"there are some in my party"

[G_j]

IMO, once again, code portraying progressives as unrealistic and unreasonable.

From Obama’s Speech:

Now, I realize there are some in my party who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid, and I understand their concerns. But here’s the truth: Millions of Americans rely on Medicare in their retirement. And millions more will do so in the future. They pay for this benefit during their working years. They earn it. But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too rapidly to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system, while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it.

[dawg]

1. Did we lose a fucking war or something?

Every other country worth it's shit is able to care for their citizens' health needs. We only do so for those 65 and above. And now, that's too much of a stretch?

Give me a fucking break.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muffin1]

22. Yep. God forbid we should

end the fucking wars, raise taxes on the wealthiest citizens, end corporate tax loopholes, etc.
Much easier to fuck the old, poor and sick.

Gobama!!

x(

[hifiguy]

24. Bull's eye!

In other words, if you ain't in the program within the next six months, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

[Zorra]

58. Nope, they're all still there, all 3 of them, unfortunately. nt

[yurbud]

3. ''while protecting current beneficiaries'' is what Bush said about privatizing Social Security

and now Panetta said it about screwing career military out of their pensions.

[closeupready]

4. Doublespeak. Making Medicare less vital to the average American is weakening it.

nt

[sabrina 1]

5. He's wrong. As one of the 'some in my party' he's talking about,

I believe there should be huge changes to those programs. I believe they should be extended to cover all Americans and that the Middle Men, Predatory Insurance Corps, should be removed from the HC system. The only purpose they serve is to use up over 20% of the money that SHOULD be going to actual care, in profits. They perform no other function OTHER than to make sure their profits are as high as possible.

The overhead for Medicare/Medicaid run by the Government, is approx. 3% by comparison.


So, I would like to let the President know he has been misinformed. We are for BIG changes in those programs, changes which would cost everyone a lot less, and which would guarantee that every American had access to HC.

I don't know who this president is listening to, but it certainly isn't the American people.

[Claudia Jones]

20. that is a very important point

I missed that first time around. It is not true that opponents of the austerity craze want no changes to the safety net. We want to expand it.

[Raine]

35. TOTALLY agree. nt

[defendandprotect]

49. Programs are highly successful .... It's Obama that sucks -- !!! Let's do something about that!!

[G_j]

76. right on

thanks for that!

[kentuck]

6. What can we do about this problem?

"But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too rapidly to sustain the program."

Obviously we can't stop people from aging.

[Bake]

7. When we cut care, the aging problem will solve itself.

There's only one alternative to getting older, if you know what I mean.

:hi:

Bake

[GreenPartyVoter]

78. +1

[kenny blankenship]

25. Maybe we should look at why our healthcare costs have been rising so much more than others'?

Until he's willing to do something about these gigantic parasites sucking the blood out of our system, it's all lies, folks. ALL lies.

[sabrina 1]

30. Get rid of the profit-making Middle Men who eat up

between 20% and 30% of the money that should be going directly to HC. That would be a good start. What purpose do they serve to sick people? They are not HC providers, they are profiteers. We don't need them. And HC should be viewed as a right, as it is in every other civilized nation. It should also be viewed as a National Security issue.

When tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year because of lack of access to HC, that IS a national security issue. We spend trillions supposedly, on National Security, most of it wasted on illegal wars that do the exact opposite of making us secure. Redirect some of that money to HC and start SAVING American lives rather than endangering them.

There really is no problem taking care of the elderly, and while I don't have the information available right now, the claim that the 'aging population' will put a huge drain on the system, is not true. First of all, a healthier society overall, meaning everyone having early access to HC, will produce healthier adults. Adults who are not living on pills eg.

Our problem is not people, it is our system the goal of which is primarily profit. There is so much waste as a result of that, eg, the Health Insurance Corps which we can no longer afford, they had a good run, but they are now a huge burden on the system.

But America is unable to envision anything other than a profit-driven HC system. So I guess that is the first thing than needs changing, and those in charge are not going to help with that.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. During the reform debate, Obama advocated for the middle men

saying the deserved to make profits. He did not say why these particular people deserve profits no other Democracy will allow, profits from mandated purchases of their products, but he was very certin that they deserve them, and we must give them their profits, as job one.

[defendandprotect]

48. Object to BS ... for one!!!!

[Capitalocracy]

66. Raise the minimum wage?

There are lots of things we can do to prevent any funding problems in the (fairly distant) future without cutting the program and undercutting the purpose of its existence, to make sure everyone is taken care of after a certain age.

[FrenchieCat]

8. He should have said.....

There are some who say they are in the Democratic party,
but they really just want me to rule like I'm a dictator,
nationalize businesses via an executive order and beat the living
shit out of anyone who says I should do otherwise, or simply
throw them in jail and throw away the key.

These folks don't really believe in democracy or the Democratic party,
they just play like they do on the Internet.

[sabrina 1]

55. If only he would talk that way about Republicans. But dream on.

He reserves his subtle insults for Democrats. Which is why Nancy Pelosi and other Dem Members of Congress visited the WH twice before the 2010 election asking them to stop insulting Democrats as it could affect the outcome of the election if people believed him that Dems were equally to blame for the problems in DC.

And now several others in Congress have expressed concerns about his conflating Dems with Repubs.

Yes, I know you were joining him in attacking Democrats, but you need to be more subtle about it. Rahm's and Axelrod's blatant attacks on Democratic voters and their ideas did little to help Nancy Pelosi, whose pleas to the WH to support Democrats in Congress fell on deaf ears. And the WH lost the 2010 election for Congress, as Dems predicted. Nor have they learned a thing from the way they lost that election either. They are going to saddle us with a Republican government if they continue to slam their own Party members both voters and Congress.

[Creideiki]

70. Thanks for yet more proof that this isn't a Christian nation

Who Would Jesus Kill For Holy Profit?

Once you've answered that honestly, I think you'll understand.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[kctim]

10. No code portraying anything

it's point blank and he is right.

[dionysus]

11. we've taken word parsing and perceived slights to a whole new level here at DU...

[Enrique]

12. heres what i think of people calling real concerns perceived slights

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[dionysus]

13. maybe you should grab a ginger ale or something.

:shrug:

[Enrique]

14. funny1!!!!!!

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[DevonRex]

31. Maybe throw some Alkaseltzer in it too. I told him not to roll around so much

On the floor in another discussion and look what happened.

:hi:

[Number23]

40. LOL!!!

:rofl: :rofl:
The perfect response to such a strange and ridiculous comment

[JoePhilly]

74. +1

[madamesilverspurs]

Code??? Good grief.

[Bluebear]

16. You're right it's not code. it's outright disdain.

[defendandprotect]

50. + 1 --- and especially coming after some of the other disdain we've heard from White House/Rahm..!!

[Solomon]

33. This post really illustrates just how thin skinned they are.

See how they call themselves out, and then complain that somebody is calling them out?

The statement is a fact. There are lots of democrats who think and believe those programs shouldn't be touched at all. But how is he dissing anyone? That's a true statement.

Now you can argue about his opinion that unless something is changed about those programs, there's gonna be bigger trouble down the road. You can disagree with that opinion. But to say he's betraying somebody for saying it, is just ludicrous.

[okieinpain]

65. thanks. n/t.

[G_j]

80. as I said,

he is saying basically that "some" in his party are unrealistic or simply do not understand. I suppose some might call that "dissing". I also used the word "portray" not "betray", that is another discussion..

[gratuitous]

15. You wanna save some money on health care costs?

Cut out the middle men (i.e., insurance companies who bring nothing to the table, but who suck a lot of money out of the system), and initiate collective negotiation with drug companies. Those two reforms will save a boatload of bucks. Of course, two major campaign contributors will probably never write another fat campaign check again, but maybe that's a little sacrifice our elected officials can share in, hmmmm?

[Amonester]

71. Good plan, but doomed to fail because the TeaRoarists in Congress will say

no.

[Hydra]

17. Let's just look at it backwards:

"Now I realize that most of my party doesn't think we should make any changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and I don't understand their concern. The truth is, I don't have to rely on Medicare for my retirement, and hundreds of people in Washington like me won't have to either. You pay for it so we don't have to. We love it. But with all the wars and bailouts we're spending money on, we are spending too rapidly to sustain them. If we don't immediately steal money from taxpayer funded programs while killing helpless seniors and poor people, the wars and bailout money won't be there in the future. We have to destroy the safety net to prop up the 1%."

See? That makes much more sense now.

[Solomon]

39. Wow. Do you realize what you just did!

Look at it backwards!!!! Backwards?!!. I heard of twisting words, but you take the cake my friend. That's just wrong.

[Hydra]

46. I just inverted it, the way I always did with Bush

Whenever he says up, it's down. When left, it's right.

Now, I hoped we were done with that in 2008, but apparently the same rules are in play. Any idea when we're getting back?

[Solomon]

57. so we can just go around and turn what every body

including you, backswards, and that's supposed to mean something ?

Obama Derangement Syndrome clear as day.

[defendandprotect]

47. K/R for your post --- !!

[GreenPartyVoter]

79. Nailed it!

[treestar]

18. He does not agree with the progressives

That have that attitude. It is just something Obama has an opinion about (surprise) and he does not agree with the opinions of those "some in his party." I would suppose a President is allowed to think for himself. And he is as entitled to inform those with whom he does not agree and they are to them.

[Claudia Jones]

21. thank you

That is refreshingly honest.

Sure the president is free to disagree with us and is allowed to think for himself.

The president does not agree with progressives. That is certainly clear. So why are so many defenders of the administration's right wing policies working so hard to convince us otherwise? The people in the administration do not want to appear progressive, do not want to be progressive, are not progressive. They have made the calculation that they should run to the right and so woo "independent," moderate, and conservative voters, that they need to cater to the big money people who financed their campaign. The people running around trying to convince us all that the administration is progressive are actually undermining the administration's program and working against the administration, while claiming to "support" it.

[billh58]

37. I believe that one

of the problems is that there is no standard definition of the term "Progressive." After the Atwater/Gingrich/Reagan/Kristol successful attack on Liberals and the "L" word, many Democrats began using the term "Progressive" as a pseudonym for Liberal.

I believe the term has finally morphed into meaning what the user of the word wants it to mean, and no two people interpret it in the same way. There are Dennis Kucinich Progressives, Ron Paul Progressives, Hillary Progressives, Al Gore Progressives, Howard Dean Progressives, and the list goes on. There are New Democrats, Third Way Democrats, FDR Democrats, JFK Democrats, Teddy Kennedy Democrats, and that list goes on as well. To quote Will Rogers, I don't belong to any organized political party -- I'm a Democrat. And that is the best explanation of the current state of upheaval on DU that I can think of.

By and large, however, the general "Middle American" Democratic voter base will continue to vote Democratic, and the general "Middle American" Republican voter base will continue to vote Republican, and we will remain a country divided roughly along 50/50 political lines. The remaining "undecided," and "Independent" voters will either stay home, or continue to threaten both sides with withholding their vote, while helping neither political party nor the country.

[Claudia Jones]

38. true

The word is pretty useless.

[JackDragna]

27. He's also entitled to be terribly, terribly wrong. Over and over.

eom

[muffin1]

29. Mmm..but he (and you) will certainly take our votes.

"If he loses it's all YOUR fault!!11!!!" :cry:

[Rex]

19. If a Dem kills SSI, then we are fucked for decades.

NOT that I believe for a MINUTE Obama would cut SSI, no one will. They just all talk a good game...yet no one will actually commit political suicide. Perry would...but he is THAT stupid and will never be POTUS. Thankfully.

[defendandprotect]

51. Do you see any Democrats standing up against this ... ??? We have Koch/DLC party now--!!!

[zalinda]

82. A friend, who is NOT a political junkie, told me yesterday

that if Obama takes away Social Security, he would pissed. Apparently Obama's speech did little to impress the indie's out there. My friend is more likely a moderate repub, although he says he doesn't belong to any party. He and his friends eat breakfast every morning, and the consensus is that the jobs program is too little, and Obama is going to cut Social Security. My friend is just under 60, in poor health, and is losing his business, a business that he's had for over 30 years. Quite frankly, he's afraid. A former employee stole thousands of dollars of merchandise, the insurance company is dragging their feet plus making him jump through hoops, in order for him to replace the merchandise that was lost. His wife has to work outside of their business, and he is buying and selling cars, just to stay afloat.

This is the type of person that Obama has to deal with, and mentioning Social Security and/or Medicare, in the same speech as jobs, was really stupid, unless, of course, he wants to lose. More and more people in their 50's and 60's are paying attention, as they are worried about losing their jobs, getting demoted or losing their business. They listen to the President, and they hear that they are fucked. These are people who remember when it was good in America, and these are the people who will vote for whomever appeals to their inner frightened child. At this point, it won't be Obama.

zalinda

[William769]

23. K&R.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. No he DOESN'T UNDERSTAND AT ALL! He doesn't care either.

He nor his family will ever have to rely on SS or Medicare.

He can't possibly know what that is like, or he would never have called them 'entitlement' programs and put them on the chopping block for cuts.

I don't care how 'nice' he comes across, while talking out of both side of his month.

Bidness as usual. That's all this is.

[defendandprotect]

53. If we want to dislodge Koch/DLC-Third Way Dem Party ... we need to start now !!!

[Bake]

28. Nope. All you've got to do is two things:

1. End the ridiculous waste of lives and treasure on two wars.

2. Make the corporations and robber barons pay their fair share of taxes.

Voila. Problem solved. Social Security gets paid back and is sound for the future generations, and Medicare is too.

Wasn't that easy?

Bake

[Bucky]

32. Do you think he was talking about us?

[hifiguy]

34. Yes, sir, there are, and they are called

in the words of the late, great Paul Wellstone, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[fascisthunter]

41. .

[Bluebear]

43. +

[fascisthunter]

42. and some are neo-liberal trojan horses in the dem party

you are one of them.

[defendandprotect]

52. +1 -- Still many who want to avoid the reality of Koch/DLC Dems -- Corporate Obama ... !!!

[fascisthunter]

56. It's sad, because whether your are well off or not, the end game is gonna hurt.

I'd like to think folks are concerned with the well being of those around those closest to themselves. Society as a whole is effected in ways only the willfully-ignorant will not understand.

[defendandprotect]

62. Truth can be frightening ... and this won't stop with Social Security and Medicare ....

this is about all of the New Deal and all controls on capitalistic crimes --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

This is about human slavery -- and certainly the Hitler/Nazis/rise of Third Reich

is an example of it -- they had control of what ... half the globe?

But a few countries were left standing and able to act --

Don't think they'll let that happen this time around --

but it is certainly the Rise of the Fourth Reich!

Meanwhile, elites/capitalists have created Global Warming which is going to be the

deciding factor in all of this -- and it's not going to take very long.

We need to be thinking of shutting down the nuclear rectors in US -- 103 of them --

could make the difference between "a whimper and a bang" -- !!

[tblue]

68. 'Some in my party' don't know they're being played.

It's sad and costly.

[xchrom]

44. Neo-liberal horse shit. Nt

[defendandprotect]

45. There are" some in my party" who would blow FDR/New Deal/Social Security/Medicare to the winds -!!

I'm taking the PLEDGE --

I'm not voting for any "Democrats" who are anti-FDR/New Deal and Social Security --

or anti-Medicare --

These programs should be supported -- not being attacked -- especially by someone in

the Democratic Party!!


Disgusting -- !!

[mmonk]

54. Extend it down to a healthier population and give our heathcare corporate

gods and lords some competition. That will bring down costs if you have a Medicare buy in.

[JoePhilly]

75. Wouldn't that be a reform?

[mmonk]

84. Reform in political doublespeak of the Republicans and their twins in the

Democratic Party, the controlling Third Way, means cutting.

[Occulus]

59. Everything he said after the word 'but' only affirms that I've made the correct choice

"rising health care costs"

Oh, REALLY? Maybe you should work on a healthcare reform package or something.

Oh. Oops. I guess you can't fool me twice.

[eridani]

60. There are some in your party who don't want GODDAMNED FUCKING CUTS!!

Changes like raising the FICA cap are fine. Changes like having the government do bulk price negotiations for Medicare drugs is fine.

[chill_wind]

81. More than some.

A majority of all Americans, in fact. But I guess he'll have to find that out the hard way.

If Medicare benefits have to be reduced, the most popular option is raising premiums on affluent beneficiaries. Similarly, if Social Security benefits must be changed to make the program more financially sound, a broad majority prefers the burden fall on the wealthy. Even most wealthy Americans agree.

Poll Finds Wariness About Cutting Entitlements
New York Times/CBS News Poll: Reducing the Deficit

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/politics/21poll.html
http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-reducing-the-deficit?ref=politics

More in addition, from a completely separate Pew Research finding downthread.

[dflprincess]

61. "There are some in my party"

Perhaps if he went after the Republicans instead of complaining about Democrats or Congress in general he wouldn't have wound up with Republican House. If he doesn't start making it clear who is obstructing progress, he'll wind up with a Republican Senate as well - though sometimes I think that's exactly what he wants.

[Claudia Jones]

63. ironic, isn't it?

Every day people are lectured here, told they should not criticize the administration, but rather they should go after the Republicans. Yet the same people who lecture us about that then praise the president for doing exactly that - going after Democrats and coddling Republicans.

[Capitalocracy]

64. "there are some in my party"... news flash, Barack:

THEY ARE THE PARTY!

Someone remind this guy which side he's on. It's like we've been playing a game of soccer and nobody told him that in the second half the goalies switch sides, and he's charging down the field looking at all of us and saying, "Hey, guys! You're going the wrong way!"

[Hart2008]

67. There are some who will primary this president! rungaryhart.com

Please kick the related thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1909234&mesg_id=1909234

[mattclearing]

69. Did you see the standing ovation this line got? Disturbing.

It sounds fairly innocuous, but it doesn't take very long to realize that cutting Social Security taxes doesn't strengthen it. At all.

[stillwaiting]

72. There are LOTS of Democrats AND Republicans that don't want cuts in SS/Medicare

More than some.

And more than just Democrats.

But, as Dick Cheney said in an interview when given polling data that showed the American public were strongly against the Bush
Administration's position: "So?"

It doesn't matter what a majority of Americans (much less a majority of Democrats) want.

It's all about the elite/Wall Street's needs.

[chill_wind]

77. Yes, like 71% of Democrats. And a majority of Americans, period.

[chill_wind]

73. Just "Some", huh? Well, he's going to have to do it without anything that can be called cuts

And good luck with the pol-speak.

And when asked simply, "what is more important, taking steps to reduce the budget deficit or keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are," nearly twice as many Americans prefer the status quo (60 percent) to cuts in benefits (32 percent).

The report also highlights two important patterns in the data that will be of great interest to policymakers. First, they find that potential entitlement reforms create "far more serious internal divisions" among Republicans than Democrats. For example, while Democrats overwhelmingly reject Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts in order to reduce the deficit (71 percent to 23 percent), Republicans are more divided. Slightly more Republicans want to keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are (47 percent) than want to see benefits cut to reduce the deficit (44 percent).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/pew-research-americans-fa_n_892445.html

Democrats face no such internal divisions, as both high- and low-income Democrats prioritize maintaining benefits over deficit reduction; there also are no ideological differences among Democrats over this issue. Notably, the balance of opinion among low-income Republicans is similar to how Democrats view the issue.

(...)

In May, the Pew Research Center asked about 12 deficit reduction proposals; only one proposal related to entitlement programs received majority support, and it is a proposal linked to Social Security taxes, not benefits (For more, see “More Blame Wars than Domestic Spending or Tax Cuts for Nation’s Debt,” June 7, 2011.) By a 67% to 26% margin, most Americans approve of making more of high-earners’ income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. This includes seven-in-ten Democrats and independents, and even a slim majority of Republicans.

But the same poll found continued disapproval of raising the Social Security retirement age, or means-testing Social Security benefits. And a similar test in December 2010 found deep opposition to raising the amount Medicare recipients pay to cover their health care costs.

much more:
http://people-press.org/2011/07/07/public-wants-changes-in-entitlements-not-change-in-benefits/

[Maven]

83. He can't even use the D word in reference to himself, can he?

Very telling.