More than 60 senators call on Obama to join deficit-reduction talks

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

More than 60 senators from both parties are calling on President Obama to lead them in developing a comprehensive plan to rein in record budget deficits, a powerful sign of bipartisan willingness to abandon long-held positions on entitlement spending and taxes.

In a letter sent Friday to the White House, the 64 senators urge Obama “to support a broad approach to solving our current budget problems” along the lines of recommendations issued last year by a presidentially appointed commission. That plan calls for sharp cuts in government spending, elimination or reduction of dozens of popular tax breaks and an overhaul of Social Security that would include raising the retirement age to 69 for today’s toddlers.

“While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt,” the senators wrote. “By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues.”

The letter was drafted by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), who said in a conference call Friday with reporters that it took them only a couple of days to convince a super-majority of their colleagues to sign the letter — 32 Republicans and 32 Democrats.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/more_than_60_senators_call_on_obama_to_join_deficit_reduction_talks/2011/03/18/AB7V2tp_story.html

[suston96]

1. How about those more than 60 senators joining in.....

....creating and/or restoring some 10 million or more lost jobs.

You see, creating or restoring those 10 million jobs would mean accelerating the turning around of the economy. More productivity would mean more jobs.

More jobs would mean more taxes and FICA collected.

More taxes and FICA collected would FIX the deficit including Social Security....

More jobs created would mean......OH FUCK IT!

What's the use! You cannot explain anything to people with their heads up their @#$%^&.

[karynnj]

13. Actually most of the Democrats are speaking of all the things you speak of

but - YOU are not listening. Many have given speeches in the last several weeks - here is Kerry's - here http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599660300 and continues as http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599660302

[JDPriestly]

19. karynnh, which Democrats signed this?

I like Jan Schakowsky's tax reform proposal. It pretty much takes care of the budget problem.

[russspeakeasy]

20. Except that it makes too much sense.

[karynnj]

21. I like Schakowsky's tax reform proposal as well - but this does not

propose a solution. This letter calls for working on that now - to avoid these short continuing resolutions. There is no reason to think that her ideas will not be heard and some of them adopted. (I doubt a majority would vote for it as is.)

[JDPriestly]

48. We should adopt Schakowsky's proposal as is with no delay.

It would take care of everything.

[karynnj]

51. You think the House will allow this to come to a vote, much less pass that?

I do think that she should try to get it to a vote, but that is not very easy with Boehner as speaker. I doubt it could get a single Republican vote.

[Jakes Progress]

36. Ah. Well as long as they are speaking. We can always believe a politician's speeches..

[karynnj]

39. If their records match the words - which they do for people like Kerry, Brown and Durbin,

you can believe that that is what they would like to do. Now, there are 100 Senators and they need 60 to pass anything - so the final version will not be everything they would have wanted - unless the issue was completely non-controversial and everyone agreed.

Where you need to be more leery of words is when they do match past actions - like with John Edwards.

[Jakes Progress]

44. Ahh. The old "Poor us. We can't do anything" approach.

Press offices aside, those senators who sign a document saying the that the cat-food commission did a great job are not on your side.

[karynnj]

50. That is not what the document says

[Jakes Progress]

52. This is what the document says. Rosy glasses my blur it, but the words are plain.

When I read:

the 64 senators urge Obama “to support a broad approach to solving our current budget problems” along the lines of recommendations issued last year by a presidentially appointed commission. That plan calls for sharp cuts in government spending, elimination or reduction of dozens of popular tax breaks and an overhaul of Social Security that would include raising the retirement age to 69 for today’s toddlers.

“While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt,” the senators wrote.

I find little there but the foundation for capitulation and "compromise".

So you tell me. What part of " sharp cuts in government spending, elimination or reduction of dozens of popular tax breaks and an overhaul of Social Security that would include raising the retirement age to 69 for today’s toddlers." do you find to "achieve meaningful progress"?

[karynnj]

54. Note what is in direct quotes and what is not

They are NOT accepting as written the commission's recommendations. Several have spoken on the issue of SS - I gave you Kerry's comments because I had a link. There are many others who have made essentially the same point - that SS does not need major changes.

