General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm thrilled that the president is considering safety net cuts in his budget
because as we all know, "considering" isn't actually doing it.
I think it's important that doubting Thomas be left with something to hang onto besides all that hope that must be getting stale by now.
Well, Obama really is going to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. No, it's not a clever ploy -- unless you count the part where he's counting on you thinking that.http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/let-white-house-know-you-dont-want-ss
So here it is: The biggest trial balloon of them all in this morning's Wall St. Journal. Get your dialing fingers ready. There's a reason they let this story out on Good Friday, they're counting on you not noticing or being too busy to do anything about it. The White House switchboard is 202-456-1414, the comments line is 202-456-1111 (be prepared to hold) or you can email here.
WASHINGTON—The White House is strongly considering including limits on entitlement benefits in its fiscal 2014 budget—a proposal it first offered Republicans in December. The move would be aimed in part at keeping alive bipartisan talks on a major budget deal.
Such a proposal could include steps that make many Democrats queasy, such as reductions in future Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments, but also items resisted by Republicans, such as higher taxes through limits on tax breaks, people close to the White House said.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It is moving along just as Pete Peterson's many groups and Third way have been telegraphing for some time now, The euphemisms are "strengthening Entitlements" for stealing the SS trust fund and "cutting waste" for most other various and sundry safety net social spending cuts.
"Difficult choices" is third way speak for ignoring both the reality that there is no need for these cuts and that the only ones that want them are the wealthy elite, but they are going to do it anyway, in spite of and spitefully towards the wishes of most of America. In order to decipher the Presidents rhetorical remarks regarding the recent Senate and House budgets that uses these euphemisms, read the many papers on the subject proudly endorsing said cuts, you will read all these code words for cuts and screw everyone but the wealthy elite where they originated at right wing faux Dem think tank thirdway.org
The progress so far http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/25/budg-m25.html
but, that being a left wing rather than right wing source will likely be ignored by very many here. If not outright hidden
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.
The House budget resolution passed in a 221-207 vote last Thursday. Authored by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (Republican of Wisconsin), it calls for changing the tax code to dramatically reduce taxes, repealing President Obama’s health care law, and deeper spending cuts than those recently triggered by the so-called sequester. It also revives Ryan’s proposal to privatize Medicare by turning it into a voucher program.
The differences between the Senate budget for 2014—which aims to cut the deficit by $1.8 trillion—and the House budget—which proposes to reduce it by $4.8 trillion—are described by the players involved and the media as illustrating a sharp ideological divide. In fact, both the Democrats and Republicans are committed to making deep cuts to social spending, particularly to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Armed with their respective budget proposals, lawmakers of both big business parties will hammer out the details of funding appropriations on Senate and House committees, with cuts to social spending—including to so-called entitlement programs—falling somewhere between those proposed in the two budgets.
Now back to my cave, I have been a little more pissed off than usual and so shouldn't be posting these days.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)he hasn't done anything!! it's all talk!!! IT'S CHESS, GOD DAMMIT!!
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)
Occulus
(20,599 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...the fact that they are immune to censure makes it even more apparent...
I think the author at the link summed it up pretty nicely with their closing comment.
"Cutting Social Security and Medicare in exchange for small tax increases on the wealthy is like taking a bag of groceries from poor people in exchange for a cookie from a rich person. No, not even a cookie -- a crumb from a cookie. Good Lord, these people are insane."
I've long been holding the hope that he wouldn't actually do more than consider it based legacy considerations, but it appears to be damn near inevitable now.
What I really don't get is why he'd (or any dem) wanna damage the brand by taking ownership of it, and particularly going into a critical election like 2014, where some major inroads need to be made in taking back the house. Many will see this as cause to give up and just stay home.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I realize you are not affected by cuts to US social spending, but those that are, don't find the Pete Peterson approach quite as amusing.
Why is it you laugh so hard every time programs that help our poor, our old, and our disabled are under attack? Do you find it amusing because it can't hurt you and you are like a 12 year old laughing at people breaking bones and balls on youtube?
do you want me to post some video of homeless being beat up or elderly people falling down and breaking a hip to further tickle your sadistic voyeuristic funny bone?
You do so enjoy laughing at the hardship of your neighbors to the south, I live at the border with Ft. Erie, never met a Canadian like you, near here they are compassionate, polite neighbors.
Your hobby is harmless enough I suppose, you have never made any actual arguments or done much more than laugh, thus you can't convince anyone here to pursue the destructive third way policies you feel will provide hardship fodder for your amusement.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Wait, you never used the Washington Times as a source, did you?
I might be thinking of someone else!
Sorry, the Rev. Moon always cracked me up!
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)They are a radical agenda-driven cesspool of propaganda. They are notoriously inaccurate. Do NOT, repeat, do NOT trust anything they post.
