in previous option. Additional savings total $4 billion in 2015, $38 billion through 2020.)
The ability of Medicare cost-sharing to control costs – either under current law or as proposed above – is limited by the purchase of supplemental private insurance plans (Medigap plans) that piggyback on Medicare. Medigap plans cover much of the cost-sharing that could otherwise constrain over-utilization of care and reduce overall spending. This option would prohibit Medigap plans from covering the first $500 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities and limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $5,000 in Medicare cost-sharing. We also recommend similar treatment of TRICARE for Life, the Medigap policy for military retirees, which would save money both for that program and for Medicare, as well as similar treatment for federal retirees and for private employer-covered retirees.
jayackroyd
@Comrade DougJ:
Reply with links in moderation.
Comrade DougJ
@jayackroyd:
Thanks.
Julie
My Republican rep and senator only have constituent meetings in the daytime when I’m at work. In other words, they are only interested in hearing from the retirees that keep electing them.
I just can’t justify spending the few vacation days I get petitioning congressmen who are totally uninterested in anything I have to say. I am willing to donate money to Democrats (but often there is no Democrat to run against them) and even make pointless calls/letters to my reps, and I’d be willing to help in other ways, but I’m not taking off work to go to their town halls.
Danny
Brilliant Doug! Moar of this plz.
Stillwater
This is from the linked Moffitt article about ‘premium support’ in the Ryan plan.
The ‘serious savings’ to Medicare results from the government capping it’s contributions and shifting the remainder of costs to the individual – it has nothing to do with the role of private insurers. The ‘popular demand’ for particular plans results not from free choice, but coercive necessity, as seniors getting kicked out of a single payer system have to find plans they can afford, however bad those plan options may be. ‘Popular’ merely mean ‘best plan I can afford’. And the idea that ‘intense competition among insurers’ will drive down cost is a fully discredited myth.
This paper is classic propaganda. But it’s from the Heritage Foundation, so no surprise there.
Danny
@jayackroyd:
You posted much of these same allegations on the comments of Steve Benen’s blog. I asked you to substantiate them over there, but I don’t think you ever got around to it.
So, now I’m asking you again: Exactly what policy of Obamas’ is equivalent to the Ryan plan’s medicare vouchers? Just shouting “Third-way” won’t do.
Cacti
Disagree on the point about Medicaid. Medicaid not Medicare covers nursing home care.
No Medicaid = Bedridden Grandma moves into your spare bedroom.
That should be the messaging on that one.
jayackroyd
@Danny:
read the links above. The B-S plan proposes “premium support.” Henry Aaron advocates “premium support.” The GOP budget proposes “premium support.”
Aaron makes a tortured case that “premium support” that is indexed to the general price level is really a “voucher.” But no matter what you call it, both the centrists and the Republicans agree that the way forward is to convert Medicare to the PPACA exchanges.
That’s been the DLC/Third Way position since 1995. Here’s the 1999 version.
http://bit.ly/g1vFhP
Danny
@jayackroyd:
That’s all good, but a bit unresponsive don’t you think?
Can you substantiate this specifically:
jayackroyd
Oh, and @Danny, I corrected a mistake in that last comment.
Gutting Medicare is not “Ryan’s plan.” Gutting Medicare is the “GOP plan.” They passed that budget. Ezra wrote about this yesterday. This isn’t like the Progressive budget proposal or the wingnut budget that the Dems voted present on.
This is the GOP vision for the American future. They really want the middle class elderly to die earlier in order to fund permanently lower tax rates for the rich, while running large and growing deficits.
That’s their position. Not Ryan’s. The Republicans.
jayackroyd
@Comrade DougJ:
This is Ryan:
“ensures security by setting up a tightly regulated exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries,to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.”
This is what the Dem (and MSM) narrative is calling a “voucher.” Aaron says, in the interview with Ezra, that it is a “voucher” because it is indexed to the general price level, not the health care cost level.
