Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters

[eridani]

http://www.alternet.org/story/146183/obama_packs_debt_commission_with_social_security_looters?page=entire

Obama's deficit commission is actually much older than Conrad-Gregg. Its history as a vehicle for reforming Social Security goes back to 1981, when it was given life under President Ronald Reagan as the Greenspan Commission (guess who chaired it). The commission's first act was to raise Social Security payroll taxes across the board and lower benefits via changes to cost of living adjustments. Bill Clinton revived the commission many times during the '90s, each time with a slightly new name and slightly new members, always stacked to recommend partial privatization, which critics on the left mocked as "a solution in search of a problem." But Clinton thought it politically risky to proceed with its recommendations on his own, and in a little-known chapter to that story, his chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, helped negotiate a secret pact with Newt Gingrich in late 1997 to unite behind the commission's proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age and begin privatization.

The pact collapsed when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke just days before Clinton was set to announce it. George W. Bush quickly reconstituted the commission in 2001 and adopted its core proposal – Social Security privatization – as the centerpiece to his second-term agenda in 2005. The developing quagmire in Iraq and Bush’s consequent unpopularity gave Democrats, with public outcry behind them, the confidence to unite against it, even though Democratic leaders had supported similar measures in the '90s, and the plan was soon declared dead.

<snip>

Andy Stern, president of SEIU, is Obama's only pick out of six who is sure to oppose Social Security cuts. Everyone else is likely open to slashing.

For the commission to reach an agreement, its Democrats will have to win the support of at least two Republicans, which will be nearly impossible unless spending cuts are among its proposals. That Obama’s picks are so amenable to, if not gunning for, some form of benefits cuts suggests the White House is indeed seeking such a "grand bargain" from the commission, not a stalemate. The odds are slim, especially given the commission’s history, that five of the 10 Democrats would defy the White House to kill such a bargain.

As the New York Times confirms, in establishing the group Obama has once again adopted a course favorable to his economic advisers and their Wall Street friends over the objections of his political team. How much of the usual looting this will involve remains to be seen. They seem to be proceeding carefully. Earlier, following Obama's recent spending freeze announcement, an anonymous official told the Times that spending cuts would start with earmarks in order to earn goodwill with the public, and then move on to more "popular entitlement programs."

"By helping to create a new atmosphere of fiscal discipline, it can actually also feed into debates over other components of the budget," the official said, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity.

[Skittles]

1. LOL

"....Obama has once again adopted a course favorable to his economic advisers and their Wall Street friends..."

I truly hope this surprises no one.

[amborin]

2. it should not surprise anyone

[truedelphi]

5. It cannot surprise everyone.

Keeping the pom poms fluffed and waving around takes up all their time and effort. So they cannot see what reality looks like.

Meanwhile on the outer edges of consensus shaping,w e now are arriving at Cohesion. One or two more weeks of deranged Tea Baggers taking center stage and most Americans will support the Centrist Dems, as what else is the alternative?

[inna]

16. Isn't it amazing?

What better way to legitimize center-right policies than contrast them to full-blown insanity of deranged ultra-right Teabaggery?

Everything starts looking good in comparison. x( 3-dimensial chess, anyone?

[sabrina 1]

17. Yes, the only problem is people are beginning to see through

the whole thing, not enough yet, but more than they probably hoped would.

Teabaggers will be used to 'strongly oppose' the privatization of Social Security. I wondered a while ago if this wasn't the 'three-dimensional chess' we keep hearing about.

A very Rovian trick if so ~

I wonder what would happen if everyone ignored the tea-baggers and focused on the issues?

[Jackpine Radical]

54. What difference does it make if people see through it?

They saw through the bailouts, the neutering of health "care" reform, and before that, the wars, but massive public opposition doesn't matter any more. Politicians of all stripes are jumping to the corporate tune, and the public good be damned. Now, no matter how much they squeal, they have People United for cover. In a Diebold world, the electorate no longer matters. As Lenin observed, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

[laughingliberal]

58. Exactly! Now those of us who oppose privatization of SS will get to listen

to more accusations of being on the side of the teabaggers. Never mind that we were all opposed to it when Bush was pushing it. Now it's different. Don't ask me how stealing my money to put in the Wall Street crap shoot becomes different because a Democrat is pushing it.

[liberation]

95. Yeah, I have found the whole Teabagger crap to be rather convenient excuse

It reminds me of the whole demonization of Nader that the DLC types love to bring up every now and then to blame their past electoral catastrophes. While completely ignoring how their anointed DLC reps did not only collaborate with the GOP, but they went as far as campaigning for republican candidates (in the cases of Zell Miller and Lieberman). The whole DLC types accusing the Greens of "collaborating with the GOP" seemed deliciously projective in my humble opinion.

And now I am seeing the same crap, if I don't kiss the DLC policies... I must be with the teabaggers. Jeez where have I heard the whole "either with us or with the enemy" before? This is the same shit all over again. Even down to the eerie cult of personality that is creeping in this site, for every actual discussion thread using facts and figures on issues being brought by people critical of the conservative policies being push by this administration, there seem to pop 2 or 3 vapid PR exercises about what a nice chap Obama is and how wonderful he looks in the PR picture dump d'jour with no substance whatsoever. So I don't think people are "seeing through it" as much as most people are really fatigued by reality, and want realllllllly hard to believe that the clothes the emperor wears this time are really really "transparent"....

[Grand Taurean]

3. CEO's from Honeywell and the former BearStears...

I see.

How about we just raise the capital gains tax to 50% and remove the payroll tax cap to keep the fund solvent.
Also, cut the defense budget.

[leftstreet]

4. Shocking. Just truly shocking

NOT

K&R

[JHB]

6. There's a word to describe this, and it's not "fiscal discipline".

The word is "theft".

[earth mom]

7. People need to face facts: Obama is just like *.

From the article: "In other words, because rapidly rising Medicare costs were not effectively contained by health care reform -- it would have hurt the health care industry -- slowly rising Social Security costs will instead have to get the axe. Instead of weaning corporations—banks, insurance companies, war contractors—off the federal teat, the administration is seriously considering punishing seniors.'

Social Security is NOT broken. But the Obama administration is trying to say it is-just like * did. :grr:

Wake up DU-this is YOUR retirement and safety net that is on the line!!!

[eridani]

9. No, he isn't like *, but he does serve the same corporate interests

[earth mom]

11. Sorry if the truth hurts, but I see little difference in policies and actions. nt

[bahrbearian]

15. He is different, he doesn't giggle when he promotes death and destruction.

[earth mom]

37. No-but he does smile and acts like he's doing us all a favor by being president while

he does the same old shit * did.

Obama's ego is out of control just like *'s was.

[cali]

69. lol. that's because you're powers of discernment are massively impaired.

[earth mom]

94. No that would be YOU my dear.

:eyes:

[liberation]

96. I rather advise you master the difference between "your" (possessive) and "you are" (tense)

before you go around laughing about other people's "powers of discernment." It makes you look rather foolish.

[Raine]

100. oh gee

:eyes:

[liberation]

102. I know, making a joke is such a horrible thing...

... lord forbid, anyone points out the irony of a passive aggressive person using massive typos while chastising other people's supposed lack of knowledge.

[cali]

107. wowzer, honey. if you've never made that particular

error while typing fast, I'm impressed. Thank you very much sweetums, but I'm quite cognizant of the difference between the possessive and the contraction (that's the little word you were looking for, pumpkin).

[olegramps]

119. "You're " (sic) are not.

[eridani]

89. Bush would not have gotten a good deal on student loans as a part of

--inadequate HCR.

[emilyg]

35. Yes he is.

[Feron]

28. Just you wait...

when the recommendations to gut Social Security hit Congress, the Obama fan club will be here to cheer on the program's demise.

"It may not be perfect, but..." "If we don't gut the program, it'll die..", "the banks will keep the investment safe", "the COLA will come back with this bill", etc., etc.

Amazing how propaganda can get people to advocate against their own self-interests. We rightfully laugh at deluded teabaggers, but have people on our side who still believe the lie that Obama is a friend of the working class.

I would have used Clinton as an analogy, but * works as well. Obama, like his two predecessors, works hard to destroy the middle class and rewards his elite cronies with taxpayer assets.

[Jakes Progress]

46. I've been trying to ask outstanding members of the OFC

if there was ever anything he did or didn't do, said or didn't say, thought or didn't think that upset them in any way. Usually I ask right after they accuse some poster from the real world who has questioned some corporatist decision of being unfaithful, of wishing mccain had won, or of being stupid. I haven't gotten a single answer yet.

There is simply nothing that the man can do that they will not support.

[sabrina 1]

47. I've been asking them if they support the privatization of SS

whenever they attack people who don't share their joy over the HIR Bill. I am interested to know if they have any opinions of their own, before it all starts all over again.

So far, none of them have answered my question. I'm assuming that they do not know yet what they are supposed to support and waiting for their orders to arrive in their inboxes.