Now, while it is true that Obama has pushed for cuts to Medicare PAYMENTS, he has NOT pushed for cuts in BENEFITS. There is a big difference.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)You are incorrect about Obama's cuts to benefits, but, if his own words repeated in multiple sources do not conform to your talking point notes, I understand, those talking points aren't going to catapult themselves! Keep up the good work. It will be clear enough after early April when the details will be harder to spin as they will be fully printable once released
My nursing friends tell me that fewer and fewer places will accept Medicare because they have been cutting payments to providers making it increasingly difficult to accept what does not pay enough to support the services provided, I guess losing these services is not a cut to benefits, so I will give you that one on a technicality but it does have the same effect. Medicaid is accepted by very few doctors in my area for similar (but even smaller payments) reasons. There are a few clinics, but you only get to see nurse practitioners with the exception of a few Catholic Charities outfits that I know of and a clinic next to the county hospital that has so many waiting, many must wait outside, the real world where I live is not as described in the neo-liberal bubble of PPI and Third Way that some think is the real "left wing".
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)DLC, neo-liberal, etc?
WSWS only wants to siphon voters away from Democrats to their candidate.
And I have been listening to Obama's own words. NOT "talking points", but actual facts.
As for your "nursing friends", are these real friends or are they imaginary? When Obama was negotiating the cuts in Medicare payments, he was negotiating with Health Care Professionals. They were willing to accept the cuts because they expected to get more actual paying customers. Sorry if that doesn't fit the RW talking points of "fewer doctors are accepting Medicare patients" - because that's exactly what it is.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)that doesn't even make sense.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)First of all, they would have more patients because more people are covered. Secondly, they would have fewer defaults because more of their patients have coverage.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)more patients who pay less isn't really a big benefit.
it means worse care & more stress.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)and Obama supporters, which are center right in all honesty, they appear to think the left is radical and claim the center is the left, leading to vehement opposition to participation from actual left wingers like socialists and FDR Democrats that have no right in their eyes to participate and earn votes by bringing an alternative view point to the center right business Democrats that espouse Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics, some become so upset by left wing ideas they accuse them of all manner of mischief as you so predictably did.
My nursing friends work mostly at elderly care facilities around here, two of my cousins are nurses aids, my aunt is an RN and I am at their house sometimes when they talk. the rates are being cut so the staff pay is cut as well and are being asked to work longer for cheaper, there are less places willing to make it work as paying too little to provide services is not as great an incentive to take on more customers that pay less than providing services cost as you claim. You really believe paying less for services increases the amount of people that can be serviced? The health care professionals consulted must be of the type found in think tanks or are the health care professionals equivalent of Bill Gates or Rhee educational professionals. only those with private insurance will soon be welcome as new patients if they keep cutting what the programs will pay, with an eye it seems to pay less than the services cost to provide. fewer Doctors accepting medicare patients is what it is, a thing that is happening. You have been listening to Obama's speeches while we are listening to the deals he is offering, the deals are what they will reach agreement on, not the pretty speeches, he is offering up some nasty stuff to the Republicans, I am sorry you are reading his words of talking points in pretty speeches rather than the words that describe the deals he wants to make,
It will be clear enough when they print the end result of his Republican pleasing balanced bi-partisan work that are these current back door negotiatons
Marr
(20,317 posts)At first I thought it was sort of... wrong... but then I got that email from the home office and recalibrated my senses accordingly. THRILLED again!
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)at least we'll have each other while we look forward to a little less
Autumn
(45,058 posts)In fact I just can't wait to vote to show my support!
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)as already noted to others, I don't see how support won't be eroded in a big way.
I've often argued since the formation of the Pee Party, that things like this were the goal -- moving the already off center ideological center line in DC further to the right. One can only imagine how scary the rightwingnut candidate in 2016 is gonna be.
The fear of rightwingnuttery the Pee Partiers ushered in is like Bush's terror alerts in design and goal. This is pretty much the same good cop/bad cop routine we've seen since the emergence of the DLC. It's just taken time so as to maintain the illusion that we have no choice, considering the alternative.
People tend to forget, but many of us thought it pretty clear that the reason for Bush's tax cuts, unfunded wars, etc, was with this goal figuring prominently...
It's all about preserving the "Two America's" they've slowly built since the Saint Raygun days. It makes me wonder which ideology really does represent and promote the "culture of dependency", since the poor are the dependent, and the goal is to make us collectively poorer.
I've long thought that the destination is "compliance".
Autumn
(45,058 posts)facing a blood bath in the next election. There will be no reason to get out and vote for a LOT of people. The republicans win.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)once Obamacare kicks in. People being FORCED to pay outrageous prices for insurance that doesn't cover anything. I don't have health care now but at least I'm not paying to NOT have health care like I will be in 2014. I know I can't wait. 
