General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDick Durbin voted to cut Social Security by 22%. Remember what Obama said?
Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)
As a member of the President's Catfood Commission, Dick Durbin voted to recommend Messrs Simpson's and Bowles' proposal to reduce the average Social Security recipient's lifetime benefits by 22% over time.
It's fascinating that our President immediately rejected the commission's recommendations to cut the military as too extreme, but did not push back on the Social Security cuts. He said... nothing. 22% might be OK, it seems. Note that this was after he'd claimed publicly, on multiple occasions, that Social Security was not originally intended for retirees, which is a far-right lying point used to justify cuts.
At the time, a few people on DU said "hey, this is pretty screwed up". Those people got an enormous ration of shit, being accused of everything from being PUMAs to liars to being on Karl Rove's payroll. But they were right. I suppose that the specter of Democrats gutting the social safety net was so unbelievable that many didn't want to believe their own words and actions.
But here we are. And Durbin's back to his sick tricks again:
Durbin wants new fiscal commission. Wants to raise retirement age, cut COLA.
And as we know, the President, Pelosi, and others keep pushing hard to whittle down SS benefits through the chained CPI, the cut that they claim is not a cut. Bullshit!
Do people finally have a sense of how sick and brutal the bipartisan war against the 99% has become? They want those trillions in our Trust Fund, they want them now, and they don't care who starves, freezes, or perishes for lack of medical care. They just don't give a shit. But I hope that YOU do.
I know that I'm a goddamned broken record on this. I'm even sick of hearing myself talk about this stuff. But these are real lives in the balance, all so the Predator Class can have even more cash, and I will not gulp a glass of STFU on this issue.
We must stop this decisively. It is pure evil, and Democrats don't do pure evil.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)
Autumn
(45,033 posts)They want to do this and it's up to us to stop it. I'm goddamn sick of those politician who keep talking about it and offering it up.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Isn't he one of "ours"?
BTW - where does President Obama stand on this?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)and re-appointing Bernanke, it is all his responsibility. The state I live in could have restored itself to pre-2008 collapse standards if Geithner had allowed for a loan to our state. But Geithner told Schwartzennegger back in late summer 2010 that to do that would be disastrous for the deficit. Yet Geithner tells Obama that military spending is good.
So the people of California were denied a loan, while over the next 13 months some 255 billions of dollars for modernizing the military and creating new weaponry systems to give to both the UAE and to Israel could all proceed without any conerns at all about the deficit.
Until someone here can show me a photo of the Republicans forcing Obama to appoint and re-appoint these scum bags to Treasury and to the Fed Reserve, I for one hold him accountable
NYtoBush-Drop Dead
(490 posts)who was it who limited property tax? Prop 8? That was the beginning of the end for California.... I pay high R.E. taxes in NY. Why should we bail out you guys who don't?
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)with the amount my mom pays in Ohio. Same dollar amount, except that her house was much nicer and had a bigger yard than mine and was in a much classier neighborhood.
We do not pay low property taxes. Our housing is way over-valued.
It's the corporations that never die and never "pass on" or sell properties due to the way that they sell their stocks rather than their assets that pay low property taxes in California.
dawg
(10,622 posts)He's the only powerful person in the government who has tried to focus on unemployment. All the rest, theirs and ours, are obsessed with the deficit.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)tax burden, it's like a 6.5% reduction in their direct labor costs. Raise the "cap".
savannah43
(575 posts)They do not intend to pay it back. Secondly, there will be no jobs in this country because outsourcing to China and other countries where labor is cheap and non-unionized results in greater profits for all the greedy weasels. Sometimes, things are just that simple.
aggiesal
(8,909 posts)The government pays back a little every month, just how it was designed.
They knew that the baby-boomers would be retiring, and that sometime
around 2009, that the incoming money would be less then the outgoing
money, so they use the trust fund bonds to make up the difference.
It is schedule to run out sometime in 2035 - 2040, at which point,
the incoming and the outgoing should be close to even.
