Good news/Bad news -- Cat Food Commission plan fails, but Obama praised their work and....

[defendandprotect]

President Obama praised the work of the commission and said he will look to incorporate elements of their proposal into his fiscal year 2012 budget. /b]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/131841-deficit-panel-votes-down-plan


Yikes!!

Obama never quits on working with the enemy --

[daleanime]

1. Anyone taking bets on which 'elements'....

they try to use?:banghead:

[Taverner]

26. Dip into SS and declare the program bankrupt

Tax break on catfood, especially when bought in bulk

[Marr]

58. Corporate tax cuts + raise of the retirement age.

That's my guess.

[xchrom]

2. It's his commission - so I wouldn't think Obama thinks

Of them as the enemy.

The state of the union speech should be interesting.
Will he draw from schakowsky's plan or
Bowles/Simpson?

[laughingliberal]

35. Simpson & Bowles were his appointees. Just a 'wild' guess he'll go with their plan. nt

[Autumn]

3. So now we wait to see which parts

he wants to incorporate. Not too much hope there.

[QC]

4. Whose enemy?

The Republicans might well be our enemy, but I don't think the president considers them his enemy.

[ljm2002]

5. So the commission never agreed on the final report...

...never got the required 14 votes for passage, didn't even vote until after the deadline, but hey Simpson and Bowles you did a heck of a job and we'll be incorporating your very best ideas in our next budget proposal...

Does that about sum it up?

[somone]

7. Yep, the eminent panel members have spoken for the American people

and the president will faithfully implement their sensible recommendations

[defendandprotect]

12. Well... Pelosi told them it had to be unanimous and they failed in that ....

Think also, Pelosi didn't appoint anyone to the panel -- she didn't cooperate

with it at all -- for which I congratulate her!

[somone]

19. What about January

when the jackasses take over the House?

[defendandprotect]

51. More bad news ... especially since Obama is so cooperative with GOP ...

or as being said these days ... "so caving" -- !!

[gratuitous]

17. As I predicted

Anyone who insists that the Commission blew its deadline, and that the 14-vote threshold wasn't reached will be dismissed as Not Serious About Deficit Reduction. The hallmark of seriousness will be who endorses such punitive and ineffectual measures as raising the retirement age and reducing social security benefits for future retirees. Because those will be "serious" proposals put forth by "experts" from the "bipartisan" Deficit "Reduction" Commission.

The Commission has served its purpose to provide a pretext for the continuing plunder of the Treasury by the wealthy, and to make sure that the lower classes continue to pay for their party.

[glitch]

21. Yep - establishing the frame that "entitlements" were on the table (chopping block).

Mission Accomplished, heck of a job!

[gratuitous]

22. Next up . . .

First, they'll create a two tier system of social security benefits, so that new retirees can be resentful of retirees that preceded them. Next, they begin "means testing" benefits, cutting off those wealthy old folks who don't really need social security. Then, we're set up perfectly to eliminate social security as a "welfare" program for greedy geezers and folks who weren't smart enough to be investment bankers during their careers and so they don't "deserve" to live out their lives immune from the grinding heel of abject poverty.

If it wasn't so depressingly obvious and predictable, I'd congratulate myself on my prescience. As it is, I'm in training to better battle the cats for scraps when I retire.

[glitch]

24. Blatant.

I'd be insulted at their lack of respect for our intelligence if it didn't work on so many people.

[suffragette]

30. Spot on

[derby378]

37. And how many taxpayer dollars were spent on this farce?

We're $13 trillion in debt as it is. Sheesh.

[somone]

6. i.e. This little glitch is making him more resolute

in helping the haves and have-mores

[LiberalLoner]

8. Yup. Sickening. n/t K&R

[tularetom]

9. That's good because if Obama proposes it

the republicans and many fake Democrats in congress will oppose it..

And it won't pass.

[jotsy]

10. Wonder if he'll incorporate ideas from opinions not developed through what's best for the PTB

Haven't read through this thoroughly myself, but thought it applicable.