What they are signing on to is that this effort should begin now. The alternative is actually worse - to continue funding through this budget year, there will more and more programs - needed more than ever during this time - cut. Then, later when this is taken up they will argue that cuts have to come from everything - and there will be more cuts to discretionary funding.

They are setting the frame now. We are not in a good position - and we should be as the things being cut are popular - as are SS and Medicare. We need to bring back the revenue side of the equation - and this is an attempt to do that.

[Jakes Progress]

61. So you believe the commission's report is a good thing?

The direct quotes are the thing to which I referred. You know, where they said what a good job and great start the commission had done.

The other part was a summary of the commission's suggestions. Do you think the commission did not call for these things? What progressive measures did the commission produce or suggest. I'm not talking about campaign speeches or chest thumping. I'm talking about the report of the commission that these 64 members said achieved "meaningful progress".

Play with words all you want. What we have here is the beginning of a cave in, the preliminary courting steps that lead to another republican gift.

[karynnj]

75. No I don't

What I am referring to is that the worst things in your excerpt are NOT in the letter.

What I think is that those words, praising the committee, are typical diplomatic wording - and they go on to say that they do not necessarily agree with the conclusions. These are typical of the language that is used in the Senate. It is not just "my good friend ...., but acknowledging the effort made (even if they don't like the conclusions.)
I was not speaking of a campaign stump speech - but a very serious, wonky Senate speech speaking of all that needs to be on the table. What is clear is that until this is worked on, there will be bills - every 2 or 3 weeks, that incrementally kill everything Democrats spent years working on. Now before you ask why, with one House, the Republicans can do this - the answer is that for anything to exist there must be a budget.

The point they are making is that they want to start the work that will have to be done on this.

[Jakes Progress]

77. Not a very nice game you are playing here.

Those "worst things" that you say aren't in the letter are the things the commission did. The things that are in the letter are praise for that work.

Why is it that when a Democrat praises republicans, it is always okay because we were just being nice. Why can't they be, you know, honest. How will telling republicans what we think a bad thing? How has kissing their butts for two years done anything good for us?

And which of your heroes is demanding a tax increase on the wealthy? How about rescinding the tax cut for the wealthy that they just got as a gift? Where are the proposals to build jobs? How about eliminating tax breaks for companies that pay no taxes?

You and I both know that everything is not on the table. Why balance the budget by eliminating jobs, freezing children, and starving seniors when you can raise money by bringing in more income. But that is not being considered. Instead the 64 say we will cut. The only discussion is how much and what to cut. Instead of feeding our children, we are ready to call it a victory if only a few starve.

And the last thing we need is the capitulator in chief and his band of corporate advisors joining in.

[karynnj]

86. Which of my heroes is asking for a tax increase on the wealthy ?

Senator John Kerry - in the very speech I gave you - which you clearly did not listen to.

He spoke of - eliminating tax loopholes that cause many corporations to pay no taxes - talking of companies that have their own pages in the tax code, he spoke of the extension of the tax cut (in this speech and at a Boston Head start appearance last week).

As to proposals to build jobs, Kerry is the lead sponsor on the infrastructure bank legislation that is the key to Obama's call for investing in the US - creating jobs and expanding the economy.

In fact, here are three pieces of legislation - all to grow jobs - that Kerry introduced in teh last few weeks.
- the infrastructure bill (with Hutchinson)
- the START- UP VISA bill (with Lugar)
- the BEER Act (with Crapo and 20 other Senators)
- the broadband expansion and use of white spaces in spectrum (with Snowe)

Furthermore, I am not playing a game. I am trying to follow the efforts being made to help the economy. Note that all of the legislation indicated have Republican sponsors.

Now, this is true not just of Kerry, but he is the one I have the links for.

[Jakes Progress]

87. Yep. Which ones?

I didn't ask about closing loopholes. My uncle is a Fortune 500 accountant. He loves it when the government "closes loopholes". They have fifty lined up for every one the government closes.

I was asking about increasing the taxes on the people who caused the mess we are in. Closing a loophole on a corporation is like putting a thumb in a breaking dam. Has any of these guys written a bill to take back the tax break that the wealthy just got. I like Kerry too, But he falls into the category that would get hit by such a tax. As do many in congress. So it is easier to play with language and put patches here and there. Just pass the tax.

