The Democratic turncoats behind the “Fix the Debt” attack on Medicare & Social Security

[ProfessionalLeftist]

...

Erskine Bowles is a Clinton man. Bowles and Simpson are Obama men, hand-picked by our president to lead his personal “fix the debt” commission, aka the Catfood Commission. Judd Gregg was the Republican that Obama wanted to install in his first-term cabinet as Secretary of Big Money. (Scorecard note: When you hear Simpson–Bowles, you should see Barack Obama. In my mind, they are his surrogates, his water-carriers, just as he and Bill Clinton are Pete Peterson’s water-carriers.)

Finally, Ed Rendell is not a liberal, but he plays one on TV, thanks to the always generous face-time offered him by MSNBC’s supposed liberal program hosts. More on Rendell’s corporate ties and conflicts of interest below.

Other Democrats running Peterson’s Fix the Debt

We also find these Democrats involved with Fix the Debt (from the same source):

Phil Bredesen

Phil Bredesen is on Fix the Debt’s steering committee. As Democratic governor of Tennessee, he “presided over the largest state cutback of public health programs in the history of our nation,” according to health care advocacy group FamiliesUSA. In 2004, Governor Bredesen did away with Tennessee’s state health care program, TennCare, and reverted to standard Medicaid, eliminating coverage for 430,000 people, and imposted [sic] strict limits on prescription drugs and doctor visits, with no appeals. This resulted in budget surpluses.

Vic Fazio

Vic Fazio is on Fix the Debt’s steering committee. He is a former [Democratic] member of Congress (1979-1999) who works as a corporate lobbyist. He has lobbied for AT&T, Corrections Corporation of America, Archer Daniels Midland, Shell Oil, Blumberg Capital, the Private Equity Growth Capital Council, Dow Chemical, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, and Waste Management.

MORE...

http://americablog.com/2013/02/fix-the-debt-is-a-bipartisan-operation-to-cut-social-security-medicare-medicaid.html

[JEB]

1. Looks like the corporations own not only all the horses but the whole dam racetrack.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. "It's all the Republicans' fault." Or so we've been told.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

3. The article points out something important

Some of this isn't a war between "left" and "right" but rather between the rich and everyone else (even some people who are too stupid or low-information to realize it like my BIL).

Some on the right aspire to be one of the rich one day, believing that they 'earned' their wealth and are entitled to it (even at the expense of everyone else), but as we know that's usually not the case. Rarely these days is extreme wealth earned. It was typically (not always but usually) stolen from everyone else or inherited or both, particularly among those who would take health care and retirement away from old people just to keep their tax-free status.

The problem is greed and ignorance. The former preys upon the latter to sustain itself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. You have a brother-in-law who fails to realize reality?

Condolences.

Maybe we all have one or more persons in the family who are unaware. I do, but only a cousin.

For the sake of family harmony, the problem reminds me of something that was said years ago:

"Don't try to teach pigs to sing. It's a waste of time. And it annoys the pigs."

[ProfessionalLeftist]

7. BIL, sister, their son and a brother

Libertarians. Most of them rely on "socialism" in the form of SSI, Social Security, TriCare, etc. -- all while supporting the Libertarian/Tea Bagger ideologies. It's all I can do to keep from telling them: "Look, if you don't like "socialism", then SEND. THE. CHECKS. BACK." Of course they do not. We know even Ayn Rand relied on Social Security (albiet under another name). So yes I have relatives who are extremely disconnected from reality, who are self-righteous hypocrites, ignorant as hell, and who don't walk their Teabagging talk.

We just don't discuss politics. Period.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. On a positive note,

(1) the governmental money that they receive and will receive is undoubtedly less that what the banksters received, and
(2) in contrast to money received by the banksters, the governmental money that they received has been put back into circulation and will help the economy.

[DonB]

4. Been reading DU for years

and I hope that your comment is tongue in cheek because there have been plenty of diatribes on DU against corporate Dem's and even President Obama. So yes, there are many corporatist and blue/yellow dog democrats who are just as responsible for the financial mess that we find ourselves in - just watch morning "you're being snowed' joe to gain some insight to a few of the worst examples. One of my senators, schumer, voted a Bill of Attainer against ACORN and is a very corporatist wall street Democrat but I would still vote for him over anything the other party has to offer. The rethugliCONs, CONservatives, and libercarelessians have lead the way in setting the table to establish their bankrupt "Two-Santa Claus Policy" and many Democrats have willingly or unwillingly gone along with them, jumping on the bus of tax and spending cuts to get elected.

But yes, jude wanniski outlined the policy in 1976 and the rethugliCONs, CONservatives, libercarelessians, and joined now by the teabaggers, have done everything in their power to successfully implement that pathetic piece of s@#t policy. Is not the "Debt and Spending Cuts" the only problem that they presently talk about?

Below is a brief description of that policy from Wikipedia but if you want an excellent understanding, google Thom Hartmann and Two-Santa Clause Theory, he has been hammering on it for years if not decades.

"the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector."[10] Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."[11]

[2naSalit]

5. FYI for everybody...

After watching the Daily Show (Feb 21, 2013) and listening to Stewart's guest, Steven Brill, I think everyone should read the article and watch the interview for some important background info:

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-21-2013/exclusive---steven-brill-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-21-2013/exclusive---steven-brill-extended-interview-pt--2

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-21-2013/exclusive---steven-brill-extended-interview-pt--3

[ProfessionalLeftist]

9. That is an extremely important Time Mag article re: cost of healthcare

I'd seen that but didn't realize Brill was on Jon Stewart. Thanks for links to the videos. Sharing!

[2naSalit]

10. You're quite welcome

just trying to help keep the GP informed about what we're up against. It sucks and I have been dedicated to not involving the medical industrial complex in my healthcare issues for years now. I am well informed about health and maladies and make my own medicines from natural and legal ingredients, when my day on the calendar arrives, I'll go willfully... but until then I'll be avoiding that ugly "circling the bowl without a lifeline" cabal with everything I've got.

Glad you liked the input.