In POB's Own Words:"Democrats have to accept the need for entitlement reform"

[KoKo]

President Obama Speaks at a Business Council Dinner

February 27, 2013 | 9:26 | Public Domain

President Obama delivers remarks to the Business Council during a dinner.

Park Hyatt Hotel
Washington, D.C.

#t=0s

What we should be doing -- and what I've been calling for repeatedly over the last not just several months, but several years -- is a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines some tough spending cuts, particularly focused on how do we deal with long-term trends on some of our entitlement programs, and a tax reform agenda that without raising tax rates further could in fact raise sufficient revenues that combined would yield about $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade; would replace the sequester; would bring our deficit-to-GDP ratios below the 3 percent threshold that we need for stabilization; that would stabilize our debt-to-GDP ratios for the next decade; and would lay the groundwork for more expansive growth because we would have simplified our tax system, closed some loopholes, broadened our base, seen an opportunity for corporate tax reform that could also make the whole system more sensible and give you guys a more competitive posture internationally. That's what we should be doing.

OKAY...SO GOOD SO FAR......

Now, you'll be happy to know that that's what I offered to my Republican friends back in December after my election, before the fiscal cliff. Many of you were involved in voicing support for such a balanced approach, even if you didn't sign on to every detail and every line item in our recommended budget. And what I've said is that that continues to be the offer on the table. I am prepared to make some tough decisions, some of which will garner some significant frustration on the part of members of my party, but I think it’s the right thing to do.



What I can’t do is to abide by a set of decisions here in Washington that would put the entire burden of deficit reduction on our seniors -- making their health care more expensive; students -- that would make their student loans and going to college more expensive; that would gut our investments in education and research and infrastructure -- all the foundations for long-term growth.. That’s not what we’re going to do, because it wouldn’t be good for the country and, frankly, it would not be good for your businesses.

's for this one...

BUT THEN HE SAYS:

Now, the question then becomes how do we get from here to there. And I was telling Andrew before we came out the issue is not technical, the issue is political. And the question is whether or not we are going to see a willingness on the part of all parties to compromise in a meaningful way. And what that means is Democrats have to accept the need for entitlement reform. But it also means that Republicans have to accept the need for additional revenues if we’re going to be able to actually close this deficit and provide the kind of certainty that you need to make your long-term investments.



Whether that can be done in the next two days -- I haven’t seen things done in two days here in Washington in quite some time. On the other hand, the good news is that I think the public is beginning to pay attention to this, and one thing I’m certain about is that the country as a whole is weary of Washington for presiding over a manufactured crisis every three months. It’s not good for business confidence. It’s certainly not good for consumer confidence. It’s unnecessary.

"Not Good for Business Confidence...Not good for Consumer Confidence. It's unnecessary." (Why is it always about BUSINESS and CONSUMERS?&quot WE ARE THE PEOPLE!

MORE at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/02/27/president-obama-speaks-business-council-dinner#transcript

[woo me with science]

1. Well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022438850

[bluestate10]

2. Entitlement reform doesn't mean cuts. There is inefficiency in every government and private company

function. Finding the inefficiency and correcting it is difficult, but often results in expanded benefits for those that need government assistance and, in the case of private companies, more jobs, higher salaries and higher profits.

[madokie]

3. But you can't bash the President putting it like that

many here simply are looking for anything to trounce on our President about. It sucks but its the way it is, I guess.

Mean o president wants to starve us old people to death, said so his self. of course that is trash but you get the meaning of what I'm getting at I'm sure

[bluestate10]

19. I understand. One DU member is lionized for his wild and disingenuous attacks on the

President's integrity. I find the situation infuriating.

[one_voice]

111. A few are in competition..

to take over that title.

[msanthrope]

63. You Better Believe It! nt

[treestar]

104. :)

And let's not emphasize the sentence following about what Republicans have to accept.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Right... because democrats are currently unwilling to accept efficient government

[Meaniepants]

110. efficient

To define an efficient government you must first define what the government is supposed to do. Birchers think that resolving contract disputes and defending the nations interest military as the only thing government is for. But the government is for the welfare of the living, blood pumping people, not just the artificial ones.

[markpkessinger]

18. Entitlement reform doesn't HAVE TO include cuts . . .

. . . but in this case, it likely does. Otherwise, why would the President make such a point of saying that Democrats "need to accept the need" for it?

[bluestate10]

23. What democrats need to accept is that there is some waste in programs that we care about.

Eliminating that waste will result in people that really need assistance getting assistance. I don't buy the republican welfare queen bullshit, but there is waste by government vendors, administrators and some people getting benefits that they shouldn't be getting. I would rather see democrats make a concerted effort to ferret out waste than see republicans continue to demonetize worthy programs that add value to society, just because of abuses that can be eliminated with a will to eliminate those abuses among good people (democrats).