And I'm sorry. I don't see any of the bills you mention, let alone the corporate gift that is Obama's plan, that will put people back to work. We lost millions of jobs. We are still shipping jobs overseas every day. I had two men that I counseled' with this week who were laid off when their graphic arts jobs were farmed out to India.

Senators getting together over brunch to "cooperate" on finding jobs so that they can feel good will not get it done. For every job in a fiber optics company that is created for a temporary project, there are thousands of guys desperate to feed their families. I see them every day. The start up visa bill will create dozens of jobs. The beer act will give tax breaks to -wait for it - people who own breweries. Know any poor brewery owners? Again. Dozens and Dozens of low end jobs. I hope the expense account brie on toast was worth it. We paid for the lunch.

Kerry is a nice guy. He just doesn't get it. I'm afraid your sources don't either.

Getting back to the original concept in the OP. Would any of your heroes care to go on record vowing not to support or vote for any bill that cuts social security? Got a link to a space where Kerry condemns those portions of the progress made by the cat food commission?

[karynnj]

92. Kerry speaks against cutting social security in that speech

If you listened to Kerry, you would also see that what he is speaking of is not patchwork cutting out loopholes, but MAJOR revision of the tax code. This would eliminate thousands of loopholes - without creating new ones.

Listen to the response given at a town hall meeting back in 2008 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5ZlrbkdBNk

Do you honestly think that Kerry's positions on taxes are coming from the fact that he is wealthy - and Teresa is extremely wealthy? The fact is that if Joihn Kerry were motivated by money, he could have with little difficulty become incredibly wealthy, starting right out of Yale (forget Vietnam, his strings were as good as Bush's and better than Cheney's, Clinton's, and Dean's) Between his family and Yale connections, he was set. (As it was, after law school, he could have opted to go the trial lawyer route, as Edwards did - and as he did for about two very successful years. The combination of his talents (he was exceptional) and his connections, would have made him - like Edwards, a mult- millionaire. Instead, he struggled to balance housing in DC and Boston and child support and his kids' educational costs on a Senate salary. He did have parents willing and able to help him when needed - so he never had the economic struggles many do, but it clearly shows that money was not what motivated him.

The fact is that every one of those bills will create jobs - even if they are not the jobs that the two people you speak of would want.

I am not sure how any legislation could do much to prevent outsourcing technical jobs. About the most you could do is to have a tax on income payments to overseas workers. Buacus and Kerry did write legislation that took away some TAX ADVANTAGES for employers that do this, but I am not sure if adding taxes would trigger retaliation from other countries. Just as it was not illegal for American companies to outsource manufacturing - leading to a situation where it would be hard to buy genuinely American made clothes (and I do not include the Marianas in this definition - as they really aren't) - with the internet, companies can outsource things like programming and graphic design. What legislation could stop that?

[fittosurvive]

29. It means they have seen the numbers and they look bad--really bad.

It is a given that fedgov balance sheets are prepared by the means of deceptive accounting practices, but those are the numbers that are reported and they are written with red ink.

Evidently, the can they have been kicking down the street has hit a brick wall and they have determined that a bi-partisan response is necessary to save their own asses.

[fittosurvive]

30. I

[24601]

59. Government does not create jobs unless they are government

jobs. What it needs to do is set the conditions for the creation of private sector jobs so that jobs contribute more to the tax base than they take from it.

[No Elephants]

64. So....even less regulation and even more tax cuts for the rich? Ronnie, is that you?

We've done those things. They don't create jobs, or trickle down. That's been proven over and over.

Or did you have something else in mind?

(Typo edit)

[24601]

79. Read my post again - the words "tax cut" are not included - as they

were in yours.

But the fact remains that a government job costs the taxpayer more than the job contributes in taxes. This isn't theory but 1st hand experience from a 39-year career (and still counting) in state & federal governments - and I can guarantee that my taxes have never approached by salary and benefits. Government "creating" private sector jobs is a misnomer because if it is indeed created by the government, then it is indistinguishable from a government job.

It cannot honestly be denied that taxes are not relevant in that government shapes policies by what it "rewards & punishes". What is the economic challenge is to find the equilibrium point where taxes are accepted legitimately on an activity without being considered unacceptable to the point that the individual makes alternative choices like relocating to another state, shifting investments from higher taxed to lower taxed and so on.

