Some side points on the "Cat food" Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform -

[pinto]

Just a couple of procedural notes in the ongoing discussions about the commission and it relevance to actual legislation.

- Any recommendation forwarded from the commission requires 14 out of 18 votes. Only 5 "nays" are a block on any proposal, across the board.

- The proposals go to Pres. Obama, not the Congress. They aren't writing a bill or enacting legislation.

- Any proposals that get forwarded to Congress are up for a vote.

- Any legislation passed that runs counter to the Administration's goals are liable to a veto.

All the players know that. It's more a process, imho, than a nefarious plot to gut Social Security.

I truly feel that Soc. Sec. will remain sacrosanct, if that's the right term, in our national framework.

~ pinto

[DJ13]

1. By installing known opponents to SS Obama has likely already decided to

pass the recommendations on to Congress for a vote.

In Vegas this is called a rigged game.

[pinto]

3. How do you know what he's decided? i.e. We may all be jumping to conclusions.

:shrug:

[FiveGoodMen]

13. DJ13's rationale for saying what he said is in his subject line.

That's how.

[Political Tiger]

17. Problem is his "rational" is irrational and not based on facts. n/t

[Whisp]

5. and here it's called hoping for the worst case scenario crystal balling

just to get a dig at Obama.

:thumbsdown:

[DJ13]

6. .... and if they recommend cuts, and it passes

Will you wonder why you didnt fight against it ahead of it happening?

Is your faith in Obama worth the risk?

[Whisp]

7. I want to wait on what exactly i'm fighting for or against.

so far there is not much info out yet besides this hew and cry about Catfood.

I'll wait until there is something real to digest, not frothing speculation, thankyou.

[Dems2002]

14. Start Sooner

Here's the deal, if you wait until December, what leverage do you have to stop something from happening? Elections will have just occurred, Democrats will have lost numerous seats if not the actual governing bodies and we'll be preparing for deep you know what.

If our corporate masters have decided that we need to sacrifice our SS so that they can have their tax cuts another year, that's what's going to happen unless we begin working now to draw lines in the sand. We will not compromise on Social Security. That's our line.

When I look at the folks that OBAMA appointed, I'm not sanguine that there's not going to be a fight. I'd rather fight now to get people on the record, (Whatever little good that does me) and to ratchet up the pressure not to cut benefits essential to keeping our elderly out of poverty, than wait and scramble when people are out of town from Thanksgiving to New Years. (Why else would a lame duck Congress be voting on the recommendations?)

By fighting now, maybe that we'll enable the COMMISSION itself to fight against even suggesting these cuts. Maybe by fighting now, we'll actually be able to scare Max Baucus into siding with us.

Sure, I'm doubtful, but it definitely doesn't hurt to try. Heck if you're right and there's nothing to worry about, then getting numerous Democrats on the record agreeing with us and then implementing the same is a no brainer. They'll be happy to do so...right?

[Whisp]

15. what exactly are you 'fighting against'?

Has the Commission put forward anything yet? Has Obama responded, suggested. Has Anything actually happened yet except for the dislike of some of the people that were chosen to be on the Commission?

Pinto's post is pretty informative compared to the regular howling here. I find nothing about the procedure so far to start flailing around in thin air in protest.

[Luminous Animal]

23. You don't need to be against something in order to fight for something...

That is, you can be proactive rather than reactive.

[Whisp]

25. what are you doing to be proactive on this?

I'm not getting any answers.

I don't mean making stuff up about what the commission is about and what it can and can't do. Did you read the OP?

[Luminous Animal]

27. Right now? I've sent letters to my Rep & Senators.

I've also sent similar to my governor and state government reps asking them to insist this admin & congress avoid all cuts to SS & Medicare.

I've signed petitions and written letters to my paper and made email comments on news articles. That is, I am keeping the issue visible at this point and I will join in any local protest.

And no, I didn't need to make anything up to any of that.

[Whisp]

29. That's great.

Sorry if it sounded like I insulted you, didn't really mean to and can't always sift out who are the reasonable/unreasonable ones here.

Good for you, you Are doing something productive.

:toast:

[sandnsea]

8. Whatever they recommend to Congress will be a big fight

Why would you expect anything less?

[bobbolink]

10. No.. the people suffering as a result won't be visible to the true believers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. What if Obama really IS a secret muslin terrist!

Oh, you won't be laughing then, I tell ya hwut!

[katandmoon]

21. Would you feel the same way if Bush named Alan Simpson/Erskine Bowles to cochair such a commission?

[Whisp]

22. no, because unlike Obama, Bush is a giggling murdering asshole.

for some odd reason I tend to have a bit more trust in an Obama than in a line of Bush's that have plundered and sucked the life out of so many things over the decades. i'm funny that way.

[katandmoon]

33. If you have so much faith in Obama, then why do you think HE picked two people dedicated to trashing

SS to head the commission?

[Political Tiger]

16. How about learning the facts instead of just making accusations?

Of the 18 members of the commission, Obama only "installed" 6.

Sec. 2. Membership. The Commission shall be composed of 18 members who shall be selected as follows:

(a) six members appointed by the President, not more than four of whom shall be from the same political party;
(b) three members selected by the Majority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate;
(c) three members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives;
(d) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate; and
(e) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform

[DJ13]

19. Its not the generic makeup thats the problem, its the actual people chosen

But if you trust Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles, thats up to you.

[Lasher]

2. Ok thanks pinto, I feel better.

Guess I'll just shut up until it's too late.

[pinto]

4. Ah geez. Don't shut up, speak up. That wasn't my point or intent at all.

:hi:

[Lasher]

32. You're right, I was too harsh.

Sorry.

:blush:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. How dare you, sir!

How dare you!

[Whisp]

12. good work, pinto, but you have to ratchet up the nasty

and fling in some foam to make this thread survive.

the facts just don't get much attention here lately. got to have gristle and bone! and dagger eyes and popped viens, and shaking fists and shouting how Obama is going to publicly skin people over the age of 65 on the front of the Whitehouse lawn and feed that skin to their children. yep, I heard that, somewhere.

[depakid]

18. Makes one curious as to why such an apporach wasn't used to write repsonsible health care provisions

[zipplewrath]

20. This commission was designed to give political cover

You don't need political cover unless you're going to do something extremely unpopular. Obama has shown a preference for Clinton's kind of triangulation strategy. In this case, much like HCR, that will involve trying to co-opt GOP ideas. That's how we got mandates and cadillac taxes.

[mmonk]

24. Some questions

#1 Why now in a deep recession when stimulus spending is needed to kick start demand?
#2 If social security is sacrosanct, why is it on the table?
#3 Why do they only talk about "entitlements"?
#4 Why are social security's most vocal and active enemies at the table including groups that were formed for no other reason than to change it to privatization?

[Luminous Animal]

26. Who would be forwarding the proposal to Congress?

[eridani]

28. Geez, and if the administrations goals are to cut Social Security, then waht? n/t

[mmonk]

30. Elect a Congress that won't?

[eridani]

31. So how do we unelect a lame duck Congress? n/t