[markpkessinger]

26. I don't think anybody has disputed that . . .

. . . I have not heard a single Democrat objecting to improvements in efficiency in these or any other programs. So what is he talking about?

[robinlynne]

77. The discussion on the table has nothing to do with waste. It is about making immediate cuts.

It is about receiving less social security.
Obama said he won't put ALL of it on the backs of the elderly.

There is no excuse for this. Your talk (not you specifically, the earlier poster) about waste is not relevant. That would have been a long term program. Not 1 day before the sequester.


Rep. Conyers sponsored a great bill. Simply cancel the sequester. end of story.
The bill is one sentence long.

[treestar]

106. ^^^THIS^^^^

Republicans have succeeded in convincing the public that these programs are nothing but waste!

[KoKo]

112. yes....there's that for sure. Media goes into a frenzy and

financial networks spew out "Entitlements are responsible for the Deficit" and bring in the Petersen Foundation "experts" planted everywhere then start lauding Simpson-Bowles...why didn't President listen...yadda...yadda.

And, it's not only the Republicans...I heard Robert Rubin (Dem) on carrying on about "Entitlements....they must be dealt with for the health of our country" on Bloomberg Business a couple days ago.

Robert Rubin...and his allies have been Dems including President Clinton and he has Obama's ear.

He sat there with his double died hair and eyebrows and carried on about it all. He's struck me as a vain man to whom power means everything. His policies are DLC. They haven't been good for the country. He loves de-regulation.

[noiretextatique]

116. #1 wasteful entity: the pentagon

i think we should start the reforms there.

[daleanime]

22. Your right, no politician would ever say reform....

when they meant cut. Just doesn't happen.

[WinkyDink]

29. Uh--Democrats need to understand about getting rid of inefficiencies? Literally nonsense.

[bluestate10]

43. See my example on state health care versus town by town health care.

Inefficiencies exists. What is nonsense is blindly denying that fact.

[sabrina 1]

40. The Chained CPI, which he is willing to consider, IS cuts. We are NOT stupid, at least

let's not let them think we are.

Secondly, this whole debate where this stupid nonsense was conjured up with Wall St representatives running the show, was supposed to be about the DEFICIT. Why were people like Simpson and Bowles ever allowed anywhere near this debate?

And mostly, and this needs to be repeated over and over and over again because apparently even some Democrats don't get it. SS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT. So, WHY ARE THESE PROGRAMS EVEN PART OF THIS PHONY DISCUSSION?

Please stop insulting our intelligence. We KNOW the people will lose in this latest game of chicken the results of which are already clear to anyone who has a brain cell functioning. But at least do not assume we do not know what this was all about from the beginning. We lose, fine, but we are NOT fooled.

[customerserviceguy]

70. Perhaps you see a bit more what I've been talking about in our previous discussions

And to top it off, there was that email that Woodward received from Gene Sperling, who as the President's director of the National Economic Council made it clear that the sequester was to be replaced by both revenues and entitlement "reforms". Surely, you have to be convinced that this is going to come to pass, especially once the blame for the sequester and any further government shutdown activity falls more (or more equally) on the President than it does the Rethuglicans.

We can shape the choices that are inevitably going to be made, or we can refuse to believe they're going to happen, and they will happen if the Repukes eventually gain power. Chained CPI would be nearly painless in a very low inflation economy, and would be most severe in a high inflation economy. Unless we can get something useful done soon, we're headed for the latter, and we all suffer in that situation.

[sabrina 1]

97. If this passes, this president will be the first Democratic president to

allow cuts to SS. At this point, most people simply assume, rightly or wrongly, that this is all a game and have zero confidence that anyone in DC is representing them. This is exactly what happens to countries that are taken over by corporations. The only solution is for the people to stop bickering among themselves and face the reality that unless they join forces and start by removing money from our electoral system, they may as will stop voting at all.

The number one priority now is to take the money out of our government. What we are watching here is the result of the Corporate takeover and nothing more. There are so few members of Congress willing to stand up against it now, so they have the control they worked so long to get.

I will never support anyone who is backed by corporate money again. I am hoping that the huge coalition formed just before the last election will begin the process of the PEOPLE choosing candidates rather than the Party so we can start working to remove corporate influence from our government.

Meantime you are probably correct, they will do what they want while thinking we arae fools and believe a single word of what they say regarding the 'deficit'. We do know what is going on. Now we have to try to fix it.