For-profit corporations are individuals in voluntary association for the purpose of receiving a return on their investment. You can't put a corporation in jail but you can put one to death - just find a former affiliate of Arthur Anderson.

[wordpix]

78. How about stopping all these wars? And we just entered another one

It's completely nuts. :crazy:

[Newest Reality]

2. When will they issue a statement saying:

"America, we got ours, and now you are on your own. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer; it is a fact of life. Now, in order to continue to subsidize the wealthy, (both new and old) and all important profits of their corporations, you must still pay taxes from your income, services and on everything you buy, (and they will increase) or you will face the prospect of funding our private prisons and corporate prison labor in order to pay your debt to our society. This is the price of living in OUR country and you are not to expect anything in return."

I personally would like to see more action from the Progressive Caucus. We should give them more attention and support in order to see how much impact they can have. It is important to have some voice, no matter how small.

[Newest Reality]

3. Un-recers unrecing? Hmmm? - NT

[Mr. Sparkle]

4. With Democrats like those, who needs enemies !

[totodeinhere]

8. So you don't think that Obama should get engaged in trying to reduce the deficit?

They are not saying that Obama should sign off on cutting benefits to the poor. They just want him involved. Perhaps Obama's solution would be to raise taxes on the rich, or he might propose something else. But I don't see what is wrong with merely asking Obama to get involved. After all, he is the president.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Little Star]

43. +1

[SkyDaddy7]

12. I agree with you...But you are suppose to be CYNICAL!

After all this is DU you are posting on!!

[Jakes Progress]

53. Yeah, because unthinking optimism has worked so well for us.

[russspeakeasy]

22. I have already seen his negotiating skills. They stink.

Involvement means to listen and make a decision, take a stand
and stick with it. That's not really up his alley.

[EC]

23. Are you kidding?

This is political. Trying to get Obama to cut first, so during the coming election they can say, "No, it wasn't us who wanted to cut your Social Security, it was Obama that did it." You know how it works.

They are the ones that want (salivate) to cut Social Programs, let them be the ones to bring it to the floor.

I knew Bennett would be trouble from his campaigne...he was harping on the deficit and not mentioning tax increases on the upper 1% at all.

[JDPriestly]

27. No. Obama is a lousy negotiator.

He will mess things up worse than they are.

But, beyond that, the discussions that are proposed would be based on the recommendations of the committee that Obama appointed to propose a plan to handle the deficit.

As I understand it, the committee did not agree to any specific plan. The plan that the chairmen proposed is absolutely unacceptable. It is so bad that it should not be accepted by any Democrat from any state as a basis for discussion of anything.

Yet again, politicians are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. We have a bunch of criminals in D.C. All of them. Except maybe Bernie Sanders and Kucinich.

[totodeinhere]

35. He may be a lousy negotiator, but he is the president and it should be his role to be involved one

way or the other. If Congress doesn't like what he proposes, they don't have to accept it. But whether he is a lousy negotiator or not, i have a feeling that his involvement will move the discussions in a more positive direction than what the GOP majority in the House would do.

[boppers]

45. He already gave them his budget.

They're pouting.

[No Elephants]

55. +1

[JDPriestly]

47. I doubt that his presence will move anything in any positive direction.

The Republicans want his presence only so that they can humiliate him.

[No Elephants]

57. As many Dems as Pubs signed the letter. What was the Dems' motivation?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[totodeinhere]

74. No apology is necessary. I have always respected your very well thought out

opinions and we usually agree on things. We both have the same goal here but we might disagree on the best tactics to use to get there.

[suston96]

5. Don't let this drop out of sight.......

Someone get the names of the 64 so that we can e-mail or call or whatever else.

This is dangerous because 64 is a supermajority. Granted, the letter says it will be about talk but the talk itself is poisonous.

Bump this or whatever you do to keep it handy.

[No Elephants]

62. "Someone get the names of the 64" You excel at delegating?

[avaistheone1]

6. Awesome.

They are going to finally join together on something and screw us.