Me and Bob Reischauer jointly created the idea of “premium-support” in the mid-1990s. It was a response to what we saw as legitimate criticisms of using market forces to rein in the growth of federal health spending. The worry was the reliable savings would come from shifting costs onto patients. The savings from competition were just something we hoped would show up. So the key element was linking the amount that individuals receive to the growth of health-care spending, not to some other index that would grow less rapidly than health-care costs.
Danny
@jayackroyd:
Great, I agree 100%. But still, I’d really like to see you elaborate on what exactly it is that Obama has proposed or come out in support of that is equivalent to Ryan / the republicans medicare plans.
Can you deliver?
jayackroyd
@Danny:
Right. Obama hasn’t said this yet. His deficit commmission has said it. The centrist policy wonks he consults with say so. The Third Way says so–the same Third Way that his chief of staff served as a board member, and where Ron Klain is now a board member.
Just like he never actually publicly said that a single payer plan was off the table. But it was, indeed, off the table from the outset.
So when he actually does endorse premium support, you’ll be in opposition, right?
Just as you are now in opposition to the Heritage Foundation/PPI/Dole-Daschle PPACA program?
In any case, the very narrow point that I made over at WM, and am making here–that if the GOP plan is a “voucher,” then so are all the other “premium support” plan–still holds regardless of Obama’s stated positin.
Why, in your view, is this obvious bit of hackery happening?
Why, in your view, is the administration not attacking the GOP premium support program as ending Medicare as we know it? Why are they inaccurately labeling it a “voucher?”
jayackroyd
Oh, @Danny, do you have a statement from Obama on his position on Medicare? In response to GOP budget?
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Shalimar: actually, i just spoiled EDK’s Obama concern troll game, righteously fucked up Kuznicki, exposed the LoOG as mainstreaming islamophobia with their new front pager, Kowal, and ruined mistermix’s and DougJ’s pretend-EDK-is-a-liberal day.
I also pointed out on AL’s post that liberals are just teatards with college educations and have their own special folks that grifter them too.
They are called “Libertarians.”
I think I have accomplished a lot.
;)
jayackroyd
@Danny:
I have this from Obama:
“I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs.”
The GOP is not proposing a voucher program. Why is he saying this? Why is he not renouncing their “premium support” program? That is, after all, what they proposed. Why is he not saying he will not let Medicare be moved into the insurance exchanges, as the Republicans propose?
Why is he saying this thing that isn’t true?
Shalimar
@jayackroyd: Obama already did something about Medicare during his first 2 years. He will be spending his remaining time in office trying to keep it from getting repealed. Why should he have any other position on Medicare? Obama already passed what he could get passed. Now we see over the next decade whether it makes any difference or not.
jayackroyd
@shalimar
Have you not noticed the budget negotiations going on?
Have you not noticed that Durbin has put Social Security on the table?
But rather than argue about the future, I’d just ask why it is that they are inaccurately labeling a premium support program as a voucher. Why are they not denouncing the structural part of this–replacing Medicare with private exchanges–rather than the not nearly as important price index on the premium support plan?
Using the feeble reed of logic, if the GOP changed the index to the index of health care prices, then they would stop calling it a voucher, and support the proposed Medicare reforms. Right?
That’s something you and I wouldn’t support, right? But the president, based on his statements, would.
Danny
@jayackroyd:
So this here, from the comments on Steve’s blog, written by you a couple of days ago:
Which I challenged, and which you ducked then. And this right now:
These are actually a case of you peering deep into your chrystal ball and telling us what you know Obama is secretly thinking, right? There’s a couple of words that could apply – one is “bullshitting”, another is “lying”.
You gotta know how deeply dishonest that was, right?
You know you’re not allowed to do this right, take the output of some think tank and just pretend that Obama or some other politician has come out in support of their policy papers right? L.y.i.n.g. You should now go away and hide in shame, any time I spot you in the comments section of some progressive blog I’ll remind you, so maybe you should get working on that sock puppet right away.
This claim is AFAIK sourced only to anymous health care lobbyists, in one NY times piece. In other words it’s as substantiated as the grassy knoll and the fake moon landings. Still, it is pretty much regarded as received gospel over at FDL, so I’m not in any way surprised you would bring it up. However, the fact that it is blessed by Jane does not absolve you from responsibility to exercise quality control on your output here.
