Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 98

Thread: Reports: Pres. Obama pushing for cuts to Social Security, Medicare

  1. #61
    Elite Member Mel1973's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cuntopia
    Posts
    42,981

    Default

    fire congress and obama. they all fucking suck.
    Kill him.
    Kill her.
    Kill It.
    Kill everything... that IS the solution!
    П(_)П
    twitchy molests my signature!

  2. #62
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,679

    Default And if the Democrats cave one final time ...

    Right now, President Obama is vowing to veto the debt ceiling plan that John Boehner hopes to push through the House this evening. And Harry Reid has made it clear that the Boehner proposal, as currently constituted, has no chance of clearing the Senate.


    But it's actually not that hard to imagine Obama and Reid changing their tunes in the end and giving Boehner just about all of what he wants. Why?


    For one thing, it's important to understand how helpful Obama's and Reid's current postures are to Boehner, who will face a mutiny from his Republican colleagues -- against his debt ceiling bill and potentially against him personally -- if he's perceived as compromising with the Democrats.



    Remember: Boehner was previously offered a "grand bargain" by Obama that would have marked a major step forward for Tea Party economics, but it had Obama's fingerprints on it, which made it an impossible sell to dozens of House Republicans. So to have any chance of pushing his own scaled-down plan through now, Boehner has had to frame it as the Democrats' Worst Nightmare. The comments from the White House and Reid this week have helped him in that cause, allowing Boehner (for instance) to take to Laura Ingraham's radio show on Wednesday and boast: "Barack Obama hates it, Harry Reid hates it, Nancy Pelosi hates it."


    The reality, though, is that Boehner's plan really isn't radically different from the one that Harry Reid has proposed, and that Obama has endorsed. The biggest difference is that Reid's would extend the debt ceiling until after the 2012 election, while Boehner's would have the issue return in early '12 -- during the campaign. This raises a question: Just how important is it to Obama -- and Democrats -- that we not have another situation like this before the '12 election?


    From a policy standpoint, obviously, it would be preferable for Obama (and, really, everyone) to push out an extension as far as possible. The inherent absurdity of the debt ceiling is well-documented, so the less it interferes with the political process, the better. And politically, it's certainly understandable why Obama would want to put off another vote until after the '12 election. Sure, polls show that he's come off better than the GOP in this showdown, but his overall approval rating hasn't gone up; if anything, it's dropped slightly. All things considered, a debt ceiling showdown in the middle of the '12 campaign would represent a time-consuming distraction that Obama is probably better off not risking.


    But what if he is forced to choose between Boehner's plan (or something close to it) and a default? It could easily come to that.


    If Boehner is able to push his plan through the House today, Reid is expected to amend it and pass a different version in the Senate -- one that would extend the debt ceiling past November '12. As Andrew Leonard noted Wednesday, in the pre-Tea Party era, the path would then be clear for a compromise, with the House recognizing that most of its priorities have been preserved and giving a little. But in the Obama age, this may not be how a Republican-controlled House behaves. The Reid plan may be nearly identical to Boehner's, but Tea Party true believers in the House may instead regard it as a step too far toward compromise with the Democrats.



    Simply selling them on his plan as an alternative to their doomed "Cut, Cap and Balance" legislation has already been a Herculean task for Boehner.



    Would he really be able to get them to give in even more?


    If it comes to that -- a Tea Party-fueled House rebellion against compromise with Reid -- then Obama and the Democrats will be faced with a practical choice. Yes, they've called the Boehner plan unacceptable and railed against the idea of going through another debt ceiling showdown nine months from now. But if we're up against the Aug. 2 deadline and it really looks like that's the best plan that could possibly clear the House, then Obama will have three options: 1) Stand his ground as the country defaults; 2) Invoke the 14th Amendment and ignore the debt ceiling, prompting a months-long legal fight; or 3) Agree to terms that are basically identical to Reid's but that include some kind of debt ceiling vote during the '12 race.


    In that scenario, Option No. 3 might be the most reasonable for Obama. After all, if another debt ceiling battle in early '12 would be an iffy political proposition for him, the same is probably true for Republicans. As a matter of fact, I can think of one Republican who surely dreads this scenario: Mitt Romney, the party's (sort of) presidential front-runner, who has taken pains these past few weeks to avoid saying anything meaningful at all about the debt ceiling showdown. At this early point in the campaign, Romney can more or less get away with this. But if he's the presumptive nominee next April and we go through all of this again, he'll be in a far less comfortable position.


    And if the Democrats cave one final time ... - War Room - Salon.com



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  3. #63
    Gold Member thunder&lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    995

    Default

    i vote for the world to end.
    another year i claim of total indifference.

