Watching Obama on CSPAN. He just said he's open to SS, Medicare, Medicaid "Changes"

[jtown1123]

This is sickening. I can only imagine they are cuts.

[lamp_shade]

1. Look both words up in the dictionary.

[jtown1123]

2. Don't be absurd. I've been following Obama on Entitlements for Two years

he just said his side is resistant to changes to entitlements. That is because they are resistant to cuts. They are not resistant to raising revenues in these programs.

[Liberalynn]

107. Does "trim"

mean "raising revenues" in your dictionary.

Hmm that's not what's in mine.

[tekisui]

4. When speaking in relation to costs, what else could changes mean?

I certainly won't be expansion or increased funding. We would all be raising holy hell if this was dubya saying it. In fact we did.

[FreakinDJ]

35. as in raising the cap would Strengthen the Programs

DEMs have been advocating for years to raise the cap of social security tax

[jtown1123]

41. That is not even an option right now.

Bringing up social Security during deficit negotiations only opens it up for cuts.

[TheKentuckian]

56. What "changes" that are beneficial do you think can be passed and what would have to be traded to

to get those votes?

In context, what can the words mean?

[PoliticAverse]

3. "leaner, meaner" government. I don't want a 'meaner' government... n/t

[tekisui]

5. I don't want a leaner one either. I just want a more equitably funded one.

[jtown1123]

6. Agreed. This is incredibly disturbing.

Throwing these programs under the bus in a deficit deal is disgusting. Obama just said he is willing to take on heat from his party. Which means he is considering CUTS.

[tekisui]

8. Of course that is what he means. Only the willfully blind deny it.

[jtown1123]

46. There are many of those on DU

[EFerrari]

98. Haiti has a lean, mean government. n/t

[QC]

99. And then there's Somalia, the teabagger's paradise. n/t

[Recursion]

132. Haiti has higher government spending as part of GDP than the US

In addition to a VAT and a higher corporate tax rate. Corrupt "regulation" is actually a large part of its problem; it's not a Randian free-for-all.

[CTyankee]

135. I heard that too! It was an UNFORTUNATE choice of words on Obama's part.

I get that it is a saying in a different context but I just winced when I heard it.

I'll be that a lot of Americans think their government is mean enough, thank you...

[slipslidingaway]

7. "I'm prepared to take on significant heat from my party ..."

to get something done.

[jtown1123]

11. There you have it folks. He just said he wants to extend payroll tax holiday again too...

[slipslidingaway]

15. Yes, heard that as well. n/t

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merbex]

12. I am so done with this passing for being 'statesmanlike'

He touches SS he is STEALING money that people contributed with payroll deductions from their own work.

[jtown1123]

22. Yes. Cutting SS doesn't reduce the deficit so why do it?

[merbex]

27. There is NO OTHER thing to do except ask yourself

who does this benefit? Who does cutting SS benefit?

[Liberalynn]

109. Some far off generation

which probably won't even exist because we will have anhiliated ourselves with all the polution and wars.

[Erose999]

31. Defunding it to run it into the ground making way for privitazation. This is surely a compromise

with the Re-thugs, but I bet the carrot he's getting here is probably something equally terrible like support for the individual mandate.

Any way you look, the screws are getting tighter.

[Recursion]

90. Sure it does

Just not the debt. Cutting SS benefits would make for a vastly smaller yearly deficit starting around 2016. But the larger deficits won't add to the total debt, though the money will be more expensive to borrow.

[Liberalynn]

108. Was wondering that too

If it doesn't contribute to the deficit than why is he insisting on "trimming" SS? His very own word "trimming" not some biased reporters HIS.

[Recursion]

134. Because it does contribute to the deficit, or at least it will in coming years

And we can scream all we want that the increased deficits will not greatly increase overall debt, but saying SS will not contribute to the deficit (or, alternately, higher taxes or cut spending elsewhere) is simply false.

[CrossChris]

13. He's been preparing for this since he was elected, probably before.

This is all theater.

The angrier we get, the more he gets to show off to "centrists" that he's a great guy.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrossChris]

28. I feel like this is an experiment in how far the Dem base will follow a Repub with a D by his name.

It's sad to see Dems get defensive over Reagan's policies when issued by a DINO.

[jtown1123]

49. Yep.

[NorthCarolina]

51. I think you actually nailed it there. n/t

[derby378]

106. Boo-yah

We put him in office - and we want results.