At least that's how I understand it.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Familiar with the Bernie Sanders insisted upon Audit of the Federal Reserve. (An audit that Bernanke opposed!)
And guess what?!? That audit showed the American people that good ol' Ben had slipped some 15 or 16 trillions of dollars, as "loans" to his buddies on Wall Street and to his buddies across the globe (As long as they were heads of Big Financial Firms, of course.) If good ol' be were so concerned about employment, maybe he could have persuaded Geithner to loan California the requested monies - and that would ahve meant that Californians would ahve seen their teachers returned to the classrooms, the fire fighters to the fire houses, project managers tot heir offices, etc on down the line. And the ripple effect - that the local diner would have its usual crowd of customers, that the auto dealership would be selling mroe cars, etc, also would ahve had an impact. Instead, giving money to the very Firms that
One) Caused the economic collapse to begin with
Two) use the money to do more exotic "investments" and derivative gamlbes means we are being wet up for another major economic collapse
and
Three) when not using it as gambles and hedges and derivative "bets" these firms mostly sit on that money!
Experts tell us that some 4.7 trillions of dollars of these loans will never ever be returned. Funny thing, but the amount that the American people are being told MUST be trimmed from the Fed deficit is about the same amount!
Some critics of our government's policies with regards to Bernanke and the Fed, they thought that once the LIBOR situation had its day in court, much of this might get resolved.
But LIBNOR seems to have been swept under the carpet - judiciously speaking anyway.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)dawg
(10,622 posts)No doubt, the low interest rates are a bonanza for Wall Street. But imagine how much worse things would be if businesses that needed to borrow had no access or cash (or were forced to pay a much higher rate).
Every single Fed chief ever could be accused of lending to his "buddies" on Wall Street. That is part of the job.
As for convincing Timmy Geithner to anything, that is the President's job. Bernanke has repeatedly called on Congress and the Administration to pursue a more accomodative fiscal policy. He is largely ignored.
Bernanke is a former colleague of Paul Krugman's from Princeton University. The two men have their disagreements, but Krugman still speaks of Bernanke with much respect.
Much of what "experts" say about printing money, loans that will never be repaid, and debasement of the currency, is actually an uninformed pile of malarkey.
Rick Perry made veiled death threats against Ben Bernanke during the primaries, saying he'd better watch out if he ever came to Texas. The Republicans hate him (even though he is one).
I think he is a good man who has been very misunderstood by people on both sides. Yes, I would have done some things differently, but I'm giving him a B plus as Fed Chief. (Compared to the President's C plus and Congress' F minus minus.)
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Where does President Obama stand on this? He's apparently in charge of the good cops.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Not only can't we be a Nation that balances its budget on the backs of the poor & middle class, we can't be a Nation that punishes people who did absolutely nothing to cause a global financial collapse while letting the criminals off the hook.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)at all, more like a call to reclaim America.
Read here earlier that Corker (Durbin didn't disagree) thinks seniors are getting too good a deal on Medicare. We only pay 1/3 the cost it seems and need to pay more.
Just how many Walmart greeter jobs do they think there are anyway?
What lowlife's they all are (except for Bernie!)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It's late, you're tired..
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)really tired
Of course Elizabeth and Tom Harkin too, he's always been with us.
Sad that there are so few.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)we're about to get Ed Markey. And there'll be more. The 99% are (finally!) waking up.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)December 18, 2012
Washington, DC- Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley issued the following statement after reports that a new index for Social Security called "chained CPI" could be included in a fiscal cliff deal.
“We had an election, and the voters sent a message to Congress to focus on jobs and fairness -- not cutting benefits for people who have worked all their lives and are now making ends meet on fixed incomes. The formula we use to adjust cost-of-living changes for seniors needs to reflect the real costs they face, not the budgetary fantasies of Washington.”
###
http://www.merkley.senate.gov/oregon/onlinetownhall/index.cfm?id=b697627d-5056-9502-5d4d-11d56acdb23b
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
msongs
(67,381 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)
watoos
(7,142 posts)We are talking about whether to privatize SS, or to reduce benefits, or raise the retirement age.
Where is the discussion that SS contributes nothing to the deficit?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)reason to do jack shit at the moment?
juajen
(8,515 posts)We need to really get mad, people. We sit back and let it happen. I am old and tired, and draw SS. There are millions of us, and a small contribution from the millions, makes millions. I hope Dr. Dean is our leader. I believe we can all get behind him. At some point, when the checks come, we should have a senior contribution day, so that our power is obvious.
QC
(26,371 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Right now, Tom Cruise contributes just a few thousand more to the Social Security fund than me. Seems strange, since I can't afford a private jet.
2. Lower the retirement age.
More people retire, more jobs open up.
3. Get out of the war(s).
They leave us alone, we leave them alone. Simple enough. That should save us a trillion dollars or so over the next decade.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)fund.
raise tom cruise's *income tax* (on his *capital* income as well as his *wage* income) & make him pay back the trust fund before you start diddling with the SS funding formula.
The cap was raised this year, and the year before, etc.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)These Democratic politicians aren't our husbands and wives that shouldn't be bad mouthed. They're supposed to be working for US.
840high
(17,196 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)It's too late for this round of attacks unfortunately, but they are always pushing against everything we hold dear as Americans for their corporate and billionaire masters. We need our own representatives in D.C.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Along with all his little helpers like Durbin and Pelosi. It makes me sick to think they call themselves Democrats.
I have lost count of how many times I have contacted the WH and my congressmen about SS, but let's face it - the fix has been in for a long time.
Whatever they are getting for shredding the safety net is worth a whole lot more to them than any of our votes.
juajen
(8,515 posts)Bush and the PNAC'ers, however, took the entire fund for their damnable wars and have gotten away with it handsomely.
They have an inside track, so I will not throw stones. We have been precipitous on this forum before, only to see that we are being protected, not attacked. We shall see.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)As described in the OP.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You must be a Rand Paul lover to state these truths...
Where is third way Manny anyway?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I would like to say the same of our Democratic President, but I can't, he has lied to me repeatedly, misrepresented the facts on numerous occasions, and he has his loyal force of kindred "80's Republicans" here on this board that repeat lies on a daily basis defending the indefensible.
You are not a broken record, but rather a reliable record of the truth.
The absurd cult of personality that hate you and have a similar "lack of love" shall we call it, for people like me are enabling this stealth Reagan revolution and they lack any and all credibility at this point.
Your credibility remains intact.
Thank you for being so damn stubborn about things like the truth.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)excellent post. 
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)I agree....excellent post. Totally sick of the lies from Obama, too many Democrats and their enablers....be those enablers on DU or anywhere else.
HatTrick
(129 posts)Thanks Manny.
At least someone is talking about this.
I hate Democrats who don't stand up for Democratic values.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Our conflict isnt between Democrats and Republicans. That's way too easy. The oligarchs own a good share of the Democratic Party and they will do pure evil. We must elect more progressives and stop supporting Blue Damn Dogs.
midnight
(26,624 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)And pretty soon, the Blue Link Zombies will be here to disrupt the thread.
the blue link zombies!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)until every single sheep costume is ripped off and every single wolf exposed, humiliated, and vanquished!
K&R!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Let's have wolf.
And I don't mean Richard Wolff!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
CarmanK
(662 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)stop them. Keep on talking, it is perseverence that prevails. They have plenty of that. We tend to give up. We need to learn from them and never, ever stop until we win.
Shame on Durbin. I've been learning quite a bit about him lately that has been so disappointing.
Omaha Steve
(99,569 posts)We met 5 years ago at the Omaha IBEW hall.
I have already lost 2.5 years in the contract the US Gov. made with me when I started working in 1972. I will not not contribute to you again after you decided to cute my Soc. Security benefits in the future.
Sorry. Not negotiable. Please take my name off your contact list.
global1
(25,239 posts)we need to send him a message now - if he wants to keep his job......
loudsue
(14,087 posts)can no longer afford their medicines (no, medicare doesn't cover everything), food, electricity, transportation...nada. Any person in Washington who votes to cut back benefits is a murderer. Period.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And there are people who cannot afford what they need.
You're exactly right.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Of course I actually READ the entire document, something the majority of people failed to do.
Raising the SS tax cap
Guaranteed minimum benefit (glass floor)
One time benefit rate boost at age 85
Progressive changes to the payout calculation by modifying the tiers.
Potential for early out at 62 for labor intense jobs with full benefits.
But yes, please focus only on the C-CPI-U and the age bump (which I agree are stupid and not needed). But to bash everything the commission said and did was and is short sighted.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Overall, do you think that a 22% cut is a good thing?
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Of course this assumes we can trust our party to have a spine. That's typically been a bad assumption.
Or that the GOP would even accept it at all since they seem to like to toss a tantrum whenever things don't go 100% their way, making these two objects (likely given as a compromise to get them to vote for it) mute.
But where does the 22% number come from? 20$ says it's ONLY those two issues, and it ignores the glass floor (which would instantly raise thousands of current beneficiaries up) and the other issues.
What is the 'average' recipient? Is it average in the same way that Romney thought middle class was 250k/yr? Are we to ignore the folks currently drawing Social Security who take in 500$/mo and the effect of the glass floor on them?
C-CPI-U is screwed up, raising the age is screwed up. The way they wanted to change the bend points is (arguably) screwed up (though the idea of actually changing the bend points is not). But raising the cap? Glass floor? Early out with full benefits at 62? Those are pretty progressive policies.
In an ideal world I'd direct the creation of CPI-E and drop the retirement age back down to 65, while also adopting several other proposals in the fiscal commission proposal.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Raise the tax cap while implementing the glass floor and providing the hardship exemption would solve the balance without needing the C-CPI-U and EEA extension while leaving extra funding left over for slight tweaks to the bend points (I like that they raised the 90% bar cap from 9k/yr to 15k/yr, combine that with 5% above 107k and we're golden).
My guess is that these were installed to pacify the GOP, which is currently impossible so shouldn't be bothered with. But we do have to recognize that our system doesn't work without cooperation unless we have majorities in both houses (assuming Reid had the balls to reform the filibuster).
That said, crafting a bill the everyone here at DU would like, won't pass Congress, because they're all for the most part a bunch of bought out corporatists dead set on demolishing our ability to earn a living and force us into neo-corporate slavery.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
mucifer This message was self-deleted by its author.
GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Of course democrats do pure evil. All of those democrats who voted in favor of the Iraq war, most of them without reading the report/s that led up to it. All of those democrats rejecting the progressive caucus budget. All of those democrats who sold out their Country on the public option. I'm not surprised, I'm not horrified, I can't even really bring myself to be outraged. This is exactly what I expect from our current system of government. The Super PACs that promote our politicians - the enormous amounts of money going into their campaign advertising, staffing, and so on... and we expect, what, that these lovely rich folks are going to defend social security?
I am smelling the coffee, so to speak. There is certainly a difference between democrats and republicans - republicans would screw us even worse. It's a choice of the needle or the dagger being shoved up your ass. Most of us (myself included) prefer the needle. This does not mean that the needle is good.
Democrats don't do pure evil? Where have you been? They've been doing it for years. I'll vote for them, but only because they are a lesser evil. Not because I like them, not because they're good, noble, or righteous. Not because they give a damn about you, or me, the poor or working class... not because they're charitable or honest. I'll vote for them simply because they're rather less evil than republicans.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)I voted for Obama only as a vote against Romney, I would have highly preferred a progressive candidate that would have prosecuted war criminals, closed torture camps, worked for single payer health care, held corrupt banks and bankers accountable and, exhibited some soft of fiscal knowledge and ethics surrounding the economy.
