!!!!!!!No, White House advisor Gene Sperling, entitlement cuts are not necessary!!!!!!!
Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)
As the founder of the Defending Social Security Caucus, Bernie is fighting every day to protect our earned benefits. Stand with Senator Bernie Sanders and a diverse coalition of thousands of fellow progressives now and demand that Congress and the President oppose any grand bargain which cuts Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Add your name today!
http://www.americawantsnocuts.com/americasfuture/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In his usual elliptical and prolix way, Sperling seemed to be laying out the contours of a bargain with Republicans thats quite a bit different that what most Democrats seem prepared to accept. What stood out to me was how he kept winding back around to the importance of entitlement cuts as part of a deal, as if he were laying the groundwork to blunt liberal anger. Right now, the official Democratic position is that theyll accept entitlement cuts only in exchange for new revenuesomething most Republicans reject. If Sperling mentioned revenue at all, I missed it.
But he dwelt at lengthand with some passionon the need for more stimulus, though he avoided using that dreaded word. He seemed to hint at a budget deal that would trade near-term investment (the preferred euphemism for stimulus) for long-term entitlement reform. That would be an important shift and one that would certainly upset many Democrats. [...]
Sometimes here [in Washington] we start to think that the end goal of our public policy is to hit a particular budget or spending or revenue metricas if those are the goals in and of itself. But its important to remember that each of these metrics are means to larger goals. Right now, I think there is among a lot of people a consensus as to what the ingredients of a pro-growth fiscal policy are. It would be a fiscal policy thatyesdid give more confidence in the long run that we have a path on entitlement spending and revenues that gives confidence in our long-term fiscal position and that were not pushing off unbearable burdens to the next generation. That is very important.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/25/1250673/-No-White-House-advisor-Gene-Sperling-entitlement-cuts-are-not-necessary
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)Miranda4peace
(225 posts)I was kinda hoping it would lead to a Sander write in or run.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)We all know the GOP is actually death to seniors. And it looks like seniors might vote Dem in 2014. The reason the GOP kept the house was that a lot of seniors voted for the GOP. If the Dems screw them on Social Security and Medicare they have no where to go. They might just stay home in 2014.
One reason that seniors voted GOP in 2010 was the false meme the GOP put out about a Medicare cut that did not exist. It was just an elimination of wasted subsidy to insurance companies who were not providing services anyway.
Miranda4peace
(225 posts)Well I know one thing, the economy can't handle any cuts AT ALL!
These snap cuts coming in November are going to cause grocers to jack up prices some, so hopefully after they witness that economic degradation from cuts they will reverse their call for more.
mucifer
(23,557 posts)Unfortunately, he is one person.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Another cheap-labor tool that needs to be replaced with someone who thinks democratically.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Goldman guy.
Like so many others...
the revolving door keeps hitting the public in the ass.
Did this clown have to take an oath? Did he skip the ethics class? BTW, I think his cv is impressive. Particularly the education side...polysci and law (Yale).
Excellent economist material.
I dream of a day when the economic policy of the people is not determined by the 1% and their well-trained team of ivy leaguers.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Once upon a time, around 140 years ago, we came to realize that our gov't was controlled by people with selfish goals and facilitated by cronyism and nepotism. So steps were taken to reduce the abuse. Waiting period for people to move between public and private jobs...elimination of advancement without oversight...reduction of recompense for public favors...etc. The Civil Service Act was a good idea.
Then came the Reagan idea(?) of running gov't like a business. Or at least that was the wording -- the meaning was really "running gov't for the business".
It took over 30 years to put us back that 140 years. And no administration wants to restore it because they each plan to use it. Like gerrymandering.
Unrelated point: "the need for more stimulus". At what point in our history did stimulus come to mean a larger trickle-down?
I don't think stimulus should be defined as making sure that private banks can guarnatee profitability by using public money without paying for it. Or private industry can use public money for investments in foreign labor to create products for the American market.
gopiscrap
(23,762 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)They won't stop until they get it.
In the last few years, Social Security has been reduced from the "3rd Rail of Politics" and the "Cornerstone of the Modern Democratic Party" to just another chip on the table up for grabs in Budget Negotiations.
It will begin with some "minor adjustments" that are really Cuts in Benefits,
and will die the slow Death of a Thousand Cuts once the precedent has been established.
Democrats need to Stand Strong and UNIFIED on Social Security.
[font size=4]NO CUTS!
Raise the CAP![/font]
as this candidate for the Presidency promised in 2008.
[font size=4]KEEP THE PROMISE![/font]
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)with the republicans. Between Paul Ryan, rand Paul, and Obama, saving ss will be tough