[WinkyDink]

101. To me, that is becoming a non-Democrat. It is my very definition. I really do not give a rat's

arse who disagrees with me, who will say I'm not loyal enough to our POTUS. Who is Obama to ME, if not a Democratic President with Democratic principles?

[robinlynne]

78. Thank-you.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. Social Security's administrative costs are less than 1%

That's way lower than anything in the private sector.

Wring savings from that 1%? Really? Good luck with that.

[HiPointDem]

88. "often results in expanded benefits" = no, it doesn't.

[Marr]

90. Oh, brother... whatever.

What was that line you tossed out the other day? Something about the CPI being 'used by many aspects of government', so seeing it in that list of ways to "fix" Social Security didn't necessarily mean Chained CPI? Seriously-- give me a break.

At what point will you just turn around and say cuts are a *good thing*? I have to say, this silly "don't judge yet" argument is well past it's freshness date.

[Demo_Chris]

92. Problem with this theory: the Pres said his own supporters wont like it

Yet we have never, even once, said we don't want efficiency.

He wants CUTS.

[progressoid]

108. The President is an excellent speaker. If he meant to say correcting inefficiency, he COULD SAY IT!

But he did not.

[uponit7771]

4. At this point it's MORE THAN disingenuous to equate reform with benefit cuts. I cut my phone bill

...from by 50% and get 100% of what I got with another carrier.

Don't know how to make it any simpler

regards

[TheKentuckian]

7. Define "reform" and we'll determine if it is a cut or not.

At this point benefit cuts are all the "reforms" that have been offered.

Don't come into the house talking about supporting any "reform" or "standing with" anybody until they speak plainly.

[KoKo]

8. That's what worries me...will the Repugs Decide the Reform?

What "Reform" do we think the Repugs would come up with?

It's "On the Table"....POB...makes that definite here and he says we Dems are going to have to accept it to get the country moving forward.

It's the "Unknowns" that are the question...that many of us are worried about. This is his statement to the Business Group yesterday...so it's current as to his thinking.

[sabrina 1]

42. Is the Chained CPI a cut or is it not? If sure isn't 'reform' to any Democrat I know.

Explain what you mean by 'reform'. And why are these programs any part of a debate about the deficit? They did not cause it, Wall St. Criminals caused it. So what is being done to prosecute the perpetrators of the financial collapse, caused by corruption and crime, and to retrieve some of the money they stole?

Social Programs did not cause the deficit. We KNOW what caused the deficit. So once again, why is anyone veering off in a direction that has zero to do with they claim they are trying to fix?

[customerserviceguy]

71. The money was stolen by previous Congresses

And while it might be satisfying to see some retired ones rounded up, tried, and imprisoned, it's not going to get back the trillions they gave away in benefits to buy votes. It's as gone as the Madoff "investments", the relatively little bit that they've been able to recover from what he's squirrelled away (or what they can claw back from those who got out early) is nothing compared to what people thought they owned before Madoff was exposed.

We're stuck, and the sooner we figure out how to deal with the waves of baby boomers heading for retirement, the easier it will be for all of us. If we put it off for the rest of Obama's term, then we'll see the GOP cut even more to deal with it.

Let's be part of the solution, there are many ways to ease the coming crunch, but they need time to work most effectively.

[sabrina 1]

100. No, it was borrowed, probably with the intention of stealing it. The fund is receiving

interest on that loan and they must be made to pay it back. They can start by ending their stupid, unnecessary, wars for profit and continue by starting prosecutions of those who collapsed the economy and retrieving some of the money they stole.

We can tax them to get back some of the profits they made from the borrowed money they invested in their failed wars and corrupt schemes that collapsed the economy.

But to do that we must elect people who are not bought by the very people who have created this mess anymore. Yes, it will be hard, but it's up to the people. We have the power, we just need to use it. For that we need leadership and I am confident that like other times in history, this takeover of the country by corporate interests will come to an end eventually when the people have had enough. It has already begun and you see how frightened they were of the people when they took to the streets. Enough to send out armies of robo cops to try to crush them.

[robinlynne]

79. Social security checks will be reduced. period.

[RobinA]

96. So Where

is this reform that is not cuts of which you speak? What ideas are out there that eliminate waste but don't cut? I have not heard anything to this effect, but I may have missed it.

[whatchamacallit]

6. What democrats have to accept is

electing center-right presidents is maybe not such a good idea.

[ProSense]

9. The thing to accept is

that some in this country are suffering from serious ODS.

I mean, if the President proposed increasing the minimum wage and made a strong argument for civil rights, he'd be attacked for not doing it right.

