Serious question for those backing the Dems' austerity plans

[Doctor_J]

This looks like flame bait, but it is I think it's relevant, given a recent thoughtful post in GD. The mods can delete if it turns into a flame war

after reading this,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1579002

I was moved to wonder about those who are cheering the way the president is governing right now:

Back when the party stood firmly for civil rights, voting rights, Medicare, Medicaid, Social security, Head Start, public schools, public roads, and so on, did you then ID yourself as a Dem? In other words, Obama's economic ideology is slightly to the right of Reagan. So were you a Repuke back in the 1980's? And, if you were a FDR/JFK/LBJ Dem, and are now an Obama Dem, what caused you to switch your ideology?

[HopeHoops]

1. Fuck that. Just raise the debt ceiling with a clean bill and fuck the GOP.

[badtoworse]

9. Who knew it was that easy?

Why aren't you the one dealing with Boner?

[HopeHoops]

15. Oh, I would SO not qualify for "diplomatic" on that one.

"KISS MY HAIRY ASS" would be my standard reply to pretty much anything the asswipe said.

[Enrique]

2. great question, but is that the right link?

it seems to be something different...

[Doctor_J]

5. Nope. Fixed now

thanks

[treestar]

3. It's simply not his ideology

He is forced to deal with the debt ceiling issue. He will have to do things he does not want to do to avoid a greater disaster. Why is this so unclear? If you look at how a bill is passed, you could figure out why it was a bad thing for the Republicans to get a majority in the House. This would not be happening if Pelosi was speaker.

[elleng]

6. Thanks

:thumbsup:

[Fire1]

8. +1000

[Doctor_J]

10. That might explain the budget debacle, but

it certainly doesn't explain his disdain for public schools, union members, public school teachers, voting rights, and some other things. It also doesn't explain his refusal to fight against the Repukes on what's going to be cut.

[treestar]

21. What's to "fight against."

It's like a court case where you have to make a settlement. Except you can't resort to the court to resolve the problem, because you're the last resort. And your other characterizations are the same. I don't know where you get the idea the POTUS has disdain for public school, union member, public school teachers, voting rights - it sounds exaggerated or crazy.

[Doctor_J]

27. By holding a press conference that began like

this

instead of blaming "both parties" and talking about "shared sacrifice"

As for the rest, google "Obama walking shoes", or "Obama Rhode Island teachers" or "Obama Rhee"

[treestar]

40. What in the blazes is wrong with that paragraph?

The POTUS does not run any state school system. You're just looking for shit to throw, not trying an honest analysis. Fair and Balanced like Fox.

[joeybee12]

13. That's not an explanation but a rationalization for him doing what he's doing...nt

[treestar]

22. That is an explanation.

It's either make a deal or default. It's what anyone would be stuck with.

[Yo_Mama]

18. The US would be downgraded if Pelosi were speaker

Because the issue is our total debt and our constant huge annual deficits, rather than the artificial issue of the debt ceiling.

We can pay the interest on our debt even without raising the debt ceiling. That's not really an issue. The issue is the pending downgrade, and the downgrade is going to happen as long as we have no plan to cut our deficits.

And cuts ten years out don't matter at all, which is all that anyone is proposing.

The US will be downgraded twice by next summer. Once on our borrowing, the second time on recession.

[treestar]

23. What does the downgrade do?

It would be because we defaulted. Thus a bad "credit report."

[Yo_Mama]

31. No, the downgrades won't be because of default

They'll be because we are a bad credit risk.

[treestar]

39. Which we are, thanks to the Shrub

and his wars and tax cuts.

[woo me with science]

25. He planned to do this all along.

Time to repost madfloridian's link about Hamiltonian Democrats.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315

Also this Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html


Also, strongly suggest reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine



.

[dgibby]

29. Thank you.

Wish I'd seen that BEFORE I voted for him. Calling us "losers" isn't going to endear him to us in the next election. That had to be one of the most coldly cynical thing I've ever had the misfortune to hear any Dem say. FDR is rolling over in his grave. Obama's disdain for the poor and middle class is chilling!

[woo me with science]

42. I agree.

These are chilling times.

[uponit7771]

35. None of your links have direct quotes from Obama on CUTTING BENEFITS!!

[woo me with science]

41. Of course he has supported benefit cuts. Repeatedly.

To argue otherwise is to be either woefully uninformed or purposely resistant to reality.


1. He supported them in the first press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

"And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on."



2. He supported them in the second press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/15/press-conference-president

"well, let me put it this way: If you’re a senior citizen, and a modification potentially costs you a hundred or two hundred bucks a year more, or even if it’s not affecting current beneficiaries, somebody who’s 40 today 20 years from now is going to end up having to pay a little bit more....The least I can do is to say that people who are making a million dollars or more have to do something as well."


3. He put 650 billion in cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on the table and then publicly bemoaned the fact that the Republicans did not accept his "big deal." And we learned afterward that the "big deal" absolutely DID include benefit cuts. By reports from multiple sources (including Nancy Pelosi, btw), the deal, which was agreed upon except for the revenue component, included the following:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/what-obama-was-willing-to-give-away/?utm_source=Blog&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92539/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-press-conference-concessions-revenue


"Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny."


4. Now the Republicans have moved further right, and the President is *still* begging for a compromise. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/address-president-nation)

"...serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress."

Let me repeat: the President offered up these entitlement benefit cuts just last week. Now the Republicans have moved further right, and the President continues to plead for a "compromise." Not only that, but he insists that serious debt reduction must include "entitlement reform," and he references their ability to find common ground as they did before.

NEVER does he say that benefits cuts are off the table. All evidence screams that they remain on the table.

Only the willfully blind would insist at this point, with the history I have detailed here, that this "entitlement reform" will not include benefit cuts. In fact, Kucinich is on record today chastising the President for not being more forthright with the public about his planned cuts to Social Security. The above-mentioned cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are certainly also still on the table, as well.


5. Add to this the President's longstanding history of PLANNING significant entitlement reform and aligning himself with other Hamiltonian Democrats who have been very clear about wanting to slash the benefits system:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315


6. And his promise to reform entitlements soon after he was elected President:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html



In summary, it is important to read and watch what Obama and other Democrats are actually saying and doing. Nancy Pelosi, once considered one of the last, best hopes for true liberals wanting to defend the 95 percent of us who are not wealthy, has also announced that it is time for us to enter an era of "austerity."


If, after all of this, you don't think that includes benefit cuts, you are creating your own reality.

[elleng]

4. Your premise, re: Obama's economic ideology, is false, imo.

[woo me with science]

43. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315

[elleng]

45. I don't accept it.

'The nation's first secretary of the Treasury, they note, "stood for sound fiscal policy, believed that broad-based opportunity for advancement would drive American economic growth, and recognized that 'prudent aids and encouragements on the part of government' are necessary to enhance and guide market forces."

Which is true, as far as it goes. Hamilton believed in balanced budgets and in the government's taking an active role to build the infrastructure and fiscal climate that business and the nation need to succeed --' Good.

So we're supposed to believe this, about the current administration? 'that ideas as alien to the current administration as support for collective farms. But Hamilton also feared the common people, dismissed their capacity for self-government and supported rule by elites instead.?' I don't, I reject it.

[Fire1]

7. I supported JFK/LBJ even though I couldn't vote and I don't

think my ideology has changed.

[Doctor_J]

12. But Obama's view of the nature of the government is far different from

that of Kennedy and Johnson. Obama's view is MUCH closer to Nixon's than LBJ's. So something changed.

[Fire1]

19. Not really. Obama was the closest I could get to LBJ. n/t

[Doctor_J]

20. So you're a "hold your nose" voter, and don't really support all of this

stuff, but think by voting for the current Dems you're holding off the far right. I can understand that.

[Fire1]

32. Not so. I voted for him for several reasons. I can't help but

support "all of this" b/c of what has led to this economic disaster since Reagan. Obama didn't create this shit but it has to be addressed and I'd prefer that it be addressed by him than any other democrat. Sure I'd like for him to be more progressive in terms of regulation and NAFTA but from all indications, he'd never get anything passed. I have to look at what he has accomplished since being in office and although I don't agree with everything (and I'm not going to agree with ANYBODY 100% of the time)I am quite satisfied. So, again "NO," my ideology has not changed.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[midnight]

16. I'm not sure what the answer to that might be, but I'm guessing it's all about winning...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[librechik]

24. The post you reference is one of the best I've ever seen on DU

and completely accurate. Thx for re-posting

[Doctor_J]

28. Wasn't it though?

amazingly comprehensive overview of the devolution of the party.

[dgibby]

30. I saved it, as well as mad's piece on Obama and

the Hamiltonian Dems. Two of the best ops I've ever seen on DU.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. But..but..the poor, powerless, President of the United States, HAS to cave to the Republicans!

They stole his veto pen.

Or, he could be jockeying for position as the "moderate", "cool", "unflappable", tamer of the unruly liberals/leftists in the next election by demanding the poor, sick, and elderly, "share the sacrifices" with the nice wealthy and generous corporations.

[Fire1]

34. Epic fail. n/t

[loyalsister]

33. The politics have changed with culture

Neither baby boomers nor gen Xers are as supportive of Democratic economic ideals outlines as the previous generation. The first president I remember is Jimmy Carter who was replaced by a president who was anti- everything good that came from the New Deal and 1960s.

The politics as I know it today began when I was 10 years old. In the years that have followed Democrats have had to adopt some republican ideology as it represented the views of the generations that have been running the show. The people who have voting and economic power have been driving the rightward drift.
Why in the world would anyone believe that one president could redefine a culture that reflects the policies and voting trends of last 30 years?

Grover Norquist said that if there wasn't a republican in the WH he and his minions would make it impossible for him to govern as a Democrat.

[Doctor_J]

36. Not true

Neither baby boomers nor gen Xers are as supportive of Democratic economic ideals outlines as the previous generation.

People in large numbers support SS, Medicare, Medicaid, pubic schools, voting rights, civil rights, clean water & air, and the rich paying their fair share of the bill for the resources in "common". People overwhelmingly rejected Smirk's politics. Unfortunately the president decided to continue many of them anyway, to the detriment of everyone including himself.

[loyalsister]

37. It's more complicated than that

Medicaid has changed significantly. In MO, it used to provide coverage for othodontic care. Now it doesn't even cover basic dental care. Medicare is supplemented by private insurance. These changes along with welfare reform were supported by Democrats. A recent democratic governor in MO cut medicaid so that they could fund education.

My Democratic senator opposed the Democratic backed expansion clean air regs.
Politics is not a series of polls. People who lean in one direction take positions consistent with the other side all the time. There are a lot of Democratic anti-choice legislators in the southern and midwestern states. There are a lot of union members who vote republican. I hope that will change.

I have a hard time believing that there is a comprehensive platform that fully represents the entire population or Democrats in general.

I live in a purple state and most of the Gen Xers I know are religious radicals and \or "I've got mine- screw everyone else" republicans. If not republicans they still believe the welfare reform rhetoric from the 80s.
That attitude comes from being the children of yuppies.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[JoePhilly]

44. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

[Forkboy]

46. Obama Good Obama Good Obama Good.

Blind hate, blind love.