From the Roosevelt Institute posted at Campaign For America's Future four days ago.
<http://www.ourfuture.org/report/citizenscommission>

Thanx for posting d&p.

[Radical Activist]

11. And the cuts to SS turned out to increase benefits for many recipients.

The rumors of Social Security's demise were greatly exaggerated.

[defendandprotect]

13. Can you somewhat elaborate on your claim that benefits were increased...???

[Radical Activist]

15. Here.

It sounds pretty benign compared to the horror stories people have been peddling.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-1203-durbin-story%2C0%2C5604188.story

It increases the minimum benefit for the lowest income Social Security recipients and adds a much needed increase in benefits for those above the age of 85. It raises the retirement age one year to 68, 40 years from now, meaning no one above the age of 28 today would be affected and the retirement age would be 69, 65 years from now. To protect those in manual labor jobs who cannot wait to retire, we create special benefit package that will still allow for early retirement.

[defendandprotect]

40. Surprised at Durbin and heard him say some strange things re SS today ....

on floor of Senate --

While emphasizing that Social Security has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the debt* --

and also noting that it is solvent ... I think he said for the next 20 years, but actually

it's solvent thru 2039 and beyond -- and if the usual minimum adjustments are made to

it would be solvent into 2075 -- Durbin then mentioned the adjustments as making Social

Security "solvent now." Something strange about Durbin today and I tuned out.

If the intention is to improve the economy and lower the debt then what we need to do is

REDUCE the retirement age to 62 -- making others eligible at 60 -- and that would also

bring more citizens into Medicare earlier which would be another positive for the economy.


You didn't mention hiking the cap -- last I saw the Repugs didn't want to do much about that.

Huge increases in income should mandate a much higher cap -- I'd say at least $125,000 or

$150,000. Still modest amounts considering all the new millionaires and multi-millionaires

we have currently.

And -- yes -- benefits should be increased. They should restore the two COLA payments that

have been missed and stick with it.


Unfortunately, have no confidence in Durbin's comments here and think we need to hear the

other side of the story -- a clearer version than this!





(*in fact it provides a huge slush fund of hundreds of billions for politicians)

[boppers]

59. Social Security obligations are part of the debt. By law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Surpluses were used to buy T-bills.

[eridani]

45. What a bunch of horseshit. The "special benefit package" will be exactly like SSDI

Whine and crawl and jump through hoops to demontrate that you've done exactly enough manual labor to qualify, and maybe two years later they'll let you retire earlier. In an age of permanent suppressed demand and permanent underemployement, there is NOT FUCKING JUSTIFICATION at all for raising the retirement age.

Even now the benefits formula favors lower invome people over higher income people, and there is certainly no objection to tweaking it further in that direction. However, a nice balsamic vinaigrette dressing is no reason to eat a poison ivy salad.

[phleshdef]

49. And if people think any decisions regarding social security changes in 40-65 years will matter...

...then they need to get their heads examined. The world in 40 years won't even be recognizable. If thats what people are worried about, they need to get a grip.

I disapprove of any meaningful cuts to any of our social safety nets and I stand by the point of view that we need to do nothing but strengthen them. But saying the retirement age will be X in 40 years is arbitrary as hell.

[Radical Activist]

53. Exactly what I thought.

In 40 years one of two things will happen. Either we'll change the political realities to lower the retirement age. Or, if we don't deal with climate change crisis, there won't be any social security safety net anyway. The government will be bankrupt dealing with climate disasters and refugees. Planning for the retirement age to change in 40 or more years means nothing to me.

[daleanime]

14. That's strange....

I was under the impression that they wanted to raise the age and lower the COLA's. Where's the benefit?:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

16. After months of propaganda about SS being destroyed

the reality of it does appear fairly mild. Durbin wrote about those who would get benefit increases.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-1203-durbin-story%2C0%2C5604188.story

Social Security is the most important social program in America. The commission creates an actuarially sound program for an additional 75 years. It increases the minimum benefit for the lowest income Social Security recipients and adds a much needed increase in benefits for those above the age of 85. It raises the retirement age one year to 68, 40 years from now, meaning no one above the age of 28 today would be affected and the retirement age would be 69, 65 years from now. To protect those in manual labor jobs who cannot wait to retire, we create special benefit package that will still allow for early retirement.

[suffragette]

27. Schakowsky has a different view on this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jan-schakowsky/why-i-voted-against-the-b_b_791727.html
Now we are on an "unsustainable fiscal path," to quote the report, which threatens our future economic viability. But there is another grave threat to both our economy and our democracy, and that is the alarming redistribution of wealth that is shrinking the middle class. The top 1% of Americans now owns 34% of our nation's wealth - more than the combined wealth of 90% of Americans. Even during this great recession, the top 5% of households have seen their income rise. Just this week, two million Americans lost their unemployment insurance benefits. If we fail to extend them, not only will that be another slap to the middle class, but it will hurt the economy by depriving our businesses - large and small - of money these struggling Americans will rush out and spend.

And now we have a commission report that glibly talks about "shared sacrifice" and making "painful" decisions. I ask, "Painful for whom?" These recommendations ask those who have already been and are sacrificing to sacrifice further. Those who have not enjoyed the prosperity party over the last many years are being asked to pick up the tab.
~~~
* Their plan addresses rising health care costs by asking elderly Medicare beneficiaries to pay more out of their own pockets, even though they already pay about 30% of their mostly meager incomes (the median income for seniors is $18,000 per year) on their own. Their plan cuts Medicare by $110 billion by imposing higher cost-sharing requirements on seniors and people with disabilities. Mine requires Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices like the Veteran's Administration does, bringing down the cost to seniors and the government by billions of dollars. It also would implement a public option, which we already know would save $10 billion by 2015.
~~~
Finally, the Bowles-Simpson plan would require cuts in Social Security benefits. The good news is that they acknowledge that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit, and their plan is to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years and not to use it for debt reduction. The bad news is that average benefits for middle-income workers (average lifetime earnings of between $43,000 and $69,000 per year) could be cut up to 35% depending on when they retire. There is no need to cut Social Security in order to save it, as my plan proves.



I agree with her and with this statement in an article form Ms magazine :
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12758

The plan, introduced by commission co-chairs Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Erksine Bowles (D-NC), would disproportionately cut programs whose recipients are primarily women, such as Social Security and Medicare, while it cuts corporate taxes.

Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) voted no on the proposal and criticized it for its "alarming redistribution of wealth that is shrinking the middle class." She also presented her plan that would reduce the deficit without hurting the middle class or the vulnerable.

Women's rights groups, including the National Organization for Women, OWL the Voice of Midlife and Older Women, and the Feminist Majority expressed their outrage when the initial proposal was introduced in mid November.

The plan was moderated because of such criticism. For example, the plan would raise the age of eligibility for collecting social security - but now includes hardship waivers, proposed by commission member Senator Durbin, for seniors whose jobs require physical labor. The waivers, it is estimated, would affect some 20 percent of seniors.




There was no propaganda about SS being destroyed. There was appropriate criticism of the direction taken by some on the commission, including its leadership (co-chair), for trying to use this commission to reduce Social Security and other social programs (which many of these same members have wanted to do for political purposes for years). Add to that the proposal to give higher corporate tax breaks, thus creating even more inequity. That criticism helped by shining a light on this committee and likely keeping some of the worst at bay. And that criticism will still be appropriate and needed if Congress moves forward on this "majority plan," as it's now being spun, even though them members could not not even pass it by the rules of their own bylaws and charter.

[Radical Activist]

28. She wasn't writing about the reccomendation of the commission.

She was writing about a publicity document released by only the co-chairs. And in neither case did the recommended changes come even close to the months of speculative exaggeration. FDL and a few pundits owe their readers an apology.

[suffragette]

29. I disagree

The article is titled: "Why I Voted Against the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Plan" and the date is: Posted: December 3, 2010 01:56 PM
And I stand by what I wrote in my last paragraph, which applies to FDL as well.

[Radical Activist]

33. Did the rhetoric around social security cuts remotely resemble what was proposed?

No. Your unrelated comments about other parts of the plan don't change that reality. We were subjected to months of a dishonest, speculative propaganda campaign from portions of the blagosphere. It's worth noting and treating those sources with due skepticism in the future.

[suffragette]

36. I already addressed your 1st point earlier

Still standing with Krugman on this issue:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/destroying-retirement-in-order-to-save-it/
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
December 1, 2010, 10:48 am

Destroying Retirement In Order To Save It

Bowles-Simpson, the revision, is out. It has not improved.

I think it is worth pointing out that like so many proposals from that side of the political spectrum — for this is, very much, bipartisanship as a compromise between the center-right and the hard right — this one involves a fundamental piece of strange logic. Namely, it argues that in order to head off the dire prospect of future cuts in Social Security benefits, we must … cut future Social Security benefits.

Also: in response to the point many of us have made about raising the retirement age — that only the affluent have seen life expectancy rise faster than the retirement-age rises already in the law — the plan promises special exemptions for those with physical hardships.

Let’s think about that. Right now we have a retirement system that has the great virtue of not being intrusive: Social Security doesn’t demand that you prove you need it, doesn’t ask about your personal life, doesn’t make you feel like a beggar. And now we’re going to replace that with a system in which large numbers of Americans have to plead for special dispensation, on the grounds that they’re too feeble to work for a living. Freedom!



I find him and, yes, FDL, and NOW and Schakowsky much more credible than I found those who attack them.


Also, I will continue to compare their approach to cutting social benefits with their approach to increasing corporate benefits and examine that linkage. And yes, they are related, and demonstrate that while they are pushing austerity and saying it is for all, it is clearly falling more on the middle and lower class. Their proposal is for the wealthiest to actually get more breaks.


Here's another of what you view as unrelated:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jan-schakowsky/why-i-voted-against-the-b_b_791727.html

* My plan recognizes the need to create jobs - a deficit-reducing strategy - that some, incorrectly, view as just more spending. Their plan does not include up front investments to lower the unemployment rate. It is important to note that if America's unemployment rate were still at its pre-recession level of 4.5%, we would only be facing a modest deficit.

[Radical Activist]

39. "Obama is leading the assault on social security"

Let's remember what the claims were. Did the final plan live up to the claims? Is this an assault on social security or minor tinkering that will benefit many low-income recipients? I don't like being bullshitted.

And yes, your last quoted paragraph is irrelevant to my point because I'm not arguing whether the report is good or bad. Speculative exaggeration doesn't help the progressive movement.

[suffragette]

66. Drawing attention to what the commission

was discussing and planning was crucial in alerting people to the need to contact their representatives and stress how vital programs like Social Security are and that they should not be cut or drastically altered, whether that alteration is a cut in benefits, raising the age (also a cut) and/or means testing.

You may want to disassociate discussion of this topic from whether the report is good or bad or whether creating such a commission was good or bad or whether once that was done there were better proposals than the report made, but the reality is that none of this takes place in a vacuum and those are all salient points. They are the reason people raised these issues in the first place. And the main part of that is that Social Security was linked to deficit reduction, linked erroneously at that (and there's where the real "speculative exaggeration" took place in the spin being done to create that linkage)and will likely be viewed with an eye toward cuts in coming budget sessions.

Again, I agree with Krugman, who clearly doesn't believe what was proposed is "minor tinkering":
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/destroying-retirement-in-order-to-save-it/
I think it is worth pointing out that like so many proposals from that side of the political spectrum — for this is, very much, bipartisanship as a compromise between the center-right and the hard right — this one involves a fundamental piece of strange logic. Namely, it argues that in order to head off the dire prospect of future cuts in Social Security benefits, we must … cut future Social Security benefits.

Also: in response to the point many of us have made about raising the retirement age — that only the affluent have seen life expectancy rise faster than the retirement-age rises already in the law — the plan promises special exemptions for those with physical hardships.

Let’s think about that. Right now we have a retirement system that has the great virtue of not being intrusive: Social Security doesn’t demand that you prove you need it, doesn’t ask about your personal life, doesn’t make you feel like a beggar. And now we’re going to replace that with a system in which large numbers of Americans have to plead for special dispensation, on the grounds that they’re too feeble to work for a living. Freedom!

[Radical Activist]

68. It would have been nice if pundits and bloggers stuck to what was actually being discussed.

That's not the case. There was dishonest speculation and exaggeration based on no evidence. You can post all the links you want criticizing the report and it still won't justify the dishonest hysteria from sites like FDL.

The video of Alan Simpson claiming bloggers were exaggerating and being sensationalist to get attention turned out to be correct.

[defendandprotect]

43. After 30 years of rw propaganda attacking SS, you're suggesting that rebuttals by the left...

to the sliming of SS by Simpson and his gang was "subjecting you to months of

dishonest, speculative propaganda?" --

Quite some distortion there -- !! And, almost as though you are under personal attack?


You're comparing an exposing of the Cat Food Commission by the left - with the left stating

the truth of SS and the reality that SS has nothing to do with the debt -- and the left's

cautioning the public -- versus 30 years of constantly repeated rw propaganda from the GOP

which also ran in the Wall Street Journal and other major rw corporate-press -- mainly based

on lies and disinformation intended to confuse the public!


:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

44. Does right wing propaganda justify left wing propaganda?

I don't think so.

[defendandprotect]

50. The left has been correcting the rw propaganda ....

and that includes making clear that there was a time when seniors

were reduced to eating "cat food."

Are you suggesting that the lies, distortions and misinformation the right wing

has been presenting for 30 years is the equal of the left wing correcting that

propaganda?

[Radical Activist]

55. If I had suggested that I would have written it.

The existence of right wing propaganda is not relevant to or justification for deceptive propaganda from the left. Obama was not "leading the assault on social security" as self-serving alarmist idiots claimed. It was a lie, lie, lie. I don't like being lied to no matter what ideology the liar comes from.

[defendandprotect]

56. Where is the "deceptive" propaganda from the left on this issue?

[Radical Activist]

62. Read my comment again. I already specified.

[defendandprotect]

70. No, you haven't specified. You complained about the descriptive "Cat Food" Commission...

but I think you've made clear enough what does bother you --

and what doesn't!!

Bye --





Paul Krugman points out that this changes Social Security in basic ways. "Right now we have a retirement system that has the great virtue of not being intrusive: Social Security doesn't demand that you prove you need it, doesn't ask about your personal life, doesn't make you feel like a beggar. And now we're going to replace that with a system in which large numbers of Americans have to plead for special dispensation, on the grounds that they're too feeble to work for a living."

Reagan on steroids



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/curtis-black/durbin-defaults_b_791838.html

This is part of a broader plan from Schakowsky, which has five key elements:

1. Increased economic stimulus to spur growth in the immediate term

• Provide $200 billion to invest over the next two years in measures to create jobs and spur economic growth, including passing the Local Jobs for America Act; and funding for education and law enforcement; Unemployment Insurance, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program extensions; and infrastructure.

• Adopt the president's proposals to eliminate overseas tax havens and incentives for outsourcing

2. Smart, targeted spending cuts

• Non-defense discretionary—$7.55 billion in savings through increased efficiency and cuts to programs that benefit large corporations that don't need assistance.

• Defense discretionary—$110.7 billion in cuts from the 2015 defense budget, including efficiency savings, reducing our troop levels, cutting weapons systems we don't need and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military.

3. Mandatory spending cuts

• Healthcare—at least $17.2 billion in savings by implementing measures to bring down the cost of healthcare to the federal government and lower healthcare inflation overall.

• Other—$7.7 billion in savings by cutting agriculture subsidies in half, and redistributing federal support to offer greater benefits to small family farms and reduce subsidies to large corporate agribusiness.

4. Reductions in tax expenditures

• Raise $132.2 billion by closing tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

5. Increases in revenues

• Raise $144.6 billion in revenue through progressive reforms to the estate tax, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, and enacting a cap-and-trade proposal that includes protections for lower-income people.

• Enact President Obama's budget proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the top two brackets expire and return to 2009 estate tax levels.

• Nontax revenue—raise $7 billion by addressing places where the private sector is currently underpaying.

The plan that Schakowsky has produced is not the final word on how progressives ought to approach debates about fiscal policy, debts and deficits. There needs to be more consideration of the role that the trade deficit plays in destabilizing the US economy and the financial health of the federal government, as Ohio Congressman Marcy Kaptur has noted. There should be consideration of the proposals by Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio for taxes on speculation and financial transactions. And there should be new approaches to how the Federal Reserve manages bank funds, as economist Robert Pollin has suggested.

But Schakowsky has provided the essential framework for the coming debate.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156831/after-deficit-panel-deadlock-progressives-must-promote-alternative-austerity

[defendandprotect]

42. Thank you -- one side of the story doesn't work ... and saw Durbin today ...

and it looks like he's selling out -- disturbing!

[suffragette]

65. You're welcome

I wonder about Durbin's switch on this and find it disturbing as well.

The Nation has a good article up:

After Deficit Panel Deadlock, Progressives Must Promote the Alternative to Austerity
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156831/after-deficit-panel-deadlock-progressives-must-promote-alternative-austerity

and on HuffPo. this article has some ggod points and great links to more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/curtis-black/durbin-defaults_b_791838.html

One thing's for sure. We haven't heard the last of this and will need to keep our eyes and ears open, especially with G20 pressing nations to make these types of "austerity" cuts, especially to social programs, even though those cuts are keeping some nations from stabilizing and recovering.

[defendandprotect]

71. Agree with you on Durbin ... heard him making some disingenuous comments

on Senate floor the other day --

while acknowledging SS is "solvent" for next 20 years, he then suggests

later we need to make SS solvent!

Wasn't really that familiar with Durbin but I did at one point have a positive

feeling about him -- but not after this vote.

This will take a lot of watching and power certainly isn't on our side right now!!

I'll check those links later -- thanks!

:)

[defendandprotect]

41. Rather, we've had 30 years of rw propaganda attacking SS with lies ....

the 10 year propaganda campaign by the WSJ to label SS a "Ponzi Scheme" still echoes --

but that was just one part of the entire rw propaganda attack on SS over decades.

There was no need to set up the Cat Food Commission -- again SS has nothing whatsoever

to do with the debt. GOP has long had interests in disconnection women from their

husband's benefits, as well -- it's their usual sexist approach to legislation and

governing.

SS benefits should be increased -- starting with restoring the last two cancelled COLA

payments -- and moving on to increase the benefits in general.

Over the last decades the burden of SS FICA payments have been put on the poor and the

middle class. Time to amend that!

[ladjf]

18. Puke. nt

[Mnemosyne]

20. Sickening. KnR

:hi:

[Arkana]

23. We accuse Republicans of peddling fear

and yet you people scream about "THA CATFOOD COMMISSION!!!!!!!!1111"

How is that not hypocritical?

[glitch]

25. That would be true if we made the Catfood Commission and their proposals up.

We didn't.

[defendandprotect]

46. You evidently don't realize that seniors were once reduced to "cat food" diets ....

We've had 30 years of rw GOP propaganda attacking SS --

WSJ ran a 10 year campaign attacking SS claiming it was a "Ponzi Scheme" --

Do you remember the often quoted by Newt Gingrich poll paid for by the rw which

claimed that young people thought they were more likely to see a UFO than ever

collect SS?

As with Global Warming, the effort has been to lie, distort, misinform and disinform

the public.

W was acting to privatize SS and move assets into Wall Street --

Meanwhile, after trampling our best opportunity yet for universal health care

-- which 76%+ of the public wanted -- in back room deals with Big Pharma and the

private HC industry, promising that there would be no Medicare negotiation on drug prices

and that single-payer would be "off the table" ...

Obama set up this commission and appointed right wing extremists to it.

You express no complaints about any of that ....

BUT what's really bothering you is that left is calling it the "Cat Food Commission" -- ?????


:rofl:

[Caretha]

67. "You people"???

Is that you Rush?

[Major Hogwash]

31. So Congress won't screw with Social Security so the air is let out of that balloon.

The party is over for Boehner before it got started.
He was really looking forward on privatizing Social Security.

[defendandprotect]

47. Don't really see that it's over, especially given Obama's willingness to give the right

pretty much anything it wants -- sometimes before they even ask for it --

and in the case of the freeze on federal UNION employees' wages, when they

don't even ask for it!!

Obama says he will include "elements" of their recommendations in his 2012 budget --

Obama has already destroyed our best chance yet for universal health care in back

room deals with Big Pharma and private HC industry. And Rahm has "crowed" about it.



:eyes:

[Individualist]

32. Despicable but not surprising

words from a New Democrat President.

[laughingliberal]

34. How nice. His budget's already been written for him. nt

[whistler162]

38. I am going to make a educated guess... you didn't read it!

some good ideas along with some not so good ideas.

[defendandprotect]

48. Did Obama or the Panel suggest FREEZING Congressional salaries .... ????

If you picked up a good idea -- introduce it -- discuss it --

don't keep it secret!

IMO, we should also FREEZE Congressional benefits and keep reducing them

until we get MEDICARE FOR ALL AMERICANS -- !!

[Lorien]

52. Fuck. It's a snowballing shitstorm of bad GOP policies

rolling ever faster down a very steep and long hill. :-(

[boppers]

54. You're against defense cuts?

Why is that?

[defendandprotect]

57. Let's see ... W DOUBLED the MIC budget... are they cutting 30% ...or more?

If not, why not?


And, btw, we can save 28% of our MIC budget immediately if we simply

do what every other nation has done -- COMBINE THE SERVICES.



PLUS if we stoped the idiocy of DADT we'd also save a fortune spent

on getting rid of soldiers we've already trained -- and processing them

out!!

[boppers]

60. They recommended doubling the current proposed (Gates) cuts.

So, you agree with a commission recommendation, then, but attack Obama for doing the same.

Gotcha.

[defendandprotect]

61. No ... I agree with halving the MIC ... let me know when they suggest that ....

Nor do I agree with Obama keeping the Bush wars going --

and the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq --

nor the drones over Pakistan --

nor the warmongering vs Iran --

What I would agree with Obama about is if he would announce that he is stepping

down for 2012!!

That I could agree with --

And he should take his entire troup of corrupt advisors with him -- !!

[TheKentuckian]

63. No matter how many times this shit dies Obama keeps it breathing.

[defendandprotect]

73. +1 --

[Raine]

64. Disgraceful! nt

x(

[ProSense]

69. Durbin supported it and Wyden said this

about the first report:

“The Fiscal Commission demonstrates what Senator Gregg and I have spent the last year saying: By eliminating what amounts to tax earmarks for special interests, it is possible to simplify the tax code, promote economic growth and cut taxes for the vast majority of American families and businesses. Obviously, what the Fiscal Commission terms “Wyden-Gregg style reform” does not, in some respects, go as far as Wyden-Gregg does in simplifying filing for individuals and families and scaling back the corporate rate. While in other respects, it goes too far. For example, Senator Gregg and I considered limits on mortgage and charitable deductions too politically controversial to include in our legislation. But what I hope people will take away from the Fiscal Commission’s report is the fact that, when it comes to taxes, Congress needs to do more than simply vote on an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. Extending a broken tax system will do nothing more than extend the current economic stagnation. If my colleagues are serious about creating jobs and growing the economy while addressing the nation’s fiscal health we need to get serious about comprehensive tax reform.”

At least the President has a reason to thank them for their work: It's his commission.

[defendandprotect]

72. Durbin in "default" .... reversal of his positions ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9681302&mesg_id=9686732

[amborin]

74. never quits is right