:sarcasm:






:puke:

[Jakes Progress]

7. There are 60 of the villains in America's story.

60 who have sold their honor and their children's future for a few campaign dollars, a country club membership, and the hope for some money from the corporations they shill for when they quit office.

60 soulless ghouls walking the halls of congress.

[karynnj]

15. You might want to check Sherrod Brown's record - he is the populist that John Edwards only pretended

to be.

The fact is that these are the people suggesting that everything be on the table - rather than to cut every program that was designed to help poor people - from Head Start, to Youthbuild to subsidies for heating oil.

You might want to wait to hear what these Senators have to say - some like John Kerry already have given speeches on the what has to be done - and it isn't cutting Social security. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599660300 continuing on http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599660302

[JDPriestly]

28. If it is so great, why didn't the Senate do this while Democrats were in the majority,

I think we should just sit out these two years until we get a Democratic majority in the Senate.

The deficit can wait. The answer of course is Jan Schakowsky's proposal. Increase the taxes on the obscenely rich and our country will be on a good course.

[karynnj]

33. I think we should have attempted to do it last year, but we didn't

I like Schankowsky's proposal, but even last year it could not have passed the Senate - and maybe not the House.

We can't just sit for two years - we need budgets passed. Did you notice that with each continuing resolution the Republicans are defunding programs? Not to mention, NO program knows how much money they will have - making it impossible for them to even run their programs intelligently.

Now, as we do not even know what "it" is, why are you saying that I think it is "great".

[No Elephants]

56. Republicans alone cannot defund squat.

"I like Schankowsky's proposal, but even last year it could not have passed the Senate - and maybe not the House."

You do not and cannot possibly know that for a fact--and you are most probably wrong about the House. However, if you are correct about either House or Senate last year, what does that say about our eletced Democrats and the DNC?

[Jakes Progress]

37. Speeches. We don't need no stinkin' speeches.

I've heard the speeches. I know who these people are. I don't see them raising taxes on the rich. I don't see them saying that the cat food commission suggestions are cruel and counterproductive to getting our country out of this wall street=dug hole. I wouldn't mind a progressive president getting in on the talks. But wanting to say that the cat food commission did work "represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt" is the wrong way to go. If you have a soul, that is.

[No Elephants]

65. "I wouldn't mind a progressive president getting in on the talks." Whom did you have in mind?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[AllTooEasy]

11. Why does Obama ALWAYS have to babysit these clowns???

Congress, the gov't finances are YOUR job...as defined by the CONSTITUTION.

I'm sick and tired of RICH, PRIVILAGED grown men and women crying to the White House everytime they can't get their act together. The president is the leader of the Executive branch, not the Legislative's branch's nanny.

[karynnj]

17. This is a huge important thing to do and BOTH sides want the President involved

The Democrats, likely because he can command the airwaves and help them - the Republicans, likely because they want to say he was involved - and blame him if it is disliked,

It is very normal for the President to be involved in proposing a budget.

[No Elephants]

58. According to Reply 45, Obama already did propose his budget.

Is Reply 45 wrong; or did Obama propose a budget and you were uncharacteristically unaware of that fact?

ETA. I realize your post does not flat out say Obama had not proposed a budget, but I think it fair to say that is the impression it leaves with a reader.

[No Elephants]

60. Actually, a President is supposed to lead more than only the Executive branch.

He is the "boss" of the Executive branch, to be sure--including the military--but leadership is different from, and broader than, simply being someone's employer.

[tom_paine]

84. Because he's one of them. How many times do you have to be slapped in the face with a dead fish

before you start to notice the smell?

Sorry to be so blunt but DAMN!

Two choices: Either Obama is the weakest willed, namby-pamby-est individual to sit on the throne since Franklin Pierce, and fully lacking the self-awareness to notice himself getting rolled over and over again....or he's partially or fully in on it, either by explicit agreement or just the American Nobility all acting in concert of self-interest without the need for explicit conspiracies.

And I simply do not believe Obama is namby-pamby, unintelligent or that un-self-aware.

[fascisthunter]

14. At This Point I Think the President uses the GOP as Cover

to enact all these policies for the wealthy.