Autumn
(45,058 posts)by the time I made the payment. I realized I hadn't gone to the Dr for a year because I couldn't afford the co pays so when I would be sick I just waited it out. Now I use the money that I was paying for the premiums and I go to the Dr. I'm dreading 2014. I'm afraid I will be back in the same situation.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)the only hope will be that many on the right, particularly the gray vote repubs are so dependent on, will sit it out as well.
That of course is little consolation for the loss it'll be to all of us.
Exen Trik
(103 posts)Doesn't matter if it were a ploy to raise our ire or a real attempt to get it past us - we still need to raise all the hell we can. There is a certain comfort in that approach to it, I find.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and
"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could
do only a little."
-- Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I think they've underestimated how fierce the fire storm will be. The American public will freak out. His poll numbers will plummet. This would be the big fiasco that every president always has in his second term.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)not unlike the SS privatization effort Bush made and the one Lewinsky spared Clinton. http://firedoglake.com/2010/05/18/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security-clinton-gingrich-bowles-and-the-pact/
This is one of the many reasons why I've never understood the many that have thought such unthinkable out of a dem president.
The dem presidents have moved rightward since Clinton on this and more.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...he can't actually legislate that belief into law.
Congress controls what finally ends up in the bills that reach any president's desk for signature, veto, or no action at all.
Some DUers are allowing themselves once again to get all wound up about what the President says, or doesn't say, in public.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)thanks for educating me on the role of the president in the legislation process. After spending four decades now debating political matters, somehow that little tidbit eluded me. Ignorance is the bane of our political existence, isn't it?
One thing that didn't escape me in this instance is the diff between the optics and perceptions of a dem president standing firmly opposed to the alterations he's proposed and "considering" including in "his" budget, and including them in "his" budget on his own volition before any real or figurative arm twisting occurs over the substance of "his" budget.
Some DUers have long been ignoring the difference between rightwingnuts completely owning the intent and desire to cut the social safety nets, and the leader of their party freely and willingly making said cuts a bi-partisan affair to the extent his participation in it makes it so. It turns as a political matter, the violation of the "third rail" from the hefty club that could be used to knock them senseless, into a pox neither house can escape the ravages of.
The only offset here potentially in terms of the damage for the dem brand and the subsequent/consequent reflection of that in the voting booth, is that the loss in faith in governemnt will effect both sides in somewhat equal measure. I think "some DUers" have grossly underestimated the damage his merely putting it on the table has already wraught in terms of the measure of loss in faith and confidence they had, like the spouse whose spouse put "divorce" on the table as an option. If the object is to preserve the marriage, then the option of divorce has no place in the conversation, other than to identify who does and does not want it or is "considering" it. There are only two explanations for it being on the table -- the needless creation of doubt, or the desirability of it to the one who put it there. Of course a divorce is the only option available upon the failure of the counseling, but putting it on the counseling table as some means of coercion, only defeats the purpose of the counseling sought to preserve the marriage.
Obviously BHO is leaning heavily towards divorcing the dem party from "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938″ http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=obama%20written%20in%201938&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Famericablog.com%2F2012%2F05%2Fobama-2006-too-many-of-us-have-been-interested-in-defending-programs-as-written-in-1938.html&ei=JwlXUaqbNujcyQH_9IHABg&usg=AFQjCNEqy3rZEO3O0lhCn3c8cglAjZvdag&bvm=bv.44442042,d.aWc the terms and conditions of the safety net contract the party has long been wedded to.
SO in terms of the criticisms leveled at him for it, your stuff has no redemption value whatsoever. That's the point so "many DUers" can't seem to grasp or choose to remain oblivious to. It ain't at this time about what he can or can't do or achieve on this front alone or in concert with dems in congress that is at issue -- although it will be should the worst come to pass -- but rather the mere fact that it's been put "on the table" by a dem leader we elected to serve as champion in defense of such things, not to work with the long time dedicated enemies of such as an enabler hiding behind the pretext of being a great reconciliator.
SO by all means, sharpen your weapons, because the issue of his having put it on the table is here to stay, in the "the cat is outta the bag" sorta way.
and have a good day
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....to those of us who don't believe everything the MSM would have us believe, or that politicians feed to the MSM.
As far as I'm concerned this is just another Obama-Hater thread. Yawn.
You have a good day, too.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)a baseless and illogical declaration worthy of a rightwinger.
well done
Thanks for tacitly conceding the validity of my onbservations and remarks though.