If he does, we’ll have plenty of time to form an opinion then. That’s how it usually works. But sure we could instead just let you (or Jane H) tell us what Obama secretly supports and go right ahead and lynch him now.
The PPACA legislation pays for single payer health care (through medicaid) and deeply subsidized health care insurance through the exchanges for 30 million poor, minority, single parent, disenfrenchized americans that currently have none. By taxing the rich.
The Ryan plan takes away single payer from millions of seniors and poor people and gives the money to the richest americans.
The former is the most progressive entitlement legislation passed in the last 50 years. The latter is the most radical, regressive legislation proposed in the last 50 years.
I am asking myself: how possibly do Jane and her sycophants get away with self styling themselves as “ultra-liberals”? You guys are anything but.
No, that’s not the narrow point you made, then it would (maybe) have been fair. You lied about what democratic politicians support. And then you dodged the challenge so you could go on another blog and lie some more.
Whose hackery – yours?
Are you high out of your mind? Here’s Obama in his speach just a couple of days ago:
Doesn’t it hurt, making an ass out of yourself?
jayackroyd
BTW @Danny, Stuart Zechman and I will be discussing these issues on Thursday at 8pm Eastern. http://bit.ly/fDpthW
You should feel free to call in. 646 200 3440
jayackroyd
@Danny,
Indeed, a premium support program ends Medicare as we know it.
The “hackery” I was referring to was Henry Aaron’s attempt to claim that the GOP premium support program isn’t a premium support program, while his is.
I have to walk away for about two hours.
I’ll have more later. And, again, you should feel free to join us on Thursday.
Danny
@jayackroyd
Thanks for the invite Jay.
I am however much more interested in hearing about what your views are on lying and intellectual honesty, as applied to what you tell people in public places such as this.
Do you have any response to the fact that you go around telling people things that aren’t true? Could you share your view on what is appropriate behavior when you get called on your claims and they turn out to be false?
If it were me, I would feel compelled to own up to that.
You know, maybe apologize to people that read what I wrote and trusted what I claimed to know like DougJ here f.e. Or try to make a case, or something…
If I was to just dodge someone calling me a liar, like you do, I would feel – I don’t know…. ashamed? Dirty?
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@jayackroyd:
/yawn
two things.
you Obama concern trolls just simply bore me to tears.
get some new material, k?
kay
I want to see that actual comment. That would be hugely entertaining.
One of the reasons I try to attend “events” and such is not because I’m so crazy for activism, but because I think I have to see for myself what’s going on.
I just don’t buy any of this punditry bullshit anymore. I can’t figure out if they’re driving the narrative or acting as honest observers, and following the narrative, and I’ve given up trying. I can’t do all this motive-seeking and credibility-weighing. It’s a full time job.
If I want to hear what “white middle class” are saying, I almost feel as if have to personally hear it.
I know there are obvious problems with this approach, the whole “blind man, elephant” thing where I’m looking at piecemeal aspects, and I recognize anecdote is not data, but shit, PUNDITS with OPINIONS are not data either, and we hear plenty from them.
jayackroyd
@Danny
I get into these discussions to try to figure things out, not to hurl invective.
So let’s start with our points of agreement.
You agree that moving the elderly into exchanges and providing them with a tax credit or some other form of premium support would be the end of Medicare as we know it, don’t you?
Do you disagree that characterizing the GOP plan as a “voucher” is inaccurate?
Do you disagree that the GOP version of premium support differs substantively from the B-S version only by the way in which the premium support is indexed?
Do you believe, as I do, that the current system is far better, especially with addition of the IFAB, than any such premium support program would be?
Is our only area of disagreement my inference that Obama supports this policy? You would not support such a policy change, right?
I would note, again, my reasons for making this inference into Obama’s position:
1) This is the position of the think tanks that were the source of the PPACA program, PPI and the Dole-Daschle lobbyists office.
2) It is the position of the Third Way and has been since the mid 90s.
3) Obama’s senior advisers are born and bred Third Wayers, including both chiefs-of-staff.