  4. #64
    Elite Member msdeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    in a van down by the river
    Posts
    39,422

    Default

    I will remember this the next time any of those assholes come up for reelection. I get social security disability. they need to live on what i make, then maybe they'll get their shit together.
    Basic rule of Gossip Rocks: Don't be a dick.Tati
    Lighten Up Francis WCG

  5. #65
    Elite Member NVash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,471

    Default

    Seems to me like Obama is trying to fix the problem and appease everyone at the same time. At least the mans trying to fix it.

  6. #66
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    14,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NVash View Post
    Seems to me like Obama is trying to fix the problem and appease everyone at the same time. At least the mans trying to fix it.
    How exactly? What has HE done?

  7. #67
    Elite Member NVash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,471

    Default

    ^ Im skeptical about posting but hey, might as well get the right information if Im wrong. From what I hear hes proposing tax cuts to the wealthy, thats why all this stuff is being held up ATM. No one is trying to hear such a thing.

  8. #68
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    14,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NVash View Post
    ^ Im skeptical about posting but hey, might as well get the right information if Im wrong. From what I hear hes proposing tax cuts to the wealthy, thats why all this stuff is being held up ATM. No one is trying to hear such a thing.
    Don't be skeptical, there is so much shit flying around about this subject, it's hard to see it all. I certainly don't.

    Obama did propose raising taxes on incomes over 200/250K. Not exactly the "wealthy" but there it is. Of course, his proposal was in April and both Republican and Democratic leaders have come up with their own versions since then which is what they are fighting about now.

    I'm not wowed by Obama's leadership here. While it's a Congressional fight, Obama has a powerful role in terms of brokering a deal. Everything I've read shows him failing to gain support or concensus on just about everything including small things. Except where he gave in and allowed Social Security to become part of the reduction plan (something he originally would not do).

    Obama just doesn't seem to be able to move things. Now maybe it's because (like Grimm says ), he doesn't have balls. Maybe he tries to compromise too much. Or maybe he is so HATED by Republicans they simply will never let him be perceived as winning. I don't know and of course this is jmo.


    BTW, the latest plan passed in the House included a Balanced Budget Amendment committment. The Senate (run by the Dems) promised to kill it for that very reason (and they did). Far as I can tell, that was the big fight over the last couple of days, not taxing the wealthy.

    ps: these fights are stupid political posturing as they could easily compromise on cuts and taxes and have this done.

  9. #69
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NVash View Post
    ^ Im skeptical about posting but hey, might as well get the right information if Im wrong. From what I hear hes proposing tax cuts to the wealthy, thats why all this stuff is being held up ATM. No one is trying to hear such a thing.

    I'm not sure where you heard that, but it's not correct. And I think you mean tax increases, not cuts. Neither the Dems or the GOP are currently proposing tax increases in the debt ceiling/budget fight.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  10. #70
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    14,942

    Default

    Witchcurl, I thought his proposal in April included the tax increase on incomes over 200/250K? That's what I read anyway.

  11. #71
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,679

    Default

    He did then, but that was more of a 'we'll let the Bush tax cuts that I signed the extension on end'. It's been off the table for a while now in this clusterfuck- the GOP won't budge. But even if they make it back into the debate they won't happen until at least 2013, as they are current law through the end of 2012.

    President Barack Obama rolled out a “new” 2012 budget proposal today, but most of its individual tax provisions are retreads. He again called for letting the Bush tax cuts for couples earning more than $250,000 lapse, this time at the end of 2012, when the two year extension he agreed to in a deal with Congressional Republicans last December, ends. Under Obama’s plan, in 2013 the top rate on ordinary income would rise from 35% to 39.6% while the top rate on dividends and long term capital gains would go from 15% to 20%.
    http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack/...ks-to-seniors/
    I think there will be another huge fight over the cuts at the end of the extension. It's also going to be election season, so I expect it to be pretty wild.

    Tax increases on the wealthy will not be a part of this deal. It could possibly come after. Possibly.

    But I would add that the increasing tax on individuals at the 250k mark by a couple of points is a bullshit tax, and wouldn't really solve anything. They need to increase business and corporate taxes on a serious level, and neither party wants to do that. They know who owns them.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; July 31st, 2011 at 10:28 AM.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  12. #72
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Breaking News
    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday that negotiators are moving closer to finalizing a debt ceiling and deficit reduction package of $3 trillion in spending cuts with no new revenues. It would include a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a joint commission to recommend entitlement reforms.

    Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Sunday morning that he is “very close” to recommending to his members that they sign on to a debt deal with President Obama and the Democrats.

    Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Mr. McConnell said the deal includes as much as $3 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, with much of that decided later this year by a joint congressional committee.

    “What conservatives want to do is cut spending,” he said. “We’ve come a long way. This agreement is likely to encompass up to $3 trillion is spending cuts.”
    That's more cuts than either the Boehner or Reid bills.

