The Obama Effect. Once again, I loved his speech.....Until I thought about it.

[Armstead]

I called it the Obama Effect because his speech tonight reflected a common pattern oh his.

He really impressed me while the speech was on. His tone was very strong, He had a solid ideological framework, when he spoke of the philosophical differences about the role of government -- and the need to balance individual and common good. He seemed to be ready to rumble with the GOP. ....

His Jobs Bill had some good things in it.

Right On Mr. President, I thought as he looked directly at the Republicans in the audience and seemed to be calling them out,

But then, the actual content sank in. WHERE's the Beef?

The infrastructure program was good idea -- but nothing new,

Temporary tax cuts that will make Social Security more vulnerable? Tax breaks to entice employers to maybe hire people?

MORE FREE TRADE?!?!?

More cuts elsewhere to pay for the temporary traces of liberalism?

He did it again. He gave us a few crumbs, in a speech that basically reinforced the Same Old Same Old.

Most important, the message that traditional Republican ideas are the solution.

[scheming daemons]

1. Krugman disagrees with you

[bread_and_roses]

3. I would categorize Krugman's reaction as "faint praise"

subtext: it ain't much, but it's something when I expected nothing.

We could get all excited about that or...not.

[yurbud]

78. that's a pretty accurate summary of the Krug. And his analysis is pretty accurate.

[Armstead]

4. Sorta....His article is hardly a ringing endorsement

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Krugman: Less than a quarter of what's needed, and Obama won't get it done anyway

Other than that, high praise.

[emulatorloo]

15. Bullshit, Manny: "nothing will be done until the American people demand action.'"

That's what Krugman wrote. He is correct, call your Republican congressperson.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Nothing will be done because elected Democrats are not acting like Democrats.

And my Congressman is Barney Frank... even he's disgusted with Obama at this point. I have called my Republican Senator, and my Democratic Senator who recently said that entitlements are the only major economic problem for the US government.

[emulatorloo]

30. Manny, you are misrepresenting Krugman AGAIN And now Barney Frank

I saw Frank on MSNBC last night. He was clearly disgusted . . . with REPUBLICANS.

From the Krugman piece:

"But his plan isn’t likely to become law, thanks to Republican opposition. And it’s worth noting just how much that opposition has hardened over time, even as the plight of the unemployed has worsened. "

Please stop making stuff up.

[ClassWarrior]

22. So who's going to rally them to action behind Democratic values?

NGU.

[Exilednight]

93. That's the problem, we really lack a leader for liberal and/or progressive causes. n/t

[Exilednight]

92. Krugman did write that, but he also eluded to the fact that Obama lacked

any commitment to actually make meaningful change.

[Armstead]

20. No, my initial enthusiastic reaction was reflexive

I thought his tone was great. He was strong and resolute.

But ultimately just a new package for the same old stuff that my previous criticism is based on. That is, favoring policies based on slightly more humane variations of conservatism.

[COLGATE4]

31. It's called "damning with faint praise".

[Jakes Progress]

66. So. You going on record as a Krugman supporter?

Do you agree then that the plan is too little, too late? That the plan is timid? That the plan is just okay but probably the best we can expect from this president?

Just asking since you seem to be using Krugman as some kind of proof or something. You don't actually say anything about the OP except to bring up Paul Krugman. Does that mean you now back Krugman's views?

[INdemo]

2. You weren't paying attention

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x767821

[fasttense]

5. Yup, we got bad RepubliCON ideas and

really bad RepubliCON ideas.

It was the most disappointing load of fake job stimulus I have ever heard.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

13. They call for it all the time -- But their answers are different

[JuniperLea]

71. Yep...

Might be time to bid DU adieu...

[Little Star]

7. I agree Armstead. n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. What I did not hear:

any mention of the banks stealing all of our money,

or of the Federal Reserve giving it to them,

and of the Treasury supporting and enabling the theft.

any mention of fixing a broken financial system that is destroying the jobs.