I have NEVER received and answer to a question that requires them revealing what they actually believe themselves. They just continue to post the talking points.

I think it might be fun to pre-empt the arguments they will make in support of the privatization of SS.

[Jakes Progress]

53. They won't know until the adm tells them what they believe.

And if the adm opinion does a 180 and reverses itself, so will the opinions of the OFC.

[laughingliberal]

59. That's what I'm thinking

The White House is keeping this as under wraps as possible for now. Talking points will be forthcoming as it nears time for the commission to publish their recommendations.

I don't see there's any way to deny the direction this is going to take. With Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles appointed to head the commission, it was obvious from the get go. Add in that Conrad and Judd were demanding the commission and it could not be plainer. Do we have anyone in Congress who will stand against this?

[liberation]

97. Zeke Emmanuel was rather open about reforming healthcare and SS as being their two main goals

... for this administration. They got health care "reform" out of the way, so SS comes next.

In other words, we're screwed.

I can't, however, wait to see how the Obama fan club is going to creatively spun people's expectations for guaranteed minimum baselines in place for their retirement with spoiled preteen girls wanting ponies.

[JDPriestly]

109. During the campaign, Obama stated that his solution for solving

any problems funding Social Security was to collect Social Security taxes on incomes over, I believe $250,000 per year. Obama's health care bill raises some additional taxes for health care from people making over $250,000. Maybe the rest of those taxes will be collected under proposals from this committee.

Remember, a lot of GOP supporters are Republicans. The former Reagan Republicans are, in many cases, now receiving Social Security or are about to begin receiving it.

Also, cutting Social Security benefits would not help the deficit. The average Social Security recipient receives just a little over $1,000 per month. That is just enough to survive in many places -- by survive, of course, I mean pay for housing (rent or property taxes and insurance, possibly a house payment), groceries, transportation, utilities and medical care.

Believe it or not, even with Medicare, lots of elderly people spend over 10% of their income on medical care. Elderly people pay are in many cases paying a great deal for deductibles and co-pays especially if they receive their healthcare through a pension fund's insurance company or are on Medicare Advantage. Medicare is not as free as those who are not on it would expect.

If Social Security is cut, the government will end up making up the shortfalls or --- have a huge, national scandal on its hands. So, cutting Social Security is really not an alternative.

We need a commission to review our trade policy. That's what is needed. Our current system is not working, and it never will.

[Knight Hawk]

112. THE ISSUE

We can all focus and work on the "issues" all we want .There is currently a thousand pound,mean,angry,hungry alpha male gorilla in the room.He has to be dealt with and is very much involved and interwoven with all other problems.We do not have enough money to do the things a civilized country needs to do and meet our current and especially future obligations.We can fight,holler,march and call each other terrible names ad infinitum.Unless and until we solve our "money" problems we are all ,as a country,just howling at the moon.We are not just broke ,we are broke and in serious debt and the trend is getting worse.It is going to be a wild ride,hang on.

[Jim Sagle]

115. Fuck off, RNC troll.

[katandmoon]

8. K&R.

[amborin]

10. K&R

[sabrina 1]

12. 'Up next, privatize Social Security'

How often did those opposed to transferring public funds into the hands of the Private Insurance Corps, which is now a done deal, warn that Social Security would be next?

So, will Democrats allow themselves to be sold on this also? It will be interesting to watch.

Under Bush Democrats with the help of organizations like AARP created Bush's first policy failure for Big Business.

They have been greedily eying SS funds for decades. Will Obama be the one to finally let them into the SS fund with their grubby little fingers and money bags ready to raid yet more public funds?

I hope people are mobilizing already to prevent this, but after watching what happened with how easily they gave the Private Insurance Industry access to public funds, do we even have any say in these matters anymore?

[laughingliberal]

60. "They have been greedily eying SS funds for decades. "

Not only that but they drastically raised our payroll taxes under Reagan. As it stands now there is a fight not to pay us back what they've raided to pay for their wars and corporate welfare. What do we want to bet they'll pay it back when it's on track to be handed over to Wall Street? How can anyone support this when they see what happened to the (still unreformed) financial markets in 2008?

I've struggled all my life paying into this system while the rich lived well off the tax cuts my payroll taxes funded and now they're going to steal it when I can no longer work for a living and all my savings were wiped out trying to survive this recession.

[sabrina 1]

80. The sad thing is that it might be Democrats in the end, who

get the job and who succeed where Republicans failed.

I know what you mean. It is up to the people to fight this, but with so many on 'our side' willing to blind themselves if the party pushing these abhorrent policies are Democrats, it makes the fight difficult. Which is exactly why I think this administration will do it knowing how easy it will be to get so-called progressives on board. When 'a win for the team' is more important than a 'win for the American people', there isn't much hope.

If the Republicans were smart, they would grab this issue and address it honestly. They never opposed the HIR bill, people weren't paying attention. They opposed Democrats doing it and simply used rhetoric like 'socialism' etc. hoping they could delay Mandate Insurance until they were in power. But no elected Republican ever publicly condemned the real problems with that bill. So, we are left with the hope that Democrats will not go along with this, and at this point, it seems like a forlorn hope.

[QC]

13. Only Nixon could go to China...

Only a Democrat can kill Social Security, bust the unions, privatize the public schools, etc.

[unhappycamper]

19. Too bad the mutherfucker did not stay.

:(

[QC]

20. So terribly true.

In many ways we are living today with the fruit of Nixon's crimes.

[ooglymoogly]

92. Compound 100 fold by dearest leader Ronny, who, not only destroyed the economy for decades to come,

but also sprayed poisonous Paraquat on marijuana fields and said, sanctimoniously with his homophobe cheerleader Ed M. who still lives in a closet: Let them all die. Some things are always consistent with Pugs and Dino's....flagrant hypocrisy, mendacity, shallowness, unbridled greed and as the pug fat lady would sing, me, me, me.

[QC]

108. That was such a horrible bunch. I never understood the whole worship thing.

They just seemed cheap and phony and corrupt to me.

[ooglymoogly]

110. You understood reality...they were.

If you have ever lived in Hollywood or Beverly hills as I have you will know it is the phoniest place on earth.

[upi402]

45. Only Clinton could pas NAFTA

If Bush the 1st had tried to float NAFTA it probably would've flopped.

[Romulox]

56. Only Obama could break the UAW while funneling TRILLIONS to foreign banks! nt

[sabrina 1]

14. Why would someone unrec' this very important information?

'Mandated Private Savings Accounts' to be 'invested in the stock market'. This is the goal. If Bush could have swung it when he tried, they might have been able to pour all that money into the market, to hide their corruption, at least for a while.

If Democrats go along with this ... I just can't believe they would even consider it.

The Cato Institute has been pushing this 'privatization' for years. The far right and Wall St. never liked the idea of Social Security funds just lying there, in their view, when they could be 'invested' in their large gambling casino.

I think it would destroy the Democratic Party if they were to go along with this.

[eridani]

18. You have to ask? n/t

[sabrina 1]

22. Well, yes, I ask because this issue

has long been an issue for the right and any hint that a Democratic Administration might be even considering pursuing Rightwing policies on an issue as important as this, should be of great concern to any real Democrat. I wonder why someone would fear shining a light on what our government is doing, unless they support these Republican ideas. Which would seem odd on a Democratic board. Of course they might be signed up just for that purpose, and not democrats at all, so that's a possiblility.

[Ignis]

24. Google the phrase "leave britney alone."

That should help explain the unrecs. :hi:

[sabrina 1]

27. Okay, I'll do that ~

[Stinky The Clown]

43. +1

[laughingliberal]

61. "I think it would destroy the Democratic Party if they were to go along with this."

Oh, I think we'll hear from the party loyalists about what a great 'win' this is when it all comes down.

[inna]

21. Must Read. KR

[w4rma]

23. Follows Obama's pattern: privatize schools, kill the public option, give Social Security to Wall

Street. Stop him from doing this now, before he gets momentum.

[blindpig]

25. The only way I see that happening

is burning tires in the streets. Nothing else will get their attention.

[sabrina 1]

26. I am just worried that it may be done already.

At least the groundwork, just like the HCR bill. And all that is left is the same game of pretense by Democrats that they are 'fighting' it.

[amborin]

32. yep, get ready for more Kabuki theater

[laughingliberal]

62. Yes, get ready for more months of pro wrestling. nt

[liberation]

99. It is done, search for Zeke Emmanuel's words regarding the DLC's expectations for HCR & SS reform

then weep once the kabuki theater starts to pick up just like it did during the HCR.

It is not just that they do what they do, it is the fact they know they have us by the balls and can openly tell us how they are going to screw us before they even get started.

[notadmblnd]

29. Some one show me just one example where privitization actually saved money?

[Hannah Bell]

30. there is none. but plenty where privatization cost more, returned less, or bankrupted the program/

business.

[ibegurpard]

39. saved money for who?

[notadmblnd]

40. for the government

[izzybeans]

31. So when Bowles ran for Senate in 2004 he lied about opposing Privatization?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Erskine_Bowles_Social_Security.htm

here were his positions on other issues that year: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Erskine_Bowles_SenateMatch.htm

I'm against privatization, but I couldn't find any links supporting the claims about Bowles in this article. (the first name I've checked up on). I'm not doubting them, but I prefer to trust my own judgment these days.

[sabrina 1]

36. Doesn't seem to matter what they opposed when

running for office. Obama opposed mandates and was for a PO. Over 70 Democrats publicly stated they would not vote for a bill that had no PO, but in the end, all of them, except Massa who was run out of town, did. So, the only value to what they say when campaigning is to confirm for our own sanity, that we didn't imagine it.

[izzybeans]

38. I prefer to confirm my suspicions before running wild with them.

I suspect that someone isn't being honest here, its either this guy or the author at the link. This is not settled enough for me.

[sabrina 1]

41. Well, that's always advisable. However,

we do have the experience of the HIR Bill to think about when giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I am leaning towards any politician changing their minds according to what will benefit Corporate America. I guess the past year has made a lot of people aware of just how little the will of the people matters. They don't even bother to explain to us why they flip flopped anymore, that's how little they worry about our opinions. They can count on being rewarded with campaign financing and all that goes with it to help get themselves re-elected, and if that doesn't work, the revolving door is always there for them to move into the corporate world themselves.

[Lasher]

49. We have more to go on than the experience of the HIR bill.

During the Democratic primary campaign Obama said there should be no new Blue Ribbon commission.

Must capture new revenue; no new Social Security Commission

OBAMA: We’re going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can’t get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system. I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to do that and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

CLINTON: With all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do.

OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, and also raised the payroll tax. So Sen. Clinton can’t have it both ways.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm

And yet Obama conspired with members of Congress to establish a commission whose recommendations would be fast tracked. Thankfully that scheme failed but then he went on to establish a commission by Executive Order. This was a distinct act of betrayal.

[sabrina 1]

77. Another major flip flop then.

And it was these positions that Obama took in the campaign that swayed many people away from Clinton. The opposition to mandates did it for me. But, it seems it was all calculated to win since there was so little difference between them, these issues tipped the scale in his favor. Sad. It will make many people very cynical about politics.

[laughingliberal]

64. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles

Alan Simpson: A Man Who Intensely Wants to Cut Social Security

By Dean Baker - February 17, 2010, 4:41AM
It is not good news that President Obama picked former Senator Alan Simpson as one of the co-chairs of his deficit commission. Simpson is not just your run of the mill Republican. He is an extreme foe of Social Security.

One anecdote from his days as a senator should give a flavor of his hatred for the program. Back then, the preferred method for cutting Social Security among the Washington elite was to claim that the consumer price index (CPI) overstated the true rate of inflation. This matters for Social Security because the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) is based on the CPI. If the CPI was overstating the true rate of inflation, the DC elite argued that we were overcompensating Social Security beneficiaries.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/17/alan_simpson_a_man_who_intensely_wants_to_cut_soci/

Both Simpson and Bowles are making their way back into the limelight, so it won’t be long before the media, which we know plays a good game of follow the newsmaker, will soon be covering what they say. Bloomberg began last week when it covered Bowles’s speech to the North Carolina Bankers Association’s annual Bank Directors Assembly. Like his sidekick Simpson, Bowles didn’t mince words, saying:

We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there. If we don’t make those choices, America is going to be a second-rate power, and I don’t mean in fifty years. I mean in my lifetime.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/social_securitys_code_words.php


I, frankly, don't have to read up to know Alan Simpson's views. I well remember his disdain for entitlements when he was in office. This is going to go just like HCR where people will keep denying this is really the direction the administration is heading until it is clear it is the direction. Then we'll move on to hearing how President Obama has no choice due to the configuration of the Senate. Then we'll hear how it's really the right thing to do. Forgive me if stealing the money I've paid in all my life is not ever going to be the right thing to do in my mind.

[izzybeans]

73. I asked about Bowles the other chair.

That just repeats what's above in the OP. Simpson for sure is a dangerous man. On that there is no question.

[Lasher]

81. It's well worth repeating.

It is abundantly clear that this commission embodies an initiative to cut social program benefits.

[ShortnFiery]

33. OMG! Where's the Pro-Administration Crowd?!? CRICKETS CHIRPING eom

[laughingliberal