Truth or Consequences?
What do you plan to do if Sir Barry, the brave defender of the weak and powerless, does, in fact, go ahead and fuck us?
Not re-elect him? Late for that, imho.
Not send him a birthday card? Yeah, that'll show 'im!
Chained Lightening: If a GOPhuq had introduced the "Chained CPI," the Dims would have arisen en masse to repel it.
Just as, had John McCain had been elected in 2008, Social Security cuts wouldn't even be in the vocabulary of the debate, much less be on the fucking table because, under GOPhux attack, the DIMS would have ferociously protected THEIR safety-net programs.
But with THEIR boy, Sir Barry, the Pale Male, in charge, and pushing it, they have no incentive to resist.
So you could take it to the fucking bank: Any "solution" to which the Sir Barry, the Capitulator, and the Orange Boner could agree would be the one that MOST deeply and thoroughly fucks the GREATEST number of powerless and defenseless people.
Why would you expect it be otherwise?
What this message describes is a combination of ethnocentric jingoism, murderous nationalism and patriotic exceptionalism which could best be encapsulated as "Americanism."
Some protest that they LIKE the usage, that the term captures their sentiments.
Okay. Fine. Humpty Dumpty changed meanings all the time as the pleasures suited.
But it's semantically incorrect, specious, and intellectually dishonest to use it to descriibe conditions to which it is not related. Like saying "that begs the question," when what is meant is "that leaves questions unanswered." Cf, e.g., petitio principii (rhetoric lesson follows):
The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it". Thus, insofar as petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken (aka, 'tautology.').
The fallacy may be committed in various ways. When ... committed in a single step, it is sometimes called a hysteron proteron, as in the statement "Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality". Such fallacies may not be immediately obvious due to the use of synonyms or synonymous phrases; one way to beg the question is to make a statement first in concrete terms, then in abstract ones, or vice-versa.
Another is to "bring forth a proposition expressed in words of Saxon origin, and give as a reason for it the very same proposition stated in words of Norman origin", as in this example: "To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments".
When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, it is sometimes referred to as circulus in probando or reasoning in a circle but incorrectly so, if this fallacy is considered under the definition Aristotle gave in Prior Analytics.
"Begging the question" can also refer to making an argument in which the premise "is different from the conclusion ... but is controversial or questionable for the same reasons that typically might lead someone to question the conclusion".
An example of "Begging the Question":…[S]eldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises … Rather, an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to look different and is then placed in the premises.—Paul Herrick
Speaker 1: "Unbelief is disobedience to God's commands."
Speaker 2: "Says who?"
Speaker 1: "Says the Word of God Himself."
Obama PROCLAIMED LOUDLY what he intended to do, and though it SEEMED to include "reducing corpoRat welfare," there were no explicit "promises to that effect.
But he did announce that his plans and Rmoney's plans for the Social Safety net were basically indistinguishable, in the debates.
Now he's doing what he SAID de'd do, and you cannot honestly say it is NOT what he was elected to do, since he announced it and was elected anyway.
The made bed awaits your recumbency!
The Grand Bargain. BOHICA! I
"So here's where we sit." (according to Esquire's Charlie Pierce)...
"The Democrats, led by the president, who never is going to need to depend on Social Security, are prepared to concede on an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. They are going to make life harder for millions of seniors. Social Security is now squarely "on the table" in any future budget negotiation. (Hey, who unplugged the third rail?) (Ed. Note:
The simplest solution — raising the cap — is beyond discussion, now and forever. The "chained-CPI," which is a terrible idea on its own merits, as well as a piece of noxious moral sleight-of-hand, seeing as how it cuts benefits while pretending not to do so, is being adopted whole hog without a corresponding mechanism to raise more Social Security revenue to make up for the loss.
If the president maintains his faith in the great god SimpsonBowles, the old folks will get a bump for only two years after the deal takes effect. Swell.