Any mention of fixing the outsourcing of jobs.

Any mention of mortgage fraud by the banks or any plan that would help people from losing their homes.

And how does cutting taxes for small businesses (defined as earning under a million dollars a year)
help them hwhen customers cannot afford to buy products?

"While U.S. corporations, reluctant to expand in an uncertain economy, are sitting on $1.6 trillion in cash reserves, a record amount"
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding-hiring-corporations-stockpile-mountain-cash/story?id=10250559

In short, no mention of the underlying CAUSES of the prolonged economic crisis we are in, no solutions to fix them.

bandaids for cancer, that is what I heard.

[Inuca]

53. The list of what you did not hear

can be MUCH longer, I am sure. ANd maybe it is because it was a relatively short speech about a specific bill designed to create jobs and help the unemployed. But I guess he could have talked faster and cover more terrain....

[dixiegrrrrl]

88. The point is, the jobs bill would not even be necessary if the REAL issues were addressed.

[woo me with science]

80. [phone] This should be an OP.

So much of what is wrong is in what is never said. I would add the money-sucking (but highly profitable to banks and corporations) wars to your excellent list.

[dixiegrrrrl]

87. That, plus this insanity:

Obama and some Republicans are in favor of another round of stimulus amounting to $447B as soon as possible (more tax cuts and more infrastructure spending).

At the same time, a bipartisan Congressional super committee is tasked with reducing the federal budget deficit by $1.2T by the end of the year (more tax revenues and more spending cuts).

[woo me with science]

90. With one hand we stimulate; with the other we starve.

You know, if you do a little bit of everything, you can make a good speech to any group.

Welcome to election season...where it is painfully clear which constituents he is most serious about pleasing.

[golfguru]

85. +1000

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Recced up to 0. Some good stuff, yes, but some bad as well.

Based on previous experience, the bad will be passed and the good blocked.

And Obama's war on Social Security continues, of course.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Better tell the NY Times that they're liars, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1905111&mes">GOP, Democrats no longer fighting over whether to tackle programs, but how to do it

To the chagrin of many in his party, this summer Mr. Obama proposed changes in Medicare and Social Security that once would have been unthinkable for a Democratic president during his unsuccessful talks with the House speaker, John A. Boehner, for a “grand bargain” on cutting deficits. In return for the Republicans’ agreement to raise taxes after 2012 for the wealthy, Mr. Obama indicated that his party would support slowly increasing the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 from 65 and changing the formula for cost-of-living increases in Social Security to a less generous one that some economists consider more accurate.

And who can forget...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1631283">Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

And my all-time favorite: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0707/Briefing-room-word-games-What-s-a-slash-versus-a-cut-in-Social-Security">Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

Time for old folks to eat their peas and catfod, eh Mr. Demons?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demit]

24. Obama doesn't have to SAY the words. His plan affects SS anyway, by cutting the funds for it.

Lowering payroll taxes even more means less money going into the Social Security fund. Making it that much easier for the folks who already are saying it's going broke to say See? We can't afford Social Security! It must be 'reformed'!

And what happens later? Is the payroll tax going to be reinstated when this crisis is past? Is that likely? Republicans will call it 'raising taxes' and ordinary people will forget that the reduction was supposed to be temporary. So with fewer jobholders paying in because of there being fewer jobs, paying less than ever, Social Security will definitely face the crisis that the Republicans wanted all along.

That Social Security boogey man is very real.

[phleshdef]

26. This has been refuted over and over. This payroll tax cut, used as a short term stimulus...

..takes not ONE DIME out of the social security fund, not one.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. e.g., "Any bill I sign must include a public option"?

The money will be taken from SS. I think we all know what happens (or doesn't) next.

[phleshdef]

29. Wow, great way to not make any meaningful point whatsoever.

The money is suppose to be covered by the general fund. As long as thats followed, its fine. If its not followed, then at that time, people have the right to make an issue over it. Its most definately not a worry right now nor will it ever be at anytime in the near future. We eventually have to raise the cap on social security if we want it to truly continue to be solvent anyway. If/when that finally happens, we could easily permanently lower the amount middle class people have to pay in without it ever shorting the fund. Regardless, this does not take one dime away from Social Security as it currently stands and you are COMPLETELY UNABLE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.

[Carolina]

73. Touche, Manny!

BHO: words 1, actions 0

[Demit]

32. The tax cut is not money 'taken out' of the fund. It's MONEY THAT'S NOT GOING IN.

All you have is a PROMISE that the taxes that would have gone into the SS fund will be replaced by money from the general fund. A general fund that is already in deficit.

Yes, you can say Obama is PROMISING that the SS fund will be reimbursed. But that's all you can say.

[phleshdef]

35. "Taking money out" and "cutting money going in" mean the same god damn thing.

In either even, neither scenario is taking place in regard to the payroll tax cut.

As for your point about promises, you can say that about any fucking thing. Thats a non-argument. Even if we raised the cap and made social security solvent for the next 50-75 years, you are still only relying on a promise by government to maintain the good faith of the program and start paying you benefits once you retire. Its still all nothing more than just a promise that a "bad" government could screw with anytime the dynamics are in place for them to do so. Thats a cop out attempt at an argument if there ever was one.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[doc03]

42. What do mean not a single mention of SS in his speech?

Oh what did he do refer to SS as an entitlement program instead. I don't remember exactly what he called them but I heard him say we have to make adjustments in them to strengthen them. A line right out of the Paul Ryan and Rick Perry playbook.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[doc03]

56. Did Obam not propose even more cuts for SS, Medicare and

Medicaid? That is the question. Don't change the subject to something about Paul Ryan or Rick Perry. Do you deny that Paul Ryan, Rick Perry and countless other Republicans use the same rhetoric? I have received several mailers and e-mails from my Teabagging congressman claiming the same thing about making adjustments in entitlement programs to (save them).

[phleshdef]

57. LOL. Classic. "Don't change the subject to be about exactly what I said!"

Because a Republican said something about reforming the same shit doesn't mean a damn thing.

The fact is, Medicare does need reform, its going to be in serious trouble. Thats not Republican rhetoric. Thats rhetoric that progressive economists, single payer advocates and a shit load of other very liberal minded people have engaged in. Because we can read numbers and do math. Maybe you should try that. Hopefully it works out better for you than your attempts to win political arguments on the Internet using weak premises and tired cliche nonsense.

[doc03]

59. I see you conveniently left out SS, do we need to cut

SS when it has a $2.5 trillion surplus? The president offered up only cuts to SS to (strengthen?) it, he could have proposed raiseing the cap, he didn't, he only offered up more cuts to pacify the the Republicans. I would have never dreamed we would have people on DU actually advocating gutting SS.

[phleshdef]

62. He never offered any cuts to social security. Social Security was barely mentioned.

I'm not conveniently leaving anything out. I still believe Social Security is a third rail that will ultimately not be grabbed anytime soon.

[doc03]

81. Senator Berny Sanders seems to agree with my assessment

of the speech. He is offering up cuts in the so called entitlement programs and that is a fact.

[ProSense]

16. Hmmm?

"WHERE's the Beef?"

Typical!

Here's the "beef."










The team to beat: Distortion/Willful Ignorance 2012

Campaign slogan: Working hard to confuse the issue so you don't have to!

[Armstead]

21. Please note that I said it had some good things in it

Willful ignorance includes not acknowledging when posts are not black-and-white.

[ProSense]

38. Hmmm?

"Please note that I said it had some good things in it"

You sure did!!!

I called it the Obama Effect because his speech tonight reflected a common pattern oh his.

He really impressed me while the speech was on. His tone was very strong, He had a solid ideological framework, when he spoke of the philosophical differences about the role of government -- and the need to balance individual and common good. He seemed to be ready to rumble with the GOP. ....

His Jobs Bill had some good things in it.

Right On Mr. President, I thought as he looked directly at the Republicans in the audience and seemed to be calling them out,

But then, the actual content sank in. WHERE's the Beef?

The infrastructure program was good idea -- but nothing new,

Temporary tax cuts that will make Social Security more vulnerable? Tax breaks to entice employers to maybe hire people?

MORE FREE TRADE?!?!?

More cuts elsewhere to pay for the temporary traces of liberalism?

He did it again. He gave us a few crumbs, in a speech that basically reinforced the Same Old Same Old.

Most important, the message that traditional Republican ideas are the solution.

"Willful ignorance includes not acknowledging when posts are not black-and-white."

Willful ignorance is trying to spin a blatant attempt to denigrate the proposal as nuance!

[dionysus]

17. thats some eeyore shit right there

[Armstead]

23. Eh, maybe. But is's safer to be Eeyore than Pollyanna

[Bluerthanblue]

72. both Eeyore and Pollyanna die in the end,

just like each one of us will. Who had the more fulfilling life?

What's the point of living if it is nothing more than existing and expecting the worst?

Do you want to arrive at the end of your life having lived it "safely" ? or with gusto still reaching for the best?

[phleshdef]

27. Economists have been coming forward for the past 14 hours to say that you are dead wrong.

They are saying that this will bring unemployment down a full percentage or even better.

[Armstead]

33. Happy Days are Here Again

Wow, in the unlikely event that all of this gets passed, unemployment may be brought down to a level that would have been considered unthinkable three years ago.

If you will not in my post, I said there are some good things in the Jobs Plan. It would be a helpful bit of legislation.

But the message is the same: "Let us all get along. Republicans have good ideas and we are going to use them to help revive the economy. And, even in this economic emergency we must offset this unnatural spending by cutting elsewhere to pay for it. Liberals, you have to eat your peas, and stop expecting too much....And we need more free trade."

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. peanuts. we needed a lot more

[phleshdef]

37. We'd get a lot more had the country not handed the house over to Repubs, Elections = consequences

Those blue dogs that we all are suppose to hate so much, many of them would have voted for an aggressive jobs bill, likely one much more aggressive than the one the President is proposing with a Republican controlled house in mind. Thems the breaks. We (the American people) hand control over to Republicans, then we have to suffer the consequences for the time that they are in office. We have to compromise and do things their way. Don't like it? Then don't elect them. Its as simple as that.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

43. which we could have gotten, but for

a timid, compromising white house that refused to get its hands dirty.

[phleshdef]

47. Chest beating nonsense is not an argument of substance.

[Demit]

50. "We have to compromise and do things their way"? No wonder you love Obama!

See, Democrats have a different idea of what compromise is. The word you want is 'capitulate'. Doing things the way somebody wants is capitulating. Or, in current parlance, caving.

[phleshdef]

52. Quick, think up a way to throw "triangulate" in there too and maybe drop in a line about Oligarchs!

You've almost earned enough points to get the "Tired Cliche Bonus for the Day". You just need to try a tad bit harder.

[Demit]

61. No, I just like quoting your words: "We have to compromise and do things their way."

"We have to compromise and do things their way." Straight from your own post # 41.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Demit]

64. "We have to compromise and do things their way."

I guess that was one thing Obama did change, the meaning of compromise. I guess that was the message for Republicans in last night's forceful speech? "Listen to me!! We are going to compromise and do things your way!!!"

Haha, "We have to compromise and do things their way." That's priceless.

[phleshdef]

65. You aren't helping your argument by mocking me for being able to count better than you.

[Demit]

68. No argument. Just quoting your own words: "We have to compromise and do things their way."

You said it. "We have to compromise and do things their way." Compromising is doing things their way. Quite a philosophy! I'm just giving it the prominence it deserves.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Demit]

76. You didn't mean "We have to compromise and do things their way"?

Actually, I thought "We have to compromise and do things their way" was pretty clearly communicated. If you didn't mean it 100%, what percentage did you mean it, that I should have surmised? 99%? 98%? 97%?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Demit]

82. But if you only meant a percentage of it, it makes it hard to get what you mean.

I think you should stay with 100% of your original "We have to compromise and do things their way." Stick to your guns! After all, you wouldn't want to be seen as weak.

[brentspeak]

36. Economist Dean Baker: The Payroll Tax Cut: A Stimulus That Progressives Should Oppose

http://yubanet.com/opinions/Dean-Baker-The-Payroll-Tax-Cut-A-Stimulus-That-Progressives-Should-Oppose.php

[ProSense]

40. Economist Dean Baker: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue

Dean Baker: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue

It would help if progressives stop spreading lies.

[doc03]

39. I could close my eyes and imagine Paul Ryan was giving

that speech. Things like, "To be honest we have to make some minor changes in SS and Medicare to strengthen then". Cutting the payroll taxes on employers, gee where did that idea come from? Bribing employers to hire people with another tax cut. Then offering up another $400+ billion cuts in addition to the 1+ trillion he agreed to a few weeks ago.

[ProSense]

41. Did

"I could close my eyes and imagine Paul Ryan was giving"

...you wake up from your nightmare when the President mentioned renovating schools, rebuilding America's infrastructure, creating an infrastructure bank and extending unemployment benefits?

[doc03]

45. The Republicans are going cherry pick the parts they like

and add new tax cut demands and your building bridges and such will be called another failed stimulus program and will be DOA.

[totodeinhere]

67. Those proposals are are well and good but he has been advocating those things for a long time.

I wanted something new and bold and out of the box. I didn't get it.

[dionysus]

44. if you *really* think paul ryan would have given that speech, there's nothing anyone can say to you.

[Inuca]

55. Exactly

I read the post, I clicked on reply, and then I canceled. What rational argument can one give to such an Alice in WOnderland statement?!?!?

[Solomon]

70. well he did say he gets a lot of republican

emails. Hmm. I get none.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

54. The Teamsters' Hoffa and AFL-CIO's Trumka both warmly praised Pres. Obama's speech w/o complaints.

They sure didn't mind what Pres. Obama said about free trade, unlike you. Here's more praise for President Obama:

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison today released the following statement on the president’s jobs speech:

“The President has delivered a good start for putting Americans back to work that includes elements we as progressives have been calling for.

Read all about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768102

-------------------------------------------------

From the Congressional Black Caucus:

"We are especially pleased about the synergy between the proposal presented by us and the proposal he submitted to Congress for consideration this evening. President Obama presented a bipartisan solution–something we can all support regardless of political affiliation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768021

Get a clue.


<< Most important, the message that traditional Republican ideas are the solution. >>

Yeah, that's why Republicans were on their feet giving him standing ovations throughout his speech and were saying afterwards how they couldn't wait to pass the bill.

:sarcasm:

[scheming daemons]

74. They don't have ulterior motives

[ClarkUSA]

75. No, they don't. Therein lies the rub.

[Union Scribe]

96. FALSE. The Teamsters and AFL-CIO OPPOSE FREE TRADE DEALS

Still trying to peddle this bullshit, eh?

People, read their official positions yourselves:

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/07/06/tell-congress-to-stop-colombia-korea-panama-trade-deals/
http://www.teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/31811KoreaFTALetterHouseofRep031711.pdf

Their leaders DID NOT PRAISE OBAMA'S FREE TRADE MESSAGE.

[bhikkhu]

58. "US Exports rise to record as Trade Deficit Shrinks"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/business/economy/us-exports-rise-to-record-as-trade-deficit-shrinks.html


Keep in mind, the effect of free trade is entirely dependent on monetary policy. We had decades of monetary policy previously which discouraged exports and encouraged imports, and thats where the trade data and predictions come from. It is entirely possible that current policies will and are working as the president hopes.

[treestar]

60. It is something the Republicans should pass

If they do, they lose because they did what the POTUS wants. If they fail to, they show what massive assholes they are.

[taught_me_patience]

77. The speech was smart politics but was it smart policy?

It relies heavily on supply-side tax incentives to promote job growth. This is probably the worst way to create jobs. There is nothing real incremental to stimulate consumption and the infrastructure bank is woefully inadequate.

[jzodda]

84. I don't believe the tax incentives will do it

I think the housing market, Japan and the Eurozone, big corps sitting on mounds of money instead of spending and the lack of spending by consumers here are the main problems. I don't see how the payroll tax cut and that $4k "bribe" thing to hire the unemployed will accomplish what we need.

What we need is a big jobs program like in the New Deal where the gov PUT the people to work. I don't see that happening for now so the above represents zero growth.

The infrastructure bank is only good if the gov hires 2 million people to work it

The extension of unemployment (which won't pass the House) is the only really good idea as it puts money into the hands of people who will spend it, thus helping the economy.

[Telly Savalas]

86. Smart policy is of limited usefulness if it doesn't get implemented

The plan put forth last night is the sort of thing that could conceivable pass through the House and the Senate. A New Deal 2.0, which is what we really need, is not going to happen until both chambers are packed with liberal Democrats.

[jzodda]

83. I disagree and agree to an extent

He went with a smaller jobs plan so he can get something past the teabaggers. There are many (and I stand among them) who believe that nothing he proposed will get out of the House. I don't think its possible at present. What he has is something to campaign on, namely a do nothing Congress who won't pass a job bill but wants to cut social security. That's not a good position for the repukers to be running on.

FYI: The tax breaks to entice employers to hire? A joke-the last time it was $3,000 and it accomplished nothing. Now he wants to make it $4,000? I remember at unemployment they gave us the forms for the $3k break and were told to hand it to interviewers so they would know about it. Well we all talked about it (the people at unemployment) and the ones who handed the form in the interview were looked at by the interviewer as a nutcase. It was like "I suck but here is a $3k bribe from Uncle Sam to hire me"- that was the feeling among us and how we perceived the interviewer viewing it also.

Not one of the people who tried to use it in the interview got a positive response. It seems and feels so odd to have to bring it up in the interview.

[AVoiceInTheDark]

89. I think you throw a good comment/question into the mix

And it makes me think of something that really frustrates me. Candidates from both parties are elected in waves. Once elected they dive into deeply liberal or deeply conservative agendas (depending on party affiliation). These policies often isolate opposition -- and they get angry and loud. After a short period, those in the center grow weary of the extremism and come time for a new election all incumbents swing towards the center. By then, they've lost a hefty dose of credibility. This cycle only serves to undo the minor accomplishments of previous administrations/congresses. I think the public is frustrated and has lost faith in this cycle. and I think we need to find a way to make it end.

[Lord Helmet]

91. Until you thought about it? You mean until you read the usual people pissing on the proposal

and jumped on the bandwagon.

Original thought. Look into it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

94. Good speech, but no bill. All we have at this moment is a speech and a "fact sheet".

I don't understand the rah-rahs, the boos, or even the argument until the bill is actually written.

Valerie Jarrett said herself after the speech that "The President is going to draft the legislation... and send it up there next week".

Maddow: "Next week?"

Jarrett: "Next week."

I guess the proof will be in the pudding. Will there be a bill called "The American Jobs Act" this week? We'll see.

I have to say I'm betting there won't be, and that there will be an excuse that's acceptable to some for why there isn't.

[Skittles]

95. see, I learned to do that during his campaign

really, really listen to WHAT he was saying as opposed to being mesmerized with HOW he was saying it......you are correct, the "beef" just is NOT there