    President Fail strikes the fuck again.

    Cuts all around. Social Security, Medicare, you name it, it's being chopped.

    Not being chopped: military spending. No end to wars.

    No revenue: no tax increases for the wealthy, no tax increases for corporations. NOTHING.

    Enjoy your third world status.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  13. #73
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    14,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    He did then, but that was more of a 'we'll let the Bush tax cuts that I signed the extension on end'. It's been off the table for a while now in this clusterfuck- the GOP won't budge. But even if they make it back into the debate they won't happen until at least 2013, as they are current law through the end of 2012.

    I think there will be another huge fight over the cuts at the end of the extension. It's also going to be election season, so I expect it to be pretty wild.

    Tax increases on the wealthy will not be a part of this deal. It could possibly come after. Possibly.

    But I would add that the increasing tax on individuals at the 250k mark by a couple of points is a bullshit tax, and wouldn't really solve anything. They need to increase business and corporate taxes on a serious level, and neither party wants to do that. They know who owns them.
    Oh, ok. I should have been clearer in that I knew the tax hike was off the table at this point.

    And I agree, it's a bullshit tax. The real wealth is not taxed appropriately but hey, creating a class war whereby one thinks that the greedy family making 250K is stealing your bread distracts from the real thieves.

  14. #74
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,679

    Default Democratic politics in a nutshell

    Let's begin by taking note of three facts:

    (1) Three days ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, appearing at a meeting of the Out of Poverty caucus, said: "The Republicans -- Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor -- did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that" (video here, at 1:30);

    (2) The reported deal on the debt ceiling is so completely one-sided -- brutal domestic cuts with no tax increases on the rich and the likelihood of serious entitlement cuts in six months with a "Super Congressional" deficit commission -- that even Howard Kurtz was able to observe: "If there are $3 trillion in cuts and no tax hikes, Obama will have to explain how it is that the Republicans got 98 pct. of what they wanted," while Grover Norquist, the Right of the Right on such matters, happily proclaimed: "Sounds like a budget deal with real savings and no tax hikes is a go."

    (3) The same White House behavior shaping the debt deal -- full embrace of GOP policies and (in the case of Social Security cuts) going beyond that -- has been evident in most policy realms from the start. It first manifested in the context of Obama's adoption of the Bush/Cheney approach to the war on civil liberties and Terrorism, which is why civil libertarians were the first to object so vocally and continuously to the Obama presidency, culminating in this amazing event from mid-2010: "Speaking at a conference of liberal activists Wednesday morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero didn't mince his words about the administration's handling of civil liberties issues. 'I'm going to start provocatively . . . I'm disgusted with this president,' Romero told the America's Future Now breakout session."


    In other words, a slew of millionaire politicians who spent the last decade exploding the national debt with Endless War, a sprawling Surveillance State, and tax cuts for the rich are now imposing extreme suffering on the already-suffering ordinary citizenry, all at the direction of their plutocratic overlords, who are prospering more than ever and will sacrifice virtually nothing under this deal (despite their responsibility for the 2008 financial collapse that continues to spawn economic misery). And all of this will be justified by these politicians and their millionaire media mouthpieces with the obscenely deceitful slogans of "shared sacrifice" and "balanced debt reduction" -- two of the most odiously Orwellian phrases since "Look Forward, not Backward" and "2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate" (and anyone claiming that Obama was involuntarily forced by the "crazy" Tea Party into massive budget cuts at a time of almost 10% unemployment: see the actual facts here).

    With those fact assembled, this morning's New York Times article -- headlined: "Rightward Tilt Leaves Obama With Party Rift" -- supplies the perfect primer for understanding Democratic Party politics. The article explains that "Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans' language and in some cases their policies," and then lists numerous examples just from the debt debate alone (never mind all the other areas where he's done the same):

    No matter how the immediate issue is resolved, Mr. Obama, in his failed effort for greater deficit reduction, has put on the table far more in reductions for future years' spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, than he did in new revenue from the wealthy and corporations. He proposed fewer cuts in military spending and more in health care than a bipartisan Senate group that includes one of the chamber's most conservative Republicans. . . .

    But by this month, in ultimately unsuccessful talks with Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama tentatively agreed to a plan that was farther to the right than that of the majority of the fiscal commission and a bipartisan group of senators, the so-called Gang of Six. It also included a slow rise in the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65, and, after 2015, a change in the formula for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments long sought by economists.

    How can the leader of the Democratic Party wage an all-out war on the ostensible core beliefs of the Party's voters in this manner and expect not just to survive, but thrive politically? Democratic Party functionaries are not shy about saying exactly what they're thinking in this regard:
    Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. "Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they're absolutely certain of -- they're going to hate these Republican candidates," Mr. Mellman said. "So I'm not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”
    In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals' beliefs or how much they squawk, because we'll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That's the Democratic Party's core calculation: from "hope" in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November.