[gkhouston]

14. He'd better be prepared to take a hefty dose of abandonment.

This shit is not flying.

[Marrah_G]

16. So I guess that means we won't like the changes.

What could have been a such a positive turn for our country has turned out to be just the opposite.

[jtown1123]

18. Yep. I feel ill.

[slipslidingaway]

60. Exactly, what else could it mean. n/t

[shanti]

74. what else could that mean

besides something negative, and what we consider negative are CUTS.

[muffin1]

101. Yep.

Why would there be "heat" if there were no cuts?

[OwnedByFerrets]

102. He'd better be prepared to be a one term president too then

[Doctor_J]

117. He doesn't give a shit about his party

unless he means the Republicans.

[Dappleganger]

127. Does he know he can kiss his 2nd term goodbye if he backs these 'changes?'

[Marrah_G]

9. Unless he means more people will get more benefits.......

I doubt it though.

I'm now just numb. I can't even get angry. I just want to sell our damn house, buy the small farm and make sure my family has self provided food, heat, energy and shelter for the future.

[obxhead]

26. I'm ready to relocate to Canada myself. nt

[Marrah_G]

36. Huge waiting list and tough to emigrate there

I'm doing the next best thing and going to northern, northern VT

[snappyturtle]

54. I agree on the relocation part. I'm totally numb. IF the President meant more people

will get more benefits, he would have said so....imo. Color me not only numb but dumb. I thought I was voting for a man who cared about the American people. It's been quite a decade for me...I married a con man and then voted for one too. I'm very discouraged.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes (Turn and face the strain)

But I've never caught a glimpse
Of how the others must see the faker
I'm much too fast to take that test

[bhikkhu]

20. All those programs were designed to be "governed" - that's the job

on autopilot they run into the ground in the long-term. If you look at the history of the programs, they have regularly been modified, strengthened, adjusted, etc.

In most cases, even with questionable people involved, the legislature did its job well.

I think it comes down to whether you trust the president, which I do.

[Angry Dragon]

21. It almost sounds like it is more important to the president

to get the deal done than what he has to give up...........

[gkhouston]

23. Wow, I've never gotten *that* feeling before.

:sarcasm:

[PoliticAverse]

33. "making sure"... "Social Security"... "is strengthened". n/t

[PoliticAverse]

52. "My experience with John Boehner has been good". n/t

[gkhouston]

112. "Destroy village"..."to save it". n/t

[gateley]

30. Did you not hear him say if they don't give he won't sign a deal? nt

[WinkyDink]

57. Yes. Right up there with "public option" and "out of Iraq."

[gateley]

63. Sigh. nt

[WinkyDink]

69. Brilliant riposte. Let's see: history vs. what?

[gateley]

73. Honestly, WinkyDink. Put me down all you want, but I just don't

have the energy to keep going at it with people who have opposing opinions. We'll never change each others minds, it's just futile.

And if this isn't brilliant enough for you, I'm crushed.

[kath]

131. Oh, and don't forget "end the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K"

Lying scumbag.

[TheKentuckian]

138. A) He was talking about from the current ZERO revenue position

B) He doesn't need much "give" as he already offered to eat shit with the 4-1 ratio deal they walked on.

C) How does them "giving some" matter, he is still cutting the net?


D) He says all kinds of shit. I remember him torching Hillary on mandates and McShame on taxing health care benefits.

[Marrah_G]

32. I would suggest he and his family are not giving up anything

They are not sacrificing. His children will never choose between the supermarket or the gas station or which utility bill to pay first. They will never close off rooms and choose to run up an electric bill to heat the house with space heaters because they can't afford the Oil Delivery- 100 gal min. and the electric CAN"T get shut off until spring.

I am so angry- so angry at all of Washington. They will continue to impoverish the citizenry until there is nothing left for people to lose.

[gateley]

50. But he said he could very well afford to pay more taxes. Haven't

heard one republican say that.

[Aerows]

62. It's not what is said that matters

It's what is done.

[gateley]

76. And nothing has been DONE yet. We'll ALL have more gray hair

by the time this is over. If it's ever "over".

[DainBramaged]

24. Chip Reid should crawl back under his rock.

[abelenkpe]

25. "No one is talking about raising taxes"

O goody.

[Marrah_G]

34. Of course not

Why should the wealthy sacrifice? Sacrifice is only for the worker bees

[gateley]

61. Good, he should have further made the point that the middle class

isn't even "on the table" because that's what the Reps are painting it as.

[Divine Discontent]

136. shame he wasn't able to understand how that point is rather important.

[gateley]

29. He said "meaningful" changes that preserve the integrity of the services

to our elderly.

Both Dean and Jared Bernstein said there WERE places where both programs could be whittled a bit, without affecting benefits.

He ALSO said he's very resistant to messing with entitlements.

He can't give specifics now since nothing has been finalized (although I wish he'd say something like "prescription drug costs" like Dean did, and explain what that means).

So maybe you'd better stop "imagining" and just wait and see what actually transpires. Postpone your outrage. :7

[jtown1123]

38. He just said he is going to piss off his own party. Open your eyes. Outrage will not be postponed

[gateley]

53. AND they're going to piss off the Republican Party. Don't fucking tell

me to open my eyes. I'm fighting to stay objective, not pouncing on what I want to hear to further buoy my regard, or lack thereof, of Obama.

[jtown1123]

58. OK so don't be proactive. W/e.

[gateley]

66. What are YOU doing to be proactive? Please share and perhaps I

may be inspired. :patriot:

[jtown1123]

81. I've been calling the White House, my reps, and trying to alert everyone

else to do the same. Even a whiff of potential cuts should be shot down. It bothers me this is all done behind closed doors w/o public debate.

[gateley]

87. I have been, too -- and I've been posting about it and encouraging

others on DU to do it, too.

I've even called Republican Reps in my state (I happen to be lucky and have one of the Good Guys) and say (lie) I'm moving into their district and if they do/don't do whatever it is I'm calling about, I will support their opponent financially and with my vote (that's all they care about) when s/he next runs for reelection.

Agree that there should be public debate, but there comes a point where they have to hammer it out themselves as to what will be presented to the Congress.

[tabasco]

146. Outrage will not be postponed by facts

Interesting. I'm guessing you enjoy being outraged. :shrug:

[Erose999]

39. He has proposed further suspending COLA's which is basically the same as cutting bennies.

[gateley]

55. Do we really know he has done that? (I won't be a bitch and

go "link?" :7)

He may have said they're looking at that, but has he "proposed" it?

Not defending or protecting him, just trying to stay objective, and if he HAS proposed it I agree, it's the same as cutting benefits. But we don't know for sure yet what they're going to do, right? :shrug:

[Erose999]

85. Link here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

< article >

Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts. But others described it as primarily a bargaining strategy intended to demonstrate Obama’s willingness to compromise and highlight the Republican refusal to raise taxes.< / article >

[gateley]

94. Well it's the "according to sources" that makes me roll my eyes, but

you have a point about the Congressional Dems being alarmed. Pelosi came out of that meeting, for example, saying "we will NOT support any cuts in benefits for SS or Medicare" (looking pissed off), NOT "Obama has assured me SS and Medicare won't be touched" so I'm not totally discounting the "sources".

[Liberalynn]

113. He said he is considering

"trimming" SS benefits.

That means hes taking something away not adding to it.

[Recursion]

92. COLAs were never suspended

So he can't suspend them "further". What part of "automatic formula" is so hard for DU to grasp?

[slipslidingaway]

44. Could be wrong, but I think the talk of doing something with prescription drug costs...

is what was talked about during the campaign. But then they made the deal with Tauzin in exchange for Pharma running ads in support of HC reform.

:hi:

[gateley]

59. Ah, thanks for the explanation. So, maybe Dean was referring to

it as something that COULD be addressed, but knowing this, don't see it happening. :(

Thanks again - I had totally forgotten about this. :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

75. You're welcome, it was a great idea, but would be very difficult to do now IMHO. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

77. Sorry, this lack of specifics as to what he is advocating is a tactic

And I agree with the Progressive Caucus that it is incumbent upon the President to clearly explain his own position. This idea of yours that no one should discuss or speak their own minds because Obama will not speak his is servile and the idea of not commenting on new policy until it is, in your word finalized is just crazy. Speak our minds, but only after Obama speaks his and the law is finalized? What does that gain anyone? Waiting until it is too late, that is what you seem to be urging. I reject that, and call upon the President to stand for Democratic principles or expect to stand with his fellow Republicans.

[gateley]

79. I do NOT think no one should discuss or speak their own minds,

you do me an injustice by your assumption. Hell, I come to DU don't I? :7

We can speak our minds, what I object to is jumping on a projection or prediction as though that's what's going to happen. Nobody knows for sure.

He said what he feels, and the "law won't be finalized" until/unless it passes in the House and Senate, no matter what comes out of the WH.

From my point, he IS standing for Democratic principals, in this instance, anyway.

And "standing with his fellow Republicans"? Isn't that beneath you?

[YvonneCa]

126. I agree...

... FWIW. :hi:

[gateley]

130. It's worth a lot! I'm usually standing alone!

:pals:

[YvonneCa]

147. While I do disagree with the President on some...

...issues (education), I still support him and wish people could give him a chance. It's a tough job he's taken on. Few could (or would even want to) do it. I appreciate him for that. :hi:

[KoKo]

97. +!

[OwnedByFerrets]

103. O M G +1000

[dana_b]

123. Bravo/a!

[EFerrari]

110. LOL

[Karmadillo]

37. Obama's wrong. He's not open to those changes. I know b/c I read it on DU.

nt

[abelenkpe]

40. Thought it was just chained CPI

Yknow so you can be sure to receive less when you really need it, are retired, unemployable and enjoying lots of health care costs. Cmon that's fair. You wouldn't want to raise taxes on the top 1% would you? How unfair would that be? Class warfare class warfare!

[divvy]

42. Oh now you've done it.......The tweed hats will call us whiners again

[mfcorey1]

43. And he also said that social securty did not cause the deficit. nt

[jtown1123]

48. he was careful to say not a "primary" driver. Bullshit, Doesn't contribute at all

weasel words

[Recursion]

93. Again, yes it will

Once the trust fund starts redeeming those bonds we're going to have to borrow the money to pay them. (Ideally we would raise taxes to pay them, but I'm not holding my breath.) Again, deficit and debt are different: Social Security will contribute to annual deficits but not increase the overall debt.

[woo me with science]

45. "It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits"

"That's what compromise entails."

[theophilus]

47. Weasel words. n/t

[snappyturtle]

65. Well chosen weasel words. nt

[elleng]

64. Imagine all you want; improving systems, making them rational

is what he's talking about, for those interested in listening.

[WinkyDink]

67. Um--hmmmm. That's called the sugar-coating on the bitter pill of "compromise."

[elleng]

72. Since when is 'compromise' a bitter pill?

Governing demands compromise, and repugs are learning that.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Depends on the compromise. Some compromises have lead

to actual wars. Compromises with cannibals usually are not as popular as you might think, few say 'well they wanted to eat all of us, but the leadership got them down to 12 of us, and the cannibals will provide their own tableware and cook fire.'
What compromise would you have offered to the Slave States? Less Slaves? A token pay rate? Or are there some areas when compromise is really just craven self service and capitulation to evil?

[QC]

100. What if the cannibals just eat our legs?

Both sides have to give up something. Surely that is a worthy compromise.

[EFerrari]

104. There are people that would defend the status quo even as they are dragged out of bed

in the middle of the night and thrown into boxcars.

[QC]

105. Yep. n/t

[ProfessionalLeftist]

68. semantics are meaningless at this point - he can call them whatever he wants

they still amount to cuts.

[shanti]

70. changes....

yeah, we know all about what THAT means! :(

[slipslidingaway]

71. Talking about the infrastructure bank ...

JANUARY 2011
by Ryan McConaghy and Jim Kessler

http://thirdway.org/publications/365

[Recursion]

80. Medicare and Medicaid cost controls are already in HCR, and we need more

If you think we can keep letting providers increase prices at twice the rate of inflation, you aren't thinking about this very clearly.

SS will either have to have a revenue increase or a benefit decrease by sometime around the middle of the century. So, yes, they're both on the table.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Obama ran on raising the cap. That increases the revenue

and since as you say, we need either more revenue or cuts to benefits, and we have the cap to raise so easily, we do not need to have both on the table at all. Either or, so both? Why not make the best choice, raise the cap, and have done with it, like candidate Obama claimed he'd do?

[Recursion]

83. There's this quaint little debating club called Congress

Which will absolutely under no circumstances pass a raising of the cap.

[jtown1123]

91. Snowball chance in hell those revenue raisers are being considerec

[Liberalynn]

122. yeah the only thing he mentioned he is considering is

"trimming."

[Broderick]

84. right

"This is sickening. I can only imagine they are cuts."


They aren't going to be increases that is for sure...

[JackDragna]

86. It's this simple: we must endorse a primary challenger.

He has completely and utterly abandoned the principles of this party.