[Plucketeer]

26. Don't you have it backwards???

The GOP uses the PRESIDENT to cover them when enacting pro-wealthy / anti-democracy legislation. ;)

[fascisthunter]

40. lol

[dennis4868]

16. It's obama's fault...

[frebrd]

18. If he does get involved.........

we'll get screwed even worse. He'll back into the room already bent over and ready for action!

:puke:

[suston96]

24. I have been listening and watching very carefully......

I hear and see more people talking about cutting costs EVERYWHERE to reduce the deficit.

The deficit will disappear if the economy accelerates growth thereby creating new and well paying jobs.

Don't get trapped in believing that our friends will save us. They will NOT do a thing unless we are behind them -

We have to march and sing the songs of angry men and not the woeful wails of losers backing losers.

We will not be slaves again, they say! Check out the story in the Michigan capital - students marching against cuts in education.

It is time. And what better place to start than those 64 idiots who are begging Obama to lead them in trashing most of the good things Democrats have done to lift the people from the poorer to the middle classes.

Those Michigan kids.......http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110318/NEWS04/103180331/1432/BUSINESS/Hundreds-Lansing-high-school-students-protest-cuts-Capitol?odyssey=nav

[Bandit]

25. I seem to recall that Obama sent them a budget

It had tremendous deficit reduction. What else do they want him to do? Don't they have a job?

[No Elephants]

63. Do you think a dialogue is too much to ask when the country is in this much trouble?

If not, I'm not sure what your objection is.

Mind you, I'm not sure Obama should agree. I am just trying to understand your post.

[slay]

31. Unless this includes a 75% tax on the top 1% - I'd say no.

I don't trust any of these fuckers at this point. How bout ending one of our WARS first and show you're actually serious about our economic problems? We are so fucked if we don't get some REAL progressives elected.

[No Elephants]

66. +1

[chill_wind]

32. All Hail The Great Deficit Commission!

“While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt,” the senators wrote. “By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues.”


"Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. (...) "

"The Best Place in History (for This Commission) Would Be No Place At All."

Most people assume that "bipartisan commissions" are designed to fail: they are given thorny (or even impossible) issues and told to make recommendations which Congress is free to ignore or reject. In many cases -- yours is no exception -- the goal is to defer recognition of the difficulties for as long as possible.

You are plainly not equipped by disposition or resources to take on the true cause of deficits now and in the future: the financial crisis. Recommendations based on CBO's unrealistic budget and economic outlooks are destined to collapse in failure. Specifically, if cuts are proposed and enacted in Social Security and Medicare, they will hurt millions, weaken the economy, and the deficits will not decline. It's a lose-lose proposition, with no gainers except a few predatory funds, insurance companies, and such who would profit, for some time, from a chaotic private marketplace.

Thus the interesting twist in your situation is that the Republic would be better served by advancing no proposals at all.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement.

- James Galbraith

There Is No Economic Justification for Deficit Reduction
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=569194&mesg_id=569194


http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/meetings/public-forum/additional/James_Galbraith.pdf

[Aerows]

34. I'll take politicians seriously on deficit reduction...

... the second we pull out of wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and now Libya. You have no credibility when you want US citizens to starve so you can blow up people in another country. That's as plainly as I can state it.

[plumbob]

46. That's well said! And absolutely true.

We can save hundreds of billions a year in military direct costs by just coming home and minding our own business.

This will lead to future savings with fewer disabled and so forth from these foreign wars.

[arikara]

49. Hear hear.

The only thing that is never on the table is the bloated military budget.

[chill_wind]

38. 300 know-nothing economists told Obama/Congress

JOBS not deficit commissions.

300 Economists Warn Obama: Grave Danger Ahead
Thursday, 09/16/2010 - 2:37 pm by Bryce Covert

Three hundred economists released a letter to President Obama today with one message: focus on jobs, not on the deficit. Robert Borosage, co-director of the Institute for America’s Future and one of the authors of the statement, said the letter is “a call for action on the economy and a return to economic common sense” in a conference call with the media this morning. This is not the time for balancing the budget and slashing the deficit, he pointed out; rather, it is “the time for bold initiatives to rebuild America and to generate jobs and growth.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=569372

But WTF would anybody outside the elite insiders' bubble know?

[fascisthunter]

41. right

[No Elephants]

67. FDR's recovery tanked when he buckled to Rethugs bloviating about deficit

After that, only WWII saved us.

The bad news? Apparently, wars no longer help the economy

The good news? Wish I knew.

[chill_wind]

42. kick

[No Elephants]

69. Remember how productive bi-partisan talks Obama held on HCR were?

I don't remember them as productive. Maybe Obama does not, either.

IMO, they only gave dignity to Rethug talking points. Media does fine with that as it is.

Unless I am missing something, this request seems like D.C. kabuki at its worst. I certainly do not trust 30+ Rethug Senators.


I don't know why 30+ Dem Senators signed this letter. Are they all up for re-election in 2012 or something?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. They want political cover. All of them. nt

[robcon]

71. But Obama wants just as much political cover.

He should get involved, IMO.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

76. He's got cover if he ignores it.

[No Elephants]

81. Kind of. However, he is already responsible for his own proposed budget and, at some point, will

be responsible for signing (or vetoing) a budget passed by Congress.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

88. That he will.

My breath is bated.

[No Elephants]

82. Hence my remark about re-election.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

89. Which one?

[Zorra]

72. Welcome to Fantasy Island.

A bipartisan group of millionaires, most of whom were born into entitlement, deciding our fate.

Scary.

[freshwest]

90. Good analogy. Bad things follow from that method.

[Babel_17]

73. The discredited republican party of 2008

Our party was compelled/seduced by the corporate and wealthy elites to resuscitate the republican party so that the republican party could force "bipartisan" "solutions" to our problems.

Because if these odious solutions weren't being sold as "bipartisan" the citizenry would wake up to the fact that elections count for far less than they thought.

Without the republican party as the bad guy our weak willed representatives would be seen as being merely acting under orders rather than being backed into a corner.

This is what it boils down to, imo.

[No Elephants]

83. Seduced, yes. Compelled, no.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[wordpix]

85. with stories like this re: O's proposed $36 billion bailout of nuke industry, NO ONE has credibility

This story has blipped off the radar but really needs to stay outed and discussed b/c it sheds light on why O supports nuke power, even after Japan's disaster. We have to cut "entitlements" like Medicaid, Medicare, college loans and environmental programs but once again, the corporations that can't make it on their own get THEIR welfare money with plenty of backing from the WH. I still want to support this admin. so badly but daily I wonder why :puke: :grr:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-support-f...

By Peter Wallsten and Jia Lynn Yang, Friday, March 18, 7:49 PM

As the deepening crisis in Japan presents the nuclear power industry with its gravest test in years, President Obama has emerged as a critical ally and defender.

Repeatedly in recent days, Obama has peppered public remarks on Japan with assurances that U.S. reactors are safe and that nuclear energy remains a key component of his energy agenda.

The president’s stance again puts him in direct opposition to many in his political base...snip

But because the cost of building a new reactor is so high — and Wall Street is reluctant to invest, with natural gas emerging as a more viable alternative — utilities have turned to the government for assistance. Obama has signaled his desire to help, proposing in his 2012 budget plan an additional $36 billion in loan guarantees to build new plants.

That would come on top of the $18.5 billion set aside as part of the loan guarantee program started under President George W. Bush’s Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Some critics have charged that Obama’s support for nuclear power can be traced to his political rise in Illinois, home to nuclear giant Exelon.

Those connections “run pretty deep,” said Kevin Kamp, with the watchdog group Beyond Nuclear. “That begins to explain his policy.”

Exelon has had ties to some of Obama’s closest advisers.

David Axelrod, the president’s longtime political strategist and former White House adviser, co-founded a consulting firm that worked for Exelon, though Axelrod said Friday he currently has no private clients.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff and now Chicago’s mayor-elect, helped broker the deal that created Exelon when he worked at the investment bank Wasserstein Perella.

Exelon’s political action committee and its employees have given more than $340,000 to Obama’s congressional and presidential campaigns over the years, including $4,300 from Exelon chief executive John Rowe, according to Federal Election Commission records.
snip

[tcaudilllg]

91. That's it --- we MUST have a purge.

69 retirement for my children? That's evil. Everyone of those 32 Dem senators has to go as soon as possible.

[RedCloud]

93. Just raise the minimum retirement age to 169. And pay for wars with our SS money!

Sounds like a fair plan to me.