    Democratic politics in a nutshell - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  15. #75
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,467

    Default In debt standoff, voters' role also key

    In debt standoff, voters' role also key - Yahoo! News

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Dear voter: Want to know why Democrats and Republicans in Congress find it so hard to work together to solve tough problems like the debt ceiling, health care and Social Security?

    Look in the mirror.

    Americans gripe about cowardly, self-serving politicians, and Congress doubtlessly has its feckless moments and members. But voters are quick to overlook their own role in legislative impasses that keep the nation from resolving big, obvious, festering problems such as immigration, the long-term stability of Medicare, and now, the debt ceiling.

    Here's the truth: The overwhelming majority of senators and House members do what their constituents want them to do. Or, more to the point, they respond to people in their districts who bother to vote. Nothing is dearer to politicians than re-election, and most have a keen sense of when they are straying into dangerous waters.

    For a growing number of senators and representatives, the only risk is in their party's primary, not in the general election. Most voters, and many news outlets, ignore primaries. That gives control to a relative handful of motivated, hard-core liberals (in Democratic contests) and full-bore conservatives (in GOP primaries).

    In politically balanced districts, a hard-right or hard-left nominee may have trouble in the general election, when many independent and centrist voters turn out. But many House districts today aren't balanced, thanks largely to legislative gerrymandering and Americans' inclination to live and work near people who share their views and values.

    The result is districts so solidly conservative that no GOP nominee can possibly lose, or so firmly liberal that any Democratic nominee is certain to win. In these districts, the primary is the whole ball game.

    Republican lawmakers are under constant pressure to drift to the right, to make sure no fire-breathing conservative outflanks them in a light-turnout primary dominated by ideologues. The same goes for Democrats on the left.

    So who turns up on Capitol Hill for freshman orientation? Democrats and Republicans who can barely comprehend each other's political viewpoints, let alone embrace them enough to pursue a possible compromise on big issues.

    But what if a Republican and Democrat do decide to meet halfway in hopes of finding, say, a path to shore up Social Security for decades to come. What can they expect?

    In some states and districts, they can expect to be drummed out of their party for the crime of engaging with "the enemy." That's what happened last year to Bob Bennett of Utah, a mainstream conservative Republican senator. A relatively small number of conservative activists, led by tea partyers, bounced him from the ticket at a GOP convention. They taunted Bennett with chants of "TARP, TARP." He had voted for the bipartisan bank bailout legislation pushed by Republican President George W. Bush. The Senate's GOP leaders also voted for the bill. But it was an unacceptable compromise in the eyes of Utah Republicans picking their Senate nominee.

    In Alaska, GOP primary voters also kicked Sen. Lisa Murkowski off their ballot. She barely saved her seat with a scrappy write-in candidacy. Murkowski supported the bank bailout and, admittedly, is more moderate than the average congressional Republican. But her improbable write-in victory proved she is popular with Alaskans in general, even if her own party rejected her in the primary.

    Tea party leaders spell out a warning in their periodic Washington rallies.
    "The message is that we're watching, and we want you to vote based on our core values," Mark Meckler, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said at one such event.

    When Democratic leaders were struggling earlier this year to strike a budget deal and avert a government shutdown, Phil Kerpen of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity said sharply, "No Republican better help them." The crowd cheered loudly.

    Such threats are mainly aimed at Republicans for now, largely because of the tea party's rapid rise. But Democratic lawmakers also know liberal discontent might undo them if they stray too far to the center.

    "It's astounding how often some Democratic leaders sacrifice principles when critical issues are at stake," said a writer for the liberal AmericaBlog. The column rebuked Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., for working with the bipartisan "Gang of Six" on a debt-reduction plan.

    A McClatchy-Marist poll this year found that 71 percent of registered voters want political leaders in Washington to compromise to get things done. If those voters skip key primaries, however, they may have little say in the matter. Political enthusiasts, whether they wear peace signs or "Don't Tread On Me" T-shirts, will determine who gets elected in many districts before a wide swath of Americans even notice it's an election year.

    Except for a recently appointed senator from Nevada, every member of Congress got there the same way: American voters elected them.
    People may bristle at the notion that we get the government we deserve. But there's no denying we get the government we elect.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Debt Plan Would Cut Social Security, Medicare
    By Mr. Authority in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: November 16th, 2010, 11:25 AM
  2. Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 1st, 2010, 09:07 AM
  3. Could legal challenges to HRC topple Medicare, Social Security?
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 25th, 2010, 11:46 AM
  4. Bad news for social security and medicare
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 13th, 2009, 04:39 PM
  5. Why is Barack Obama editing his Social Security page now?
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2008, 02:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •