Paul Ryan and Obama's Grand Bargain

[Teamster Jeff]

http://thebluevoice.blogspot.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-and-obamas-grand-bargain.html

In thinking about this year's national politics, I'm keeping in mind Van Jones' perspective that progressives face two major battles this year: November (getting Obama re-elected and Romney not-elected) and December (defeating Obama's cherished goal of a Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid).

Democrats need to remember all year what Obama told the New York Times (Amy Chozick, Obama Is an Avid Reader, and Critic, of the News New York Times 08/07/2012): He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security."

And since Ryan's star selling point has been his proposal to abolish Medicare, to exploit that the Obama campaign will need to defend Medicare in some way or another. Which they hopefully will do aggressively, because it's one of the Democrats' best programs and most popular ones.

That will also make it more difficult for Obama to get the Grand Bargain through Congress in the lame duck session. And that would be a very good thing for the Democrats in Congress to be worried that a vote for the Grand Bargain could be political suicide for them. The ideal situation would be for every Democrat in Congress in December to be in fear that a vote for the Grand Bargain would be the end of any political future for them in the Democratic Party. And it should be the end for anyone who votes to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

[Yeah Its Spin]

1. I'm confused.

So who do I vote for?

Just thought I would add, you would think that folks who are worried Obama might bargain away SS and medicare would want to get more dems in the house and senate instead of crying about a deal Obama gave boner a year ago that he knew there was no way he could possibly accept and didn't.

[Teamster Jeff]

2. Vote for Obama

and when he says he is OK with benefit cuts believe him

[still_one]

3. One thing the republicans will privatize and destroy social security, the Democrats won't and

That includes Obama.

And even of you don't believe it, you at least have a chance to change his mind, there is no chance of that with the republicans,

In addition the democrats are against privatizing social security, republicans want to privatize it. If they would have gotten their way during bush 2 the system would be in even worse shape

There are also other issues, the supreme court, reducing our involvement in wars, financial regulation, and a host of other issues

There is a huge difference between the candidates

[Teamster Jeff]

4. I agree

[TheKentuckian]

12. You don't change a mind by pretending the current plan is okay.

I don't think he intends to privatize the system but I think it is hard to say he isn't apparently quite open to various "adjustments", "tweaks", "using a scalpel rather than slashing", and whatever else you want to call it that would have real life impacts on the value of benefits over time, age of eligibility, maintaining a dedicated funding source, means testing, freezes, and about anything but privatizing, which is great but it really isn't the ballgame because it is all about taking care of our seniors, including my ass when I am one.

I don't trust shit because the man has pushed the issue even as the opposition keeps ceding the issue and flees the field. It is said this is some form of chess to prove some bullshit to independents, who continuously seem unimpressed, at best no matter how many attempts are made. Probably because more get nervous than can ever be gained but I don't see what the farce buys so it presents as fantasy and excuse making to me.
"Exposing the teabaggers" is a goofy meme, the teabaggers are fucking apparent and brash about it. No fucking shit they aren't willing to negotiate in good faith, they have sworn not to. SHOCKING!!!



Santa and the Easter Bunny make more sense.

[WillyT]

5. You Might Find This Interesting...

Link: http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/11/thoughts-on-the-paul-ryan-vp-selection/

[Teamster Jeff]

6. Thank You nt

[eridani]

7. There's a difference between offense and defense here

Repukes want to eliminate Medicare and Social Security. Obama and the weak defenders of these programs are willing to compromise on lesser cuts.

We should not accept either option!

[AtomicKitten]

8. Pres O on Social Security --

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."

-PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS, JANUARY 25, 2011

[PayAttentionFool]

9. Bipartisan Solution = Good Bye SS

Put all your hope in the Presidents Fancy Words, me I look at what he has done and offering cuts to both SS and Medicare to the RW showes that he and the rest of the non liberal non progressives in the Democratic Party are willing to sell the 99% out.

That’s just my interpretation as to what will really happen.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I'm with NOW on this.

http://www.now.org/press/04-11/04-14.html

You can hang with the conspiracy theorists.

[woo me with science]

57. Yet you simultaneously defend cuts to Social Security.

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Here is where you posted the link to a right-wing, Third Way rag article in order to defend the despicable chained CPI:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1118005

The chained CPI is an assault on seniors. It cuts projected Social Security benefits to elderly who desperately need them, and it does so even more viciously over time.


The Third Way shift from denying that cuts will happen to defending and rationalizing them has finally begun.


___________________________________________

Other articles in the same rag:
"The Professional Left's CEO Delusion"
"Will progressives evah learn?"
"Massive FAIL - Dennis Kucinich mistakes math for threat"
"Night School for the Professional Left"
"Manufactured Outrage of the Fittest So Called Progressives"

[still_one]

56. It will be a different game, no more compromise. He has learned you cannot compromise with the

Rethugs. It took him long enough, but I believe that since the repukes spit in his face when he offered any compromise, the odds are he will pursue a progressive agenda if he wins

[NYC_SKP]

22. "without slashing benefits for future generations"

That is what he said and I trust him.

There are a few people who will shit on him if he so much as TRIES to make it more efficient, or even if he tries to keep it solvent for the working class through means testing.

Drama lovers....

[AtomicKitten]

33. That's my feeling as well.

It was surreal to come here this a.m. and see a handful of people slamming the Democrats, NOT the Republicans. It's about *&$#@ time these people pick a side because the difference between the party's vision for this country is glaringly apparent (as opposed to the lame 'they're both the same' canard), particularly with putting Ryan on the ticket. It is crystal clear the GOP's intention, something they've been itching to do for decades, is to privatize Medicare.

[Oilwellian]

23. And then several months later...

Was the Grand Bargain spectacle.

[AtomicKitten]

31. It was political theater. Nothing more.

[Marr]

25. And after that quote, we were told their was a difference between a "cut" and a "slash".

[AtomicKitten]

34. And ....? The parsing of words isn't particularly convincing.

[Marr]

40. I don't understand your point.

When someone starts parsing words like that, they reveal their position. When a person responds to a question about a past promise not to "slash" something with an insistence that there's a difference between a "cut" and a "slash", that implies that you might make cuts.

[AtomicKitten]

43. Are you new at politics?

It's become glaringly apparent both sides wanted to cover their asses when it came to looking like they were serious about dealing with the debt. It was political theater. How do I know that? Because not a goddamn thing came of it.

What is annoyingly myopic, however, is that a handful of people here have saddled and ridden the "cat food commission" horseshit originally touted by FDL. They SWORE President O was going to announce draconian cuts at the State of the Union Address some TWO YEARS AGO!!! Still waiting on that wizardly prediction ...



on edit: One thing to keep in mind while you and others are working hard to undermine the Democratic Party is that the GOP * WILL * privatize Medicare and Social Security if given the chance.

[Marr]

45. Are you?

A person does not offer "concessions" unless they're willing to follow through on them. When Obama put those cuts on the table, the GOP certainly could've taken them. It was only their loony, Teabagging fringe that proved completely unmanageable and unwilling to say "yes".

If what you claim is true and it was only bait, then it was incomprehensibly irresponsible. And since I've never heard the Obama Administration, or any other establishment Democrat, back up that claim in any way, it is wholly unconvincing.

[AtomicKitten]

47. It was political chicken and neither side blinked ... and that's that.

Feel free to try to convince readers here that the Democrats are going to fuck 'em over in the concerted and obvious tag-team effort to suppress Democratic voter turn-out. There used to be a rule against that, but now you have DU's blessing, so knock yourself out. Maybe you could put it to music, get some costumes, and really make a show of it. I'd paid a dollar to see that.

Second verse same as the first ...

[Teamster Jeff]

50. The original post suggests that progressives have 2 major battles this year

1) Get Obama re-elected

2) Defeat any "grand bargain" by Dems to cut SS, medicare and medicaid.

The only concerted and obvious voter suppression effort is in your mind.

[AtomicKitten]

51. My comment was not directed to you.

And this tactic of voter suppression isn't new. It's the same tactic that Ralph Nader has used over and over and over again.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

[Marr]

46. In response to your edit...

That goes without saying, and I don't know why that point is continually brought up in this context.

Yes, the GOP would love to privatize Medicare and Social Security. That doesn't change the fact that much of our own party seems willing to dismantle the programs as well, and we don't do ourselves any favors by ignoring that fact.

[Marr]

52. I'm sick of ignoring your childish accusations.

If you can't argue like an adult, I'll just wish you a good day.

[AtomicKitten]

53. You are arguing like Ralph Nader "Dems Bad!" and taken just as seriously.

[bhikkhu]

10. Interesting how you know so much about Obama's "cherished goals"

...perhaps you could link to somewhere where he actually lays those out in a policy, or puts them to words in a speech, or in any way advocates for them.

Because, lacking substantiation, its just clever troll-food.

[Teamster Jeff]

11. Some substantiation

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

President Obama
July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president


Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve said that reducing the deficit will require shared sacrifice. We know -- we have an idea of the taxes that you would like to see raised on corporations and on Americans in the top two tax brackets, but we don’t yet know what you specifically are willing to do when it comes to entitlement spending. In the interest of transparency, leadership, and also showing the American people that you have been negotiating in good faith, can you tell us one structural reform that you are willing to make to one of these entitlement programs that would have a major impact on the deficit? Would you be willing to raise the retirement age? Would you be willing to means test Social Security or Medicare?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve said that we are willing to look at all those approaches. I’ve laid out some criteria in terms of what would be acceptable. So, for example, I’ve said very clearly that we should make sure that current beneficiaries as much as possible are not affected. But we should look at what can we do in the out-years, so that over time some of these programs are more sustainable.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/15/press-conference-president

[SunsetDreams]

15. No where in that does it say

cuts are on the table PERIOD. You can look at other peoples solutions and NOT AGREE with them. It happens all the time. It happens in Congress...It happens when laws get interpreted in the Supreme Court. People disagree.

[Teamster Jeff]

17. Obama's solution to the defict was to try to make a "grand bargain"

that cut benefits. So yes, I look at that solution and disagree with it. When Obama campaigned in 2008 he never said that cuts will be on the table yet they were. So, I don't expect him to admit to seeking cuts this time around.

[mzmolly]

27. Obama's solution, was to get people like Ryan to put

their "solution" on the table. Worked.

[flamingdem]

35. good point! now we have gold n/t

[bhikkhu]

55. The whole focus was to make a grand bargain that didn't cut benefits

Which you are well aware of, as you must have read about it when carefully snipping out your "supporting statement" from the WH pages.

The original "source" for the stories about Obama offering to consider benefit cuts during the closed-door budget negotiations, which I remember well, was "five anonymous republicans".

Given how they so regularly and simultaneously roll out their talking points and spin in lock-step across the various news and radio, I would guess that this whole OP is a part of a similar tactic. Their VP choice has promised to liquidate Medicare and Social Security, and the cripple the ACA before it can get off the ground - so we have all these stories seeding distrust about democrat's stance on social programs. Clever.

Enjoy your, "Teamster Jeff"! (did a focus group pick that screen name, btw?)

[SunsetDreams]

13. NO Where in the article that is linked to NYT and which you are bolding

does the President say that. It is the Author's opinion and it's BS.

[ProSense]

16. Haven't you heard

Romney picking Ryan is a plot to help the evil Obama to cut Social Security.

Facts be damned!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021114894

[flamingdem]

18. Pro has the facts as usual n/t

[Teamster Jeff]

19. Cheerleading for Team Blue is fine

Blindly ignoring what your elected officials do is irresponsible.

[Marr]

26. Well put. /nt

[ProSense]

29. Oh brother.

"Cheerleading for Team Blue is fine Blindly ignoring what your elected officials do is irresponsible"

So unless one agree with the false implication of the OP title, one is "blindly ignoring" and "irresponsible."

You know what's "irresponsible": distortions, especially ones that tie the very real proposal by Ryan to speculation based on a thing that never happened.

The two aren't even remotely related, and the comparison trivializes the dangerous nature of Ryan's proposal.

[woo me with science]

32. Amen. nt

[AtomicKitten]

37. What did they do exactly? Not a goddamn thing.

The commission was political theater so both sides could claim they're serious about dealing with the debt. What is also clear is that Republicans are itching to privatize Medicare. What is irresponsible is the effort by some to distract from that very serious and sobering fact.

[Teamster Jeff]

41. What they did was try and cut a deal with Repugs

to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for $800 billion in tax increases.

[AtomicKitten]

44. It was quite obviously a game of political chicken.

No harm, no fowl ...

[girl gone mad]

49. I don't know which is worse..

offering up cuts in good faith or playing "political chicken" with programs tens of millions of people depend on.

Considering that Obama was eager to make deficit reduction the centerpiece of his economic agenda, allies himself with neoliberals and wants to be credited for his willingness to wheel and deal, I don't for one second believe this was a bad faith offer.

[JoePhilly]

30. YUP ... we've seen multiple threads attacking Obama and dems while suggesting the Ryan pick

is part of the conspiracy.

[woo me with science]

20. Thank you. Both goals are important.

Democrats do not attack social safety nets. Period.

It's notable that underlying this entire discussion is one simple demand: That a Democratic President running for reelection as a champion of the 99 percent promise not to attack the safety nets that millions of Americans depend upon to avoid poverty and despair in their old age.

Not even that he promise to improve them...but that he promise not to ATTACK them.


Anyone who has a problem with this demand is no Democrat.

[HiPointDem]

21. +1

[Oilwellian]

24. Indeed n/t

[bluestateguy]

28. There is really no evidence that any such baragin ever existed

Speculatory scribblings from the bored Washington press corps, anonymous quotes, and rumors are all they have to show for it.

[Progressive dog]

36. You are absolutely right

You cannot talk to people once they "know" there is a conspiracy, but thanks for trying.

[Teamster Jeff]

39. Who mentioned a conspiracy? n/t

[girl gone mad]

38. Huh?

Schumer, Reid, Boehner, and Dan Pfeiffer, among others, all confirmed that Obama offered up cuts to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for a tax hike of $100 billion per year over 10 years.

You'd have to swim pretty far out into that Egyptian river to believe these people were all lying.

[bhikkhu]

58. Do you mean this deal:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/07/25/reid-confirms-2-7-trillion-all-cuts-debt-limit-deal/

note that "it’s important to note a couple things. First, almost half of it is accounting tricks. Second, it holds Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security harmless. "

I'm curious because, though its old news, my reading at the time found only republican sources - generally anonymous - for the story that "Obama offered up cuts to Social Security and Medicare". At the time it seemed like the typical coordinated RW talking-point, which when done right generates so much fuss and circular firing squads few people ever stop to ask where actually it came from.

So, having never heard before that Reid was a source - is there another story besides the one I linked to, in which he is definitely not a source?

[Autumn]

42. Speculatory scribblings from the bored Washington press corps, anonymous quotes, and rumors

are all a big part of politics, politicians love to float those balloons.

[great white snark]

54. Is this the new TP's for this week? Cat food commission part II?

I'm still waiting for all those entitlement cuts he was supposed to announce during the SOTU. Come to think of it, the loudest alarmists back then are the same ones with the "master plan" OP's now. Coincidence?

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. I think they all use the same clearinghouse for anti Obama tp's. There's 4 or 5 on this topic.