[KoKo]

12. But...I seem to remember you saying that "Entitlements" were not

in the bargain...way back. I might be misquoting you...and I should have done a search...but, it seems Third Way has been saying Obama was playing chess to box Repugs into corner about "Entitlement Reform."

Now some here feel "Reform" is good and they say it's not "cuts." But one persons view of Reform could very well look like a CUT in their SS or Medicare or Medicaid.

What the problem is that POB is saying "Democratic will have to accept Entitlement Reform" and it will be decided by Repugs as to what the Reform will be...and not by Democrats...since we don't have control of the House and the Senate requires 60 Votes.

So...lots of folks out here in Retirement or who are going to be on Retirement in the next few years, plus Medicaid Recipients are hanging on the cliff because it's up to the REPUGS to decide because our President didn't STAND FIRM on Democratic Principles about our "Entitlement" benefits. Yes, Medicaid is a problem...but he doesn't single that program out...he says Entitlments which are Social Security and Medicare...that we paid into all our working lives and you have too if you've worked for a substantial number of years.

He calls everything Entitlement when Medicaid is the one that's being gouged by the Big Pharma and Insurance Companies.

That's what needs to be pointed out. HE has it ALL...ON THE TABLE.. for REPUGS to decide.

[ProSense]

13. Well,

"But...I seem to remember you saying that "Entitlements" were not"

...you seem to be unwilling to accept that reform doesn't mean cut.

President Obama's policies: big savings and smart spending
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022424843

[Bake]

32. Chained CPI **IS** a cut.

He's signaled that so many times it's gonna happen.

Bake

[TDale313]

73. ^^^ this ^^^

Chained CPI will lower future benefits. That's a cut.

[bluestate10]

33. Facts don't influence blind emotion. You present facts and logic, many on DU present

wild claims of evil intentions from our President, an man who by know has shown his deep humanity and care for those that need assistance. The President has fought against angry, determined republicans in fight after fight and has prevented enormous damage to the poor and elderly, but the President still gets savaged repeatedly by one particular DU grandstander and his amen chorus.

[bluestate10]

30. There was a fight in my home state a couple of years ago.

The fight was over towns and cities running their own health care plans or joining the state plan. Some progressives went nuts, our democratic Governor and democratic Legislature was abandoning workers, surely disaster would come about, they said. Progressives were wrong, the state plan offered more benefits to workers for less cost to towns and cities, because the state plan was a mass buyer that could get discounts from suppliers and pass them on to workers, towns and cities.

[Luminous Animal]

46. What state would that be?

[sabrina 1]

44. Why are Social Programs part of a discussion about the Deficit? And why are

Democrats not pointing out the incongruity of Republicans attempting to bring an issue into this debate that has nothing to do with the debate? You surely know that these programs had and have nothing to do with the Deficit don't you? Millions of Americans do know this now, thanks to huge education efforts on the part of many Liberal organizations together with advocates for the beneficiaries of these programs. Can you explain to us why any Democrat would accept any discussion of programs that have zero to do with this debate?

[ProSense]

52. Here:

Krugman: It’s Health Care Costs, Stupid
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021922243

[sabrina 1]

54. Yeah, too bad we didn't get the PO. That would have solved that problem.

But what does SS have to do with the Deficit and since the answer is 'zero' why is there even talk about these programs in the same sentence as the Deficit, caused by corruption and criminality for which there has been NO accountability? Why is the Chained CPI 'on the table' in these discussions?

And where are we getting the money to send to Syria to help the 'rebels' many of whom are Al Queda, our supposed 'enemies' when we are talking about cutting benefits for the most vunlerable Americans? Were is that money coming from?

[customerserviceguy]

72. We're rapidly heading for a brick wall with Medicare

It's just about to go broke. The only "solution" I see advanced is lowering payments to doctors and hospitals. Eventually, that's going to drive providers out of the market for treating seniors. I'm lucky, I have a doctor who's younger than me by at least two decades, and she's dedicated to her patients. I may well be one of the people she decides to keep treating when I'm on Medicare.

I see people here saying, "Medicare for everyone". The ONLY reason Medicare works at all right now is that health care providers who still take Medicare patients are able to pass the extra costs on to other patients, usually the uninsured. With insured patients having preferred provider organizations busting down the fees for their members, we're going to run out of people to pay full freight so that everyone else can be treated for what Medicare and the PPO's will pay.

[robinlynne]

80. and why Obama would propose such cuts!

[brentspeak]

51. Oh, I'm sorry, whatchamacallit

You must be imagining that a Democratic president is actually aggressively attempting to cut Social Security benefits -- and trying to force the Democratic party to go along with him. His own words don't matter -- it's all in your mind.

Diagnosis, as per Dr. Prosense: "Serious ODS".

Take two blue links, and call Dr. Prosense in the morning.

[robinlynne]

81. No he would NOT.

[Marr]

91. I remember when you said Obama would NEVER try to cut Social Security, and that if he DID,

you'd no longer support him.

[GeorgeGist]

115. Sometimes ...

you're seem desperate to be irrelevant.

[kenny blankenship]

21. That they now have a 2 front war to wage.

Against two implacable and irrational foes.

[treestar]

107. That would be what the Republicans have "accepted"

and why these lost the election.

Presidents always have to be from the center-ish part of a party. Unless from a very exotic district, anyone does, to get elected.

[forestpath]

10. Obama's idea of "balance" is total BULLSHIT. Chained CPI means seniors will go hungry. Does

higher taxes for the rich mean THEY will go hungry?

HELL NO! They will just keep getting richer and richer.

SO - total B U L L S H I T!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ProSense]

11. Boehner hasn't taken him up on the offer yet and

Republicans filibustered the Democratic proposal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441793

Looks like Boehner saved us again.

[KoKo]

14. It's just a kick down the road...this will go on. But POB stated

to the Business Group yesterday that Democrats in his party will be unhappy. That's his bargaining point. "Entitlements" and he makes that clear. Whether the can is kicked down the road or not...he's firm that Democrats will have to accept "Entitlement Reform" eventually.

I don't know how it could be any plainer than words out of his own mouth....no matter what kerfullfil is going on with Boehner and the Repugs. It's Kabuki Theater...that will go on until the Deal is Done...where POB states that members of his party are not going to be happy.

[ProSense]

16. Boehner is never going to accept the President's proposal.

Never.

[sabrina 1]

47. Why are these programs part of this discussion? Is there some reason why

the people we elected to represent us cannot make it clear to the Republicans and to the American people, that these programs are not part of the cause of the deficit and have no place in this discussion?

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. And besides ...

even if there is a Chained CPI, it doesn't mean Elderly go hungry; especially, under the scheme that boehner hasn't taken us up on. People really ought to read about what they heard someone say ... and continue beyond the few buzz words they remember hearing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Oh, gosh. Another crisis. Sigh. Somebody do something. Are we talking about the Y2K crisis?

Or, maybe the threat posed by Mighty Grenada? Mayan Apocalypse? No more Twinkies?

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[kenny blankenship]

17. Worse and worse.

Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Obama.

[Bonobo]

20. A sense of entitlement.

Language matters.

[ProSense]

25. Connecting Entitlement Reform to Immigration Reform

Robert Reich:

Connecting Entitlement Reform to Immigration Reform

<...>

Foreign-born workers are now 15 percent of the nation’s workforce. At the present rate of immigration, between now and 2050 immigrants and their children are projected to account for nearly all the growth of the American population under the age of 65.

Immigration reform is already on the national agenda, but we’ve been focusing on only one aspect of it – how to deal with undocumented workers.

We need to think more broadly, and connect the dots. One logical way to help deal with the crisis of funding Social Security and Medicare is to have more workers per retiree. And the simplest way to do that is to allow more immigrants into the United States.

Immigration reform and entitlement reform have a lot to do with one another.

http://robertreich.org/post/43582016114

[Bonobo]

27. I would throw all my support for that man to be President.

He is brilliant.

[ProSense]

28. Yeah, and he used the words: entitlement reform

The horror!

[Bonobo]

45. I never said it was a horror.

I said that language matters. And it does.

[KoKo]

35. Robert Reich: "The Hoax of Entitlement Reform" 1/6/2013/

The Hoax of Entitlement Reform

Sunday, January 6, 2013

It has become accepted economic wisdom, uttered with deadpan certainty by policy pundits and budget scolds on both sides of the aisle, that the only way to get control over America’s looming deficits is to “reform entitlements.”

But the accepted wisdom is wrong.

Start with the statistics Republicans trot out at the slightest provocation — federal budget data showing a huge spike in direct payments to individuals since the start of 2009, shooting up by almost $600 billion, a 32 percent increase.

And Census data showing 49 percent of Americans living in homes where at least one person is collecting a federal benefit – food stamps, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, or subsidized housing — up from 44 percent in 2008.

But these expenditures aren’t driving the federal budget deficit in future years. They’re temporary. The reason for the spike is Americans got clobbered in 2008 with the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. They and their families have needed whatever helping hands they could get.

If anything, America’s safety nets have been too small and shot through with holes. That’s why the number and percentage of Americans in poverty has increased dramatically, including 22 percent of our children.

What about Social Security and Medicare (along with Medicare’s poor step-child, Medicaid)?

Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits. By law, it can only spend money from the Social Security trust fund.

That fund has been in surplus for the better part of two decades, as boomers contributed to it during their working lives. As boomers begin to retire, those current surpluses are disappearing.

Article goes on with MORE...

http://robertreich.org/post/39872465002

[ProSense]

39. The commentary I linked to was posted: February 20, 2013 n/t

[KoKo]

49. Yes...but he was focused on "Immigration Reform"

and after 2035...to be thinking about Immigration reform to deal with those on the Boomer Tail End... It has nothing to do with "Crises in Entitlements" that needs to be in this budget. That's Bowles/Simpson and Third Way...wanting to ram through policies which they say are addressing a Current Crisis. Reich is talking about Immigration reform addressing a lessening workforce in the far future.

You picked and chose an article totally different from Reich about another subject.

So, Reich writing an article titled "Entitlement Reform a Hoax" a month before he does a separate article on "Immigration Reform" means in your view he's a liar or is confused mentally? Or, did you pick and choose confusing two separate articles about two different issues and tie them together just to make a point which it doesn't make when it's checked out.

[ProSense]

50. "Immigration reform and entitlement reform have a lot to do with one another."

He was linking it to "entitlement reform." There is no way of getting around that.

[KoKo]

69. It is not a crises decision for now..Reich said "Reform is a Hoax."

You keep tying what's being done now...with immigration reform for the future to sustain the programs after the Boomers move through..

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

CBO Affirms Social Security Trust Fund Solvent Through 2038 [Update] | A report released today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reveals that the Social Security trust fund is actually in better shape than previously thought. CBO now projects the trust fund won’t run out until 2038, a slight improvement over previous estimates and a reassuring reminder of the fund’s solvency for the next several decades. In the ongoing battle over deficit reduction, Republicans have insisted on deep cuts to Social Security, even though the program doesn’t contribute to the deficit.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/05/289201/cbo-social-security-trust-fund-solvent-through-2039/?mobile=nc

[ProSense]

76. What on earth

"You keep tying what's being done now...with immigration reform for the future to sustain the programs after the Boomers move through.. "

...does posting the CBO assessment have to do with this statement:

"Immigration reform and entitlement reform have a lot to do with one another."

You're not making any sense.

[WilliamPitt]

24. Mmmm.

Chum.

[ananda]

31. I do not accept entitlement reform.

..

[Bjorn Against]

41. Do you support turning Medicare into a single payer system?

If so you support entitlement reform. Now granted I know Obama is not talking about a single payer system here, but that is what we should be talking about. If they want to talk about reform then let us talk about reform, we need to insist on reforms such as single payer that strengthen the safety net rather than weaken it. We can't let them sell the idea that reform means cuts, reform can mean great things like single payer and we need to show the public that we have reforms that will actually help them rather than hurt them.

[sabrina 1]

48. Is that a part of the debate? Is the President proposing Medicare for all?

If not, what has that got to do with what IS being proposed? Do you support hurting the most vulnerable Americans, including Veterans as part of any deal with Republicans, I'm talking about the Chained CPI which IS on the table, shamefully.

[Bjorn Against]

58. I never said the President was proposing it, I am proposing it as are many others

Of course I don't support what is being proposed by Republicans and I probably don't support Obama's position either, that is why I am proposing something much different and much better.

[sabrina 1]

60. Well, I agree with you and am having a very difficult time understanding why

the leadership of our party does not.

[Bjorn Against]

67. One word: money

I hate to say it but money has corrupted our entire political system and the Democrats are not immune from its effects. They know the health care industry would spend big money to take down any serious single payer supporter who became too influential. That is why grassroots activism is so sorely needed, the politicians do not speak for us so we need to make our voices heard.

[robinlynne]

82. They are talking about cuts.

[Bjorn Against]

83. Why limit ourselves to what they are talking about?

Just because they are talking about cuts does not mean we should limit ourselves to talking about cuts.

[robinlynne]

85. It means we should be disgusted.

[Bjorn Against]

86. I agree with that, I am disgusted and that is why I am calling for something different

[Deep13]

34. Nope, tax the rich. nt

[Octafish]

75. The answer.

Thank you!

[Deep13]

84. Really kind of obvious, if you think about it. nt

[Bjorn Against]

36. I am very open to entitlement reform, in fact many progressives have pushed reform for years

I strongly support reforming Medicare by turning it into a single payer program that is available to everyone. I am all for taliking about good reforms like this, but I am not going to pretend we need to accept shitty deals that weaken the social safety net.

[KoKo]

53. But...that's not on the table...and it's the Repugs who

are going to decide. The Video of Obama above in the post says nothing about proposing Reform that would make Medicaid Single Payer. I've not seen any statement by him where he has proposed that.

But, whatever deal is made he's warning that Democrats will be unhappy. I have to take him at his word. But, we are not told what he thinks will happen with the Repugs that will make us unhappy except that he says he's put Entitlement Reforms...On the Table...in what he proposed to them. It's up to them to do the Reforms. Do you trust the Repugs to make reforms in our Entitlements?

[Bjorn Against]

56. That is why we need to keep pushing it until it is on the table

I was not talking about what Obama wants, I was talking about what myself and millions of other progressives want. My point is that we can talk about entitlement reforms on our terms rather than theirs. We don't have to accept Obama's position, and we sure as hell don't have to accept the Republican position, we need to push what we want and not allow anyone else to tell us it is not going to happen because we are going to keep fighting until it does happen.

[KharmaTrain]

64. Ultimately That's Where We're Headed...

...unfortunately it's gonna take several steps over the years to get it done, but unless costs are controlled the costs of healthcare will be cost prohibitive for all the those with the "gold" health care plans. As more people fall off their past plans they move towards the exchanges and become part of a growing federal/state system. When you get 150 or 200 million people in those exchanges this will make the government the main provider/protector of health care...and that will push for even greater reforms that will lead to a single payer system. While it's not fast enough for some, the mechanisms are in place and millions of people who didn't have coverage now do.

People here get nervous when the word reform is thrown around...and justifiably so. We live in a world of Orwellian doublespeak...the social safety net is constantly under attack. I do agree that there are billions that can be saved in healthcare without hurting beneficiaries. Costs need to be brought down...and this would benefit all. We shouldn't have to pay premium prices...and a large pool can negotiate far lower costs than the bloated system that necessitated health care reform in the first place.

Cheers...

[YoungDemCA]

37. I thought that exploding health care costs in the private sector....

...are the main culprit for making the government's health care programs more difficult to fund.

Also, isn't Social Security much more fiscally solvent than the doomsday people would have you think?

Seems to me that the problem is not the "entitlement" programs, but the fact that politicians in BOTH parties have either bought into the propaganda about those programs, and/or see the opportunity to dismantle the last remaining parts of the social safety net for lower and middle class Americans.

[MotherPetrie]

38. Yup, screw sick/old people so rich people can stay rich/get richer

Take your fucking "compromise" and shove it.

[DJ13]

55. Lesson learned

Never never NEVER nominate and elect any friend of Pete Peterson or anyone associated with him.

[pansypoo53219]

57. RAISE THE FICA CAP!

[Gman]

59. Take it up to $400K

Problem fixed forever.

[KoKo]

68. Agree...but, so far not seen it talked about.

Repugs wouldn't like it and they are the ones in control. But, still I wish Obama would mention it and not leave the "reforms" so unknown.

[TDale313]

74. + a bazillion

Sadly, Repugs will never go for it, but it's by far the most reasonable answer.

[I Cant Dance]

61. We do need reform. Such as lifting/raising the cap on SS

SS is fully funded until in the 2030's and then 75% of benefits thereafter with no change. Plus, many people (both Democrats and Republicans) support increasing payroll taxes to strengthen SS, along with removing the cap.
http://www.nasi.org/press/releases/2013/01/press-release-americans-make-hard-choices-social-security

The only reform we need for SS is to strengthen it, not weaken it.

As for Medicare, it is best to do nothing right now. Under current trends, spending will become a problem. However, it is difficult to predict the future and health care spending is already slowing down on its own.

[In_The_Wind]

95. Hello ~ I Cant Dance.

[img][/img]

In The Wind
[img][/img]

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. (Why is it always about BUSINESS and CONSUMERS?")

Because the United States is supposed to promote Capitalism worldwide by showing all of the ways that it benefits the average citi,...oh shit....did we ever blow that....

[Dragonfli]

87. "provide the kind of certainty that you need"

What the fuck is he talking about?

One would think that posting record profits year after year along with guaranteed bail-outs for bad gambling debts would be reason enough for these delicate, easily frightened billionaires to feel "confident" and "certain"

They have yet to sacrifice a goddamned thing and are fainting because the rest of us are not quite poor enough to suit them.

Some people are enablers of these sociopathic assholes.
Such people are also often assholes for encouraging and aiding such sociopaths.

[dtom67]

89. I shouldn't comment here ;the

The last time I opined about what should be done regarding a "representative" that simultaneously removes constitutional freedoms, attacks the social safety net, and claims to be a Democrat, my post was abducted and gang -censored. What good is having 2 parties if they are both right wing?
At the risk of further censorship, I will add: "screw social issues! Standard of living is what should be taken care of first. "
Why is it that we can stand together on gay rights and abortion, yet the simple idea of not removing food from the mouths of our Elders is cause for a debate?
It is the obvious corruption that is exposed when you make the effort to see through the verbal prestidigitation of our politicians that makes me conclude that our system is not working .
Perhaps it never did....

[sabrina 1]

98. Our system has been taken over by corporate powers. It's not a new thing,

they've successfully been doing it in third world countries for decades, centuries really. We actually probably held out longer than most being that the country was founded with warnings against this very real threat to any democracy.

It is the fault of the people who will excuse any rotten policy their party pushes, on both sides and until a majority of the people are willing to take a stand and start working towards removing the money from our system, there really is little hope of turning back the clock on what has been going on, apparently successfully.

When we have Democrats willing to cut SS, we know they have been successful. This really is a first and should be resisted strenuously.

SS had zero to do with the Deficit and the attempts to try to convince us that it did, the incoherent arguments to try to match their actions to what they are claiming they are worried about, the Deficit, is simply sickening to most thinking human beings.

[woo me with science]

103. Keep speaking out.

Ignore the efforts to intimidate and silence. We need every voice.

You are absolutely right: The corruption is obvious. No matter how often we are admonished that it is merely "compromise," it is a sign of a deeply corrupted system.

Keep writing and posting. We need you.

[Demo_Chris]

93. We all know where this is going.

We know the entire routine. From Obama outright stabbing his supporters in the back while the media calls it bold and courageous, all the way to his supporters -- who initially pretend it isn't happening at all -- defending it as inevitable and necessary once it's done.

I'm tired of the game. If the party goes along with it again I'm through with them. Sad as it might be to say, we need to rally our party in Washington to fight the President. It's either that or give up.

[Scuba]

94. What/who is POB?

[spanone]

99. you know, mr. pob......

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. He was a TV star:

http://www.classickidstv.co.uk/wiki/Pob%27s_Programme

Actually, he's now the British Education Secretary:

[riqster]

102. One reform that hurts nobody:

Raise the cap on SS eligible income. The Prexy has proposed it.

Gee, how horrible, that rat basset taking more money from the 1%...

[treestar]

105. And right after that:

"But it also means that Republicans have to accept the need for additional revenues."

Interesting, but we will not see an OP entitled, In POB's own words, "Republicans have to accept the need for additional revenues."

[Oilwellian]

109. What I find most interesting in their Orwellian Speak...

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)

When you hear the Third Way talk about Entitlement Reform, they ALWAYS say it will anger the base of the Democratic party...you know, the fucking retards. We know how popular SS & Medicare are with a huge majority of Americans, across all party lines, yet the Third Way wants us to believe it is only the extreme left who will be upset by these cuts. It's an insidious and manipulative lie. Even the Tea Party knows their base will be livid as well if they vote to cut entitlements.

K&R

[KoKo]

113. And once again it's used right after Left Leaning Democrats came

out to re-elect POB once again. Just as Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs trashed us...it's now our President himself saying Democrats are going to be unhapppy when we know he means the Left Leaning ones who are FDR New Deal Democrats and not Robert Rubin, Pete Petersen Lean Right Reagan Democrats.

It's almost as if the Democratic Party Leadership wants to make long time New Deal Democrats into pariah's who must be purged with whips from the party, rather and engagement and discussion. I had hoped for better than Entitlements on the Table making this a fight over Tea Party and those Democrats who believe that "Entitlements like SS and Medicare should not be used as a bargaining chip when it's the Big Deregulated Banks that got us into this mess and not the Entitlement Receipients.


We bailed out (and are still bailing out) Wall Street but the battle is now over Entitlements. How does this make sense? It doesn't.

[Oilwellian]

114. Yes

One would think when hearing their double-speak, it's the extreme left and the extreme left only that doesn't support the Chained CPI. That particular piece of propaganda coming from the Third Way also appears to be working. Just look at the number here who think it's a reasonable compromise.

[KoKo]

119. yep..."Sweet Jesus"....truly...what IS IT?

sigh...

[limpyhobbler]

118. He can shove his entitlement reform straight up his ass.

There are many ways to raise money and directly create jobs that were never even considered by the serious people. Like a financial transaction tax. Or by simply adding new tax brackets at the upper income.

Why do we even bother electing Democrats if they are going to go to Washington and sell austerity.

I'm so disappointed.

[kenny blankenship]

120. ^^^That's what a DEMOCRAT sounds like

Good to know there are still a few around.