We were given the choice between 2 corporate candidates, both of whom support the 1%ers and could care less about the people.
djean111
(14,255 posts)cuts. And then we will be treated to a smooooth explanation of how Medicare and SS have been "strengthened" (based on the premise that if we only pay everybody a dollar a month, the fund will last until 3000 or Jamie Dimon is gifted with it).
Then we will be told to shut up because strengthening Medicare and SS by cutting benefits is a fucking Legacy.
And be treated to a list of other stuff as if we were comparing apples and apples (nope) and dubbing SS and Medicare unicorns and ponies.
Maybe I'll just write in Ralph Nader for all future elections - might as well do the deed I keep getting blamed for.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)hope and change and looking to the future, blah blah blah - so Bernie it is!!!!!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)(Wonder if Durbin disagrees? Given his previous vote, it's highly likely.)
WASHINGTON, March 22 – The Senate tonight voted to block cuts in benefits for Social Security and disabled veterans.
The amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) put the Senate on record against changing how cost-of-living increases are calculated in a way that would result in significant cuts.
“The time has come for the Senate to send a very loud and clear message to the American people: We will not balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans who have lost their arms, their legs and their eyesight defending our country. We will not balance the budget on the backs of the men and women who have already sacrificed for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor on the widows who have lost their husbands in Iraq and Afghanistan defending our country,” Sanders said.
The amendment opposed switching from the current method of measuring inflation to a so-called chained consumer price index. President Barack Obama favors a chained CPI as part of what the White House calls a “grand bargain” that Obama hopes to reach with congressional Republicans.
The proposed change would affect more than 3.2 million disabled veterans receiving disability compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by $1,425 at age 45, $2,341 at age 55 and $3,231 at age 65. Benefits for more than 350,000 surviving spouses and children who have lost a loved one in battle also would be cut. Dependency Indemnity Compensation benefits already average less than $17,000 a year.
More than 55 million retirees, widows, orphans and disabled Americans receiving Social Security also would be affected by the switch to a chained CPI. That figure includes 9 million veterans with an average yearly benefit of about $15,500. A veteran with average earnings retiring at age 65 would get nearly a $600 benefit cut at age 75 and a $1,000 cut at age 85. By age 95, when Social Security benefits are probably needed the most, that veteran would face a cut of $1,400 – a reduction of 9.2 percent.
A chained CPI would cut Social Security benefits for average senior citizens who are 65 by more than $650 a year by the time they are 75 years old, and by more than $1,000 once they reach 85.
Groups supporting Sanders include AARP, the AFL-CIO, National Organization for Women, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS and others.
Sanders is chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the founder of the Defending Social Security Caucus.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=41f5d32d-b4bf-4f0e-9ceb-7df622262cac
There was no doubt that this had no chance of passing the Senate.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney lauded the Senate for passing a budget early Saturday, its first in four years, which he said "will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way." He also criticized the House for passing a budget that eliminates the deficit over the next ten years entirely through cuts, saying that "We will continue to insist that any solution has balance."
The full statement below:
Today, the Senate passed a budget plan that will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way. Like the President's plan, the Senate budget cuts wasteful spending, makes tough choices to strengthen entitlements, and eliminates special tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest Americans to reduce the deficit.
The President and Democrats in Congress are willing to make difficult choices so we can cut the deficit while laying the foundation for long term middle class job growth. And it is encouraging that both the Senate and House have made progress by passing budgets through regular order. We will continue to insist that any solution has balance. The House Republican budget refuses to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and the well-connected but instead makes deep cuts to education and manufacturing while asking seniors and the middle class to pay more. That's not an approach we support and it's not an approach the majority of the American people support.
Now it is time for our leaders to come together to find common ground. The President has put a plan on the table that reflects compromise, and he will continue to work with both sides to see if there is an opportunity to reach a solution to our budget challenges. We hope we will find this compromise because that is what the American people expect and what they deserve.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-praises-senate-budget
forestpath
(3,102 posts)I know plenty of non-veterans who are - and who are in poor health and who would be hurt by cuts. Nobody on SS should have their benefits cut, veteran or non-veteran.