4) Obama’s own characterization of his ideology is that of New Democrat. http://politi.co/iewG6B
5) The Democratic co-chairman of his, yes his deficit commission is a Third Way member, and that commission produced a recommendation that Medicare be turned into a premium support program, using private insurance exchanges. (This leaves aside that he decided, at this moment in history, that we needed a deficit commission and not a jobs commission.)
6) He has repeatedly engaged in carefully worded statements that leave wiggle room for later, reluctantly, deciding to end Medicare as we know it, choosing words like “slashing” and “vouchers” to describe what he wouldn’t do.
7) The process of passing the PPACA followed exactly this path, with much not said about his position–it just ended up being right down the middle of the Third Way policy papers.
So those are my reasons for my inference. You don’t find those to be compelling reasons for making such an inference.
And that’s our only area of disagreement, right? You think I’m wrong in my belief that he supports something we both agree is a bad idea, right?
jayackroyd
Oh, and as for attempting to mislead DougJ, first, he’s not so easy to mislead and I would’t try, and second, what I did was offer him links to the material that has led me to these conclusions.
He can make his own inferences. And then chime in and explain why he disagrees with mine.
And FWIW, I am still having a hard time getting over the shock that the B-S proposal, supported by Dick Durbin, includes jettisoning Medigap coverage, NOT letting people buy insurance in order to “reduce utilization.” This is, by the way, a feature that also goes back to the 1990s, and Henry Aaron’s creation of the idea of premium support, the same Henry Aaron who defines “voucher” to mean “premium support with the wrong price index.”
jayackroyd
Oh, and on that remark that there is no record of Obama’s position on single payer. There’s no record on the fight to keep Social Security cuts out of the SOTU. But that certainly took place–I spoke with some of the participants.
This administration does not conduct its policy debates in public. In one sense, that’s a sign of the most disciplined White House in my memory. In another, it’s one of the least transparent.
Dick Move
You know what this thread needs? People who gotta move… movin’!
http://youtu.be/Is7nLdsORCM
Danny
@jayackroyd:
Yes.
Not really. As far as I understand it, “premium support” is pretty much vouchers, with some minor differences.
My guess is that Obama and his speech writers prefer the term “voucher”, rather than “premium support”, since “vouchers” are fairly well known by voters.
No idea. I do not know enough on the subject.
Would you claim that differences in indexing models are trivial? Is the difference between a voucher system that is indexed by health care costs compared to one that is indexed by prices in general, trivial, when it comes to financing health care?
Yes, with a very high probability.
Yes, my area of disagreement exactly this – I would never in my life get the idea that it was ok for me to label my “inference” about what some politician thinks as fact. If I were to speculate about what Obama or some other politician thinks or plans to do I would clearly and transparently declare it as my opinion.
Anything else is lying to, or bullshitting the people that read what you write.
No one else has the time and energy to factcheck what you write every time. Therefore reputation is critical, and you just pissed away yours royally, by first trying to bullshit us, and then not owning up to it in any way whatsoever.
Here’s an analogy that may make it easier for you to understand.
Colin Powell: “Trust me, this is exactly Saddam Husseins’ plan, to help Al Qaeda blow up a nuke in the US”.
You: “How do you know that? What’s your proof?”
C P: “Well maybe I havent got any hard evidence that he plans to do exactly that per se, but com’on we told you about the time he tried to buy that yellow cake in Niger, and there’s this Al Qaeda bigshot up in Iraqi kurdistan. Don’t you think Saddam’s a bad guy?”
To write stuff like “Obama supports this”, this is “Obama’s preferred system”, when in fact what you got is some policy paper from a think tank.
When Obama has in fact not come out and endorsed any of this.
That’s f-king bullshitting and you need to own up to that when you get caught.
Which is proof of what? That this is the position of those think tanks nothing else.
Which allows you to say: “this is the position of the Third Way think tank, I don’t agree with them.” Nothing else.
Ask yourself this: how is the way you go about “proving” things different from the way Glenn Beck does?
Politico article, two anonymous sources, closed meeting with new democrats. Symptomaticly you do not transparantly provide any of that information to us. You just pretend it is common fact.
A reasonable observer would consider Obama a New Democrat if he proclaimed to be one publicly. It’s called “assuming good faith”.
The bipartisan commision was created by Obama, but it does not follow that Obama would necessarily support whatever recommendations it delivered. That should be pretty f-king obvious to anyone but – apparently – you.
Anything that you’ll ever hear any politician utter, is gonna be “carefully worded”.
This: “[Obama leaves] wiggle room [so that he can] later, reluctantly, [decide] to end Medicare as we know it”.
This is just bullshit. It’s you making up a story and ascribing it to Obama, grounded on nothing, whatsoever.
A more reasonable interpretation is that Obama and his speech writers simply choose the word “voucher” instead of “premium support”, because many voters actually knows what a voucher is, and it’s usually preferable that people know what the hell your talking about when you’re going to tell them that their future is at stake.
Why don’t you write a mail to Jon Favreau and ask him? Oh yeah, everyone in the Obama admin is the man and cant be trusted, right?
Yeah like the time he came out and attacked the core parts of ACA as “ending medicare as we know it”, right?
But of course the fact that he just publicly came out 100% against the policy you claim he secretly supports, is not a problem because he choose to use another word to designate it.
Do you understand how absolutely raving mad your conspiracy theory actually is?
You’re actually saying that Obama publicly came out and ripped the Ryan plan to shreds, but that he secretly wants to do exactly the same thing. But then Obama will use another branding and call it “premium support”. Incidentally the same branding that Ryan presently uses himself, now.
Yep. Firedoglake.
No, I most certainly don’t. But that would still be totally alright, if you could at least have had the honesty and courtesy to clearly delineate in your posts where the real, factual world ended, and the world of inference inside your head started.
We don’t get to just say things like: “You may not have heard of it, but this is exactly what John McCain wants – hitler jugend in american schools”, and then backtrack while claiming that his campaign manager in Utah is a stormfronter.
Do you get what I’m saying? Your conspiracy theories are not shared by everyone, you should at least try to be forthcoming with what is “inference” and what isn’t in the future, if you dont want to be called a liar.
jayackroyd
Progress! We largely agree.
jayackroyd
Or, you know, @Danny, to bring it back to @dougj, was he lying when he said that Eric Massa was dishonestly presenting HIS position on health care reform? That Massa was falsely claiming to be concerned that it didn’t go far enough, and that’s why he opposed Obama’s plan?
I happen to disagree with DougJ on this. I had Massa on my 2009 Netroots Nation panel about the transformative opportunity Obama had in front of him. Massa seemed thoughtful and sincere to me in his opposition to the Obama plan. But I don’t think DougJ was a lying sack o’ shit because he thought Massa was less than sincere. I think he sincerely believed, inferred from his experience with Massa, that Massa wasn’t telling the truth.
Danny
@jayackroyd:
I’ll just leave your stuff on “premium support” vs “vouchers” aside. I don’t have the time to spend right now, and it’s not relevant to my issue with you.
Even though your fine piece of sophistry makes it sound like a lot of work, in practice though, it’s really quite simple for most people.
Is it gonna be evident from context that we’re talking about my opinion; Is the claim I’m making well within common knowledge; Are the circumstances so well known by anyone that the implications of what I’m saying is perfectly clear?
Then, yes, it may be ok to use shorthand.
Am I peddling wild accusations and conspiracy theories in areas where far from everyone is an expert; Am I assuming bad faith and nefarious plots about the motives of specific persons; Am I implying it is common knowledge, or supported fact?
Then no, by not adding a disclaimer or providing my readers with the same evidence that I’m basing my claims on, I am forcing my readers to do a lot of extra work to investigate my extraordinary claim, or risk that they just mistake it for a factual statement.
This is what you wrote:
That’s a f-king lot of shorthand right there, when as a factual matter the Obama administration actually do not support neither a “premium support” model, nor vouchers for medicare, don’t you think?
Would it be ok for me to tell your wife you’re having an affair but withold I’m on my belief that all people named Jay are cheating bastards?
Does that make me lazy or does it make me a liar?
When we choose to engage in such speculation, if we choose to do that, then it should be obvious – from context or otherwise – that that is in fact what we’re doing, do you agree?
I do in fact not have a freaking clue about what you’re talking about here and neither do I want to find out. You know why? Because it’s irrelevant to what we’re discussing.
“All politicians lie, therefore I can claim whatever I like about them, and no-one can call me on it”?
Ask yourself this: when politicians lie, and they’re caught, what do you think should happen?
Should those same rules apply to you, when you lie & bullshit? If not, why not?
Danny
I have no idea what Dougj wrote about Massa and HCR.
Did he just go right ahead and attribute to Massa the views that he suspected Massa held secretly, without further elaboration?
Yes, then he was lying.
jayackroyd
@Danny:
No, it’s important to demonstrate the basis for which I am saying they are not telling the truth. That’s what I’ve done.
You know, I’ve not introduced into this discussion any number of things Obama has promised us, has lied to us about, because they’re not really relevant to this discussion. They are, of course, part of the reason that I am skeptical that he is actually committed to preserving Medicare as we know it.
So, on this one, I’ve set out why I think this is Obama’s preferred policy. You’ve asked me to explain why I made those remarks here and at Washington Monthly.
I have made those explanations.
I also am very glad to read that the issue here is not that you support the Third Way evisceration of Medicare, but rather believe this is not the administration’s intent. I do think that is the administration’s intent, and will be glad to buy you a serving of the beverage of your choice on or after 1/1/13 if that proves not to be the case.
And the invitation to join Stuart and me while we discuss this is still, of course, open. 646 200 3440 Thursday. 8pm EDT.
Danny
This was in fact – crucially – exactly what you did not do, when you made your original claims. And that’s exactly where I think you know you wen’t wrong with bringing up dougj and Massa. Without having read what he did write, I still find it extremely hard to believe that he would have gone about it the same way as you did.
From what you wrote, I get the impression that doug suspected that Massa was fine with a less progressive HCR bill, but pretended otherwise.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Massa’s public statements were along the line of prefering a strong public option, but dougj suspected that he actually wanted no public option at all.
The analogy to what you did – try to follow me here – would be for dougj to just write e.g.:
Did he write something like that? I frankly doubt it. Don’t you see how that would not be acceptable – no matter what your suspicions on Massa’s private opinions may have been?
And you absolutely shouldn’t feel compelled to. Odds are that we wouldn’t agree on many of those things any way. And that’s perfectly fine.
I’ll allow you the right to your opinions any time. The only thing of yours I’m having a problem with is your habit of attributing positions to people that they don’t really (officially) hold, without letting on that’s what you’re doing.
I didn’t find those very convincing. But like you said, you did finally lay them out, so let’s leave it at that.
No, I don’t think that’s the administration intent at all – I think their intent is the plan Obama actually proposed, just now. More importantly though, before anything becomes legislation, Obama and every other democrat that are part of the legislative process will have to come out in favor or in opposition to whatevers on the table at that point. At that time, both you and I will have ample opportunity to support or decry Obama and the democrats in congress. Without reading anyone’s mind.
If at the close of the Obama administration (god let it be 2016) I’m convinced that we’re all betrayed, Obama’s a republican in democratic clothing, etc, I’ll happily buy you the whole bar (as we’re surely gonna need it). And thanks for the invitation to call in, once again.
jayackroyd
And my only problem is with your losing your shit over what is absolutely normal discourse in this realm–attributing positions that are not officially stated, but certainly can be plausibly held. It’s like saying we can’t talk about drone strikes in Libya because they have not been officially acknowledged. Or, as I keep noting, that there was a fierce battle waged over keeping Social Security cuts out of the SOTU. That, I know for sure, happened, but it didn’t get published anywhere,except in oblique blogger celebratory posts that the cuts language was removed. That doesn’t make it not true.
It’s true that I don’t think there is any doubt that the Obama administration would like to pursue something like the B-S approach to Medicare. I am surprised you think otherwise. But it is not heinous, evil lying to say so.