[Recursion]

88. Oh for God's sake

Medicare cost controls have been part of our frigging platform for more than a decade now.

[JackDragna]

95. If you think this is going to be a "cost control"...

..you're delusional. Funny how we now suddenly need "cost controls."

[Recursion]

96. We don't "suddenly" need cost controls we have since the 1990s

And, yes, these will be cost controls. If anybody had bothered to read the comments they were too busy freaking out about, they would see that's what Obama is putting on the table.

[EFerrari]

111. Baloney. n/t

[mr clean]

89. +1

[Liberalynn]

114. I will support a primary challenger

not that I count for anything. I'm one of the "little people" whose vote Obama doesn't care about or need anyway.

[JoePhilly]

118. Not. Happening.

[JackDragna]

140. Perhaps not.

Shame, though, because the man doesn't represent the party platform anymore.

[JoePhilly]

145. Better get busy creating a challenger I guess.

[supraTruth]

115. Why woN'T he even mention the need to raise OR ELIMINATE the payroll income CAP?

& why won't the media ask him this question?

& why won't the media ask him if CONgressional pay will be the FIRST CUT if CONgress misses the Aug. DEADline?

[Liberalynn]

120. SD

self delete

[JoePhilly]

116. The DU version of "death panels" ... Obama plans to kill granny!!!!

[tekisui]

119. No he is just putting up important programs on the chopping block.

Programs that repukes have long wanted to cut. I never thought I would see a Dem president go this direction. Ineffectual and weak leader, he is.

[Liberalynn]

121. He is not the worst President ever

but IMHO definitely one of the worst Democratic President's ever.

[JoePhilly]

124. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

In the press conference, he said that Social Security was not part of the Deficit discussion. But that he was open to some changes to strengthen it going forward.

Which clearly means he plans to kill granny.

[tekisui]

125. You attempt to deflect debate with your silly hyperbole.

I understand, as usual, you are in the unenviable position of defending bad policy positions. Medicare and medicaid are on the block, as is SS it seems. This is a natural result of Obama's extension of the bush-Obama tax cuts for the wealthy and Obama's Wars.

There is no plan to kill granny. It is not Bad Obama, despite you attempt to lower the debate to school yard antics. It is a Democratic President negotiating cuts to some of the most successful and necessary programs our country has. They shouldn't even be considered, but Obama in his position of weakness (largely due to his previous policy 'compromises') is forced to meet the repukes at their table.

[JoePhilly]

128. So your point is that there can be no discussion of "changes" to

Social Security?

What if the changes are raising the cap?

I hate to break the news to you but this country is DIVIDED.

If Obama takes his ball and goes home, and the GOP does as well, then what?

The GOP wants the government to become stagnant. Their goal is to do nothing.

If Obama walks away, the GOP will be THRILLED.

btw ... I love the "Obama's wars" comment from one who decries "silly hyperbole".

[tekisui]

129. Any changes, in this context, relate to reducing the deficit, or cuts

in some form or another.

My large point is that Obam has long squandered political capital and opportunity. By supporting the bush-Obama tax cut extension he put himself in a weak bargaining position. That was a result of him not being more forceful when he held both houses.

And, yes, the Obama Wars: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and (the likely) extension in Iraq are VERY expensive. They are breaking this country.

[jtown1123]

133. the only way to cut these programs is to have the Dems do it.

If the GOP proposes them, at least we know we'd have a unified Democratic opposition. Now they're all in really tight spots because some don't want to go against the leader of the party.

[Fire1]

141. "PROGRAMS" and "ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS" are two

ENTIRELY different things!! PLEASE LEARN THE DIFFERENCE before you start hacking away on those keys!!!

[Fire1]

143. "Programs" WILL be cut if the debt ceiling is not raised.

Social security is not a "program." It is a "entitlement benefit," which he is trying to preserve. "Changes" don't automatically mean, "cut" and he SAID as much. Yes, he could kick the can down the road and let another president deal with it b/c it WILL come up again! It's not solvent nor sustainable, especially following the baby boomers. The problem with social security is NOT NEW!! It's been talked about and thrown around in media discussions since the 60s!!

[Fire1]

137. I don't think he would insult the intelligence of the public,

albeit deserved, by using codes words or using terms interchangeably.

[Palmer Eldritch]

139. "I can only imagine they are cuts" That's your problem.

[Fire1]

142. If I understand your meaning, thank you! n/t

[glinda]

144. Well we are not.