One of my Senators is Mark Warner, who not only voted against a $250 stipend for SS recipients in 2010, a year with no COLA increase, but who also initiated that thuggish "Gang of 6." There is simply no way he will vote against SS cuts for all when such a vote would be binding. It was nothing but cynical political expedience of him to vote for Sanders' pro-veteran SS amendment.
AFAIC, the only thing meaningful about Bernie's amendment is that it exposed a whole lot of other cynical political expedience.
"Even if it was, it is only for veterans."
...it's for Social Security, including benefits for Veterans.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)my distrust of the Senate.
When their votes do count, how do you think they will vote?
Based on the history of my senator, a "Democrat" who already is most definitely on the record as voting to screw over SS recipients, I have no doubt.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Certain phrases make us simple people nervous, especially when they use the same phrasing used in third way policy papers that suggest cutting entitlements. I also have a sense that the two quotes cited are not clearly related, as the verbal non-binding resolution proclamations seldom appear to become binding in the house Senate reconciliation portion of the budget process. A cynical person may think such unanimous verbal agreements might have more to do with future campaigning than the process of creating law.
You are usually polite and helpful, here is the first phrase I would like to see some actual policy regarding, yes, specifics please, because it can mean many things, many of which are suggested by Pete Peterson and I think we can all agree he is an enemy of Democracy and a pirate of sorts fixated on the destruction and weakening of entitlements: "Like the President's plan, the Senate budget cuts wasteful spending, makes tough choices to strengthen entitlements,"
What are the tough choices? and what spending specifically is slated to be cut as wasteful? Did you realize that every time a third way paper on cutting entitlements suggest they use the phrase strengthening rather than cut, a euphemism I am sure the white House was unaware of when choosing such a phrase
I was also concerned that entitlements are being discussed at the same time and assumed to be in in the same potential legislation that has been marketed as a budget discussion, surely few other than right wing extremists are ignorant of the fact that SS specifically adds not a dime to the deficit, is currently running a sizable surplus and obviously the cutting of it will not add revenue to a budget it is separate from.
Another phrase begging for specifics before it can be judged in any meaningful way is:The President and Democrats in Congress are willing to make difficult choices so we can cut the deficit while laying the foundation for long term middle class job growth. And it is encouraging that both the Senate and House have made progress by passing budgets through regular order. this appears to support the house budget as equal which is concerning enough, but again this vague reference regarding difficult choices is as you must be aware is a phrase used in at least two third way position papers extolling the virtues of cutting entitlements. so, again I am afraid I need clarification of this purely rhetorical quote with specifics regarding what difficult choices are we talking about? Are these referenced difficult choices a secret for some reason? We simply wish to know what "difficult" choices we are being asked to support.
I apologize for being a bother again, just wish my consent and support is to be informed, this implies something that concerns me greatly that I would like you to clear up:
We will continue to insist that any solution has balance. The House Republican budget refuses to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and the well-connected but instead makes deep cuts to education and manufacturing while asking seniors and the middle class to pay more. To a simple guy like me, this seems to state that the balance lies in tax increases as well as the horrible Republican suggestions. Is there no statement that is clear? I dislike reading the tea leaves of rhetorical statements like this that are far from fully clear and, yet again are phrasing choices found in those ever pesky third way position papers that are a bit more bold in the suggestion that balance is found in such cuts along with some rather vague tax increases to be named later.
Without specifics and clarity, why this all just sounds like politic jargon to simple folk, designed to lack specifics while laying verbal groundwork to justify all manner of budget and entitlement slashing shenanigans.
Thank you in advance for the details and clarity I hope you will provide.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Like the President's plan, the Senate budget cuts wasteful spending, makes tough choices to strengthen entitlements"
...this means negotiating drug prices and reducing fraud. This is the President's last budget proposal.