And I do hope you will keep an open mind to the possibility that Obama is actually an extraordinarily good negotiator, and is getting the policy results he wants, despite broad opposition to those results among the rank and file of his party.
Danny
Let’s boil it down then, since it is so terribly hard for you to understand. Hypothetical:
You think you have good reason to believe rep. Massa secretly doesnt want a “public option” while publicly saying he does. Is it ok for you to write this, no further elaboration:
Yes or no?
jayackroyd
On Massa and DougJ.
My recollection is that DougJ wrote that he thought Massa was taking an absolutist position on hcr so he could justify voting against Obamacare and still hold his liberal cred. He had a brutal district for a liberal, and it was, IIRC, DougJ’s view was that he did not want to be on record supporting hrc.
Now DougJ knows Massa better than I do. He was DougJ’s Congresscritter. But the point is that DougJ, again, IIRC, said that Massa was lying for political purposes. Which is just fine. We have to be able to say that.
(All the IIRC disclaimers are in there because teh Google is not helping me confirm my recollection.)
You can watch my panel and judge Massa for yourself.
http://yearlykosconvention.org/node/1336
Danny
You really don’t like owning up to your f-ups, do you?
The point of the hypothetical was exactly what I wrote – my hope for you to answer the hypothetical (that’s usually the case); not for you to allude to your work in the movement.
jayackroyd
That example works if Massa doesn’t take a public position.
Obama has not said he supports retaining Medicare as we know it.
He has said he wouldn’t “slash” Medicare. And that “vouchers” are bad.
If he came out and said “There will be no structural change to Medicare under my administration. It will continue to operate as a single payer plan run by the US government.” and then I said he was lying, your point would be relevant.
But he hasn’t. He’s been very careful NOT to say that. So then, I claim, that it’s perfectly reasonable to say “Okay, so this is what he wants to do.”
Now, it’s perfectly fair for you to say “WTF? Where do you get that idea?” And then I do indeed have to explain where the fuck I got that idea.
But when a politician is not clearly laying out his policy position, when his surrogates are adopting obfuscating or Orwellian language, then it becomes perfectly reasonable to say “This is what he means. This is what he plans.”
And, as I said, I strongly suspect you have done the same. Boehner alone is an unending source of such absolutely transparent lying nonsense. Would it really be irresponsible to say that his “Job-killing” remarks about a “broke” country are patently false? Even if he never has said, on the record, that he’s lying?
jayackroyd
@danny
#80 was a cross post. #82 is the response to your #79.
jayackroyd
And I am off line till tomorrow. I will check for any response in the morning.
Danny
I see.
So if we change the hypothetical to Massa just attacking another politician fiercely for being weak on the public option and publicly proclaiming that “insurance companies need a competitor that isnt driven by profit motives to keep them honest”, would it then be ok for you to write:
Yes or no?
You’re far gone if you actually think that it’s reasonable to attribute to someone everything they haven’t explicitly ruled out publicly.
Wait, what!? Did Obama or his surrogates use “orwellian” language? Because they said “voucher” and not “premium support”? You trippin acid, bro?
What this should indicate to you is that you have lost all bearings on what’s reasonable and not reasonable. You’re far down the rabbit hole and through the mirror.
What’s reasonable is for you to say “while X has publicly said Y what he really means is Z”, not “Z is exactly X’ position in this matter”. Big no-no.
Well, no. That would be perfectly fine.
If you say that someone’s statement is “patently false”, then it is trivially apparent that you’re talking about your opinion, and I know i should ask you for your reasons to believe that. Of course, if you’re wrong you’re still wrong, it’s just that you’re not putting words in someone else’s mouth.
But if you tell me about different politicians positions on child pornography laws and then say “Boehner’s position, of course, is that it should be legal”.
And then I find out that he hasn’t in fact endorsed that sentiment (publicly) at all. It doesnt help then that you think you have (according to your judgement) good reasons to believe that he has a secret plan to work behind the scenes to legalize it, that’s still not ok for you to say.
Capiche?
Danny
I’m going offline for the night as well.