What's next, they're too stupid for a smart guy like you to address and bebut?
of course they are
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)desk. You are thinking about long ago before Major Corporations wrote legislation for Congress. Congress for the most part now, blindly votes the way they are told by Corporate America. See the recent rider written by Monsanto and voted on, blindly some of them are saying now, they didn't even know it was there, by Congress. Because if they don't vote on a bill written by their Corporate sponsors, they will find themselves being challenged in their next election, with lots of corporate cash going to the challenger.
The HC bill was written by the HC corps.
All you have to do is look at the makeup of the so-called Deficit Commission which has spent its time talking something that had nothing to do with the deficit, SS, to know why the President keeps talking about cutting programs they have no right to touch, being that the SS fund belongs to the people. Just talking about it is like me talking about my neighbor's savings account, it's tht outrageous.
But we know, we should just trust them. 
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....to be placed on the President's desk for signature (or not).
The President can say publicly whatever he wants about any issue....but he still can't generate the legislation.
By the way, this has nothing to do with trust, just the way things still work in the country no matter how screwed up the end result.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That's why we want our party in the WH. See how other presidents got good legislation passed, it didn't happen because they said 'I am powerless, I will have to wait to see what Congress does, and then I have no choice'. They go to their party members, and sometimes even to members of the opposition and they push for what they want, and when they are right, when they have the people on their side, which they also work for, they get what they want. Lincoln did it, LBJ did it, neither left it up to Congress, they INFLUENCED Congress, made sure they understood the issues and persuaded them to vote for what they wanted.
But one thing a President cannot do is just wait and see and expect to get what he wants. Of course it all depends on what he wants.
Another thing a President can't do is to appoint to powerful positions, people who are part of the problem, such as Monsanto CEOs or members of the opposition. That is a recipe for disaster. If I wanted to vote for Monsanto, I would be a Republican. That is not what Democrats voted for. But that is what we got.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....how successful would any Democratic Party President be in dealing with the GOP Tea-Nazis who CONTROL the House of Reps, and control just enough of the Senate as to be obstructionist? Would you like that President totally bypass Congress and begin issuing Executive Orders that the right-leaning Congress will overturn and SCOTUS will declare unconstitutional? How far down THAT slippery slope would you like to see him go?
LBJ was known as the "bag man" when he was in Congress....he just paid off anyone he could reach, and I doubt seriously his tactics changed after he became president. Just how much "influence" do you want THIS President to exert before he finds himself impeached?
One more point....do you really believe President Obama is NOT working with his own party as well as anyone who will listen in the opposing party? Seriously? If you truly believe that, then you've fallen for yet another right-wing talking point.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So let's just take one issue that all Democrats and in fact, a whole lot of Republicans agree on, and that is SS. It is one of the best, most life-saving, successful fiscal programs ever.
It is NOT in trouble, that is a Republican lie.
The Federal budget is no way connected to SS. It is a separate fund.
It was NOT in any way responsible, even remotely, for the Deficit. That too is a Republican lie.
It never, ever should be mentioned in the same sentence as the Deficit.
So, I expect to hear every Democrat tell the public the truth about SS. I don't expect them to feed Republican lies.
So I listen to what they are SAYING. And this President has made me and many other Democrats very nervous about feeding into the Republican lies by NOT being clear that SS is not part of the deficit.
He has repeatedly made statements about 'entitlement' programs being cut.
Not Fox, not Republicans, I am listening to his own words, which btw, are very different to the words he spoke during the campaign
senseandsensibility
(17,000 posts)If only we could get all DUers to respond and rec this.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I think this has been the single most divisive and enduring issue of that kind on DU.
It's one I've been battling on this side of since almost my first day here.
jsr
(7,712 posts)unless he says it to me in person.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)made of cheese but congress, something, something... you don't understand chess, if he tells you in person it is to mislead the Republicans so he can spring his trap!
no doubt.
I suspect if and when it does crystallize into the ugly reality, many will be pulling the C. Rice "who could have imagined" routine.
PolitFreak
(236 posts)
Kurovski
(34,655 posts) So ancient Rome, and here it is Easter when first I see it.stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I've been using it for over a decade now, mostly as a gift to my rightwing adversaries as a "last word" escape hatch when they run outta intelligent material, not that there's ever much of that at their fingertips.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Obama once said, being president reveals who you are.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I've long thought on this issue, that to those that have actually followed his povs on the matter, he was already known.
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)during the campaign Obama would have lost. He and Biden outright lied and kept this under wraps. There is no way I could believe him again on anything, the trust is lost. The dems are in deeper trouble than they imagine.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)for all the talk about the divisions in the repub party and the need for a rebranding, the "liberal" media doesn't seem to be covering this one at all.
It seems to me that a dem pres willing to play a reverse John Henry on the "third rail" of American politics should be recieving a tad more coverage and focus than it has.