Since the statement refers to the Senate budget, here is the proposal:
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=c951a802-7600-4111-97c9-20bccc9c69d8
Enjoy!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I am still concerned about the "maybe". It would have been helpful if the press release simply stated that and other excellent ideas as to what the White House supports regarding wasteful spending, and on a minor point, this does not appear to be a tough choice at all, I still would like to know what those are, the secret is killing me!.
I had hoped that because the White house put out that presser, I could glean from it with some specificity what the White House supported, it appears I will not get to know, a shame really.
So now I guess I have to study both the Senate and the House budgets and make wild guesses regarding how they will be resolved into a final budget, I wish there was some kind of leader, some one that could veto these budgets if they were harmful, someone that could get press and make what he supports and does not specifically known, so that I could get behind what such a leader supported and try to help him by contacting my congress critters and telling them, I'm with this guy! He has a clear vision stated in no uncertain terms! If you disagree with this leaders vision, you can go pound salt and do your best to over-ride his righteous veto! If you go that route others and myself will do our best to unseat your bought and paid for comfortable ass!
Is there some position in our government that could be filled so that we have such leadership?
Maybe they will provide for such a position in the next Constitution.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)satisfy the obsession of the 1% with cuts to social programs that most Americans oppose. They own Obama and most Democrats and all Republicans, most of us that have in poll after poll clearly opposed this simply can't afford to purchase hope or change, so we get our legs cut out instead, Pete Peterson and friends, get to own a President and most of congress. They actually outright purchased them!
In reality, the proposal contains $975 billion in spending cuts, including $275 billion in new cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid programs that spell hardship for millions of working people.
Murray and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat of Nevada) had to work to convince a number of Senate Democrats to support the budget, which passed by only a one-vote margin. Four Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2014 voted against the bill, fearing they would appear too pro-tax and soft on deficit reduction in their home constituencies.
The White House commented in a statement, “Like the president’s plan, the Senate budget cuts wasteful spending, makes tough choices
Following a well-worn script, deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are described as a prescription to save them, and spending on social programs targeted for cuts is characterized as “wasteful.”
Only the financial elite and its political front men (and women) are consumed by the drive to slash social spending to reduce the budget deficit. The great majority of the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. The budget debate in Washington leaves their concerns and interests completely out of the equation.
Disregard my request for clarification, it is all quite clear now.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Four Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2014 voted against the bill, fearing they would appear too pro-tax and soft on deficit reduction in their home constituencies. "
...posted that prefaced by this:
"Well, I guess I have my answer, disgusting budget full of hardship for us to satisfy the obsession of the 1% with cuts to social programs that most Americans oppose. They own Obama and most Democrats and all Republicans, most of us that have in poll after poll clearly opposed this simply can't afford to purchase hope or change, so we get our legs cut out instead, Pete Peterson and friends, get to own a President and most of congress. They actually outright purchased them!"
Where did you get your "answer," from a RW site? Here are the four Democrats who were afraid to appear "too pro-tax"
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Hagan (D-NC)
Pryor (D-AR)
Here are the Democrats who voted for the bill:
YEAs ---50
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00092
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)That voted for this piece of shit budget, I don't find that comforting that the reasons they were against this budget were because they feared it wouldn't please their 1% owners enough, They will need Pete's money no doubt for their campaigns.
Read the damn budget for yourself, it is all true even if it did come from a left wing site which I understand right wingers and their enablers like you don't trust, by the way, that bullshit claim of yours that the plan was likely utilizing positive methods of saving money, like negotiating drug prices, that my "friend" was NOT in there. I did HOPE it would be, I really did, but there is not going to be a CHANGE in the profits of big pharma, another purchaser of these corrupt servants of the rich that will not be disappointed while the entire public at large is ignored, the polls have been consistent and not even close, the population is resoundingly opposed to these cuts, it is the owners of these politicians that wanted them and purchased the legislation to get exactly what they want.
I really did think you were polite, but it has been clear for sometime that you spend all of your time as an enabler of right wing policy masquerading as "centrist" and you are not even polite anymore.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The opposite of a right wing site actually, those assholes are obviously even worse than the asshole (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley) That voted for this piece of shit budget"
...those tools, right?
"Read the damn budget for yourself, it is all true even if it did come from a left wing site which I understand right wingers and their enablers like you don't trust"
I did, and wherever you got the information, it's still drivel.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)We need rallies against this, votes. We need to be on it in the Democratic Primaries.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)The "Democrat" in front of the office holder dont mean shit..including the President..I fought hard to get Obama elected especially after he made statements at his stump speeches that Social Security and medicare would not be cut.."only the fat would be cut out to save millions on medicare"
So all this bullshit is a slap in the face...Look 4 years ago we were promised a real healthcare plan but instead got subsidies for insurance companies..we were told it was a great bill and we accepted it..Now after we were promised no SS cuts and now cuts are on the table and we are suppose to accept this and like it... Yep Might as well forget about elections,cause we have a one party rule anyway..
We are the corporate states of Amerika and we might as well accept that too....Its just one big fu&king show and the stars are all labeled with corporate $$$$$$
The greatest country on earth? I dont believe that anymore.
whathehell
(29,053 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)and tell them to COMMIT RIGHT NOW, IN ADVANCE, to filibuster any proposed cuts to Social Security. I just called Sherrod Brown's office to that effect.
In fact, as someone wrote above, they should roll back the impending SS retirement age raise to 67. What a crock of crap that is.
Cutting SS really is theft of what we have already paid in (I'm 67) of money set aside for our kids' and grandkids' retirements.
We may well have to hit the streets. I'm ready.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)They all need to be run out of the party, regardless of their status in politics.
Neoliberalism is a POISON that is killing this country.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)That would make it ZOMG WELFARE!!!11!!!!!!1
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)
Even my Pukehead cousin posted a meme today on Facebook that Congress needs to leave SS and Medicare alone.
Dems should keep their mouths shut about making any Medicare and SS cuts. As has been said here before they are falling into the PUKE trap. They will get the blame for the cuts, even though the PUKES are pushing even harder for them, cause you know the Pukes are going to lie and say we didn't want cuts it was all their idea.
Hopefully Bernie, Elizabeth, and others will fillibuster any proposals which invole Social Safety net cuts and make this a non issue.
Marr
(20,317 posts)
historylovr
(1,557 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Still be having the wool pulled over our eyes. Not possible now.
But one thing we don't have to worry about: If Clinton was able to secure a speaking fee of some $ 100 K per speech** in front of Corporate America's podiums, the Obamas will get double that. They have really done everything needed to eliminate America's middle class. All the while pretending that it occurred due to the nastiness of the damn republicans.
Bill Clinton got his concession as part of his "quid pro quo" package deal - he voted with his signature to allow the Bank Reform and Modernizatin Act get passed, signing it into law in the Oval Office. With that pen stroke, Glass Steagal was castrated. And the economic collapse hit our nation less than nine years later!
kentuck
(111,074 posts)give you a rec...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)is anyone planning on doing anything about this?
Dick Durbin is up for re-election in 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022570480
Joe Bacon
(5,164 posts)And someone ought to kick Durbin in the...
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)months ago, some of us on DU started speculating that OBama was, indeed, putting Social Security on the table? Remember the names we were called by the "faithful?' "Vomit lappers" was one I particularly recall. I believe Scootaloo used that term.
And so...turns out we were right, the true believers were completely wrong. But I haven't heard any apologies forthcoming.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Mostly, we should all pull together and move forward in fixing the astonishing mess in front of us.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)ADMIT IT!!!
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I stand with you brother!
And your right, blind faith usually leads to uninformed masses.
The clarity of the situation can be lost.
More of this Manny. Please continue your inner DJ on that broken record and I will do the same.
-p
still_one
(92,116 posts)
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)and so glad I caught it, thanks to all of the DUers who know you're right! Thanks, Manny....excellently said and, as usual, right on target. A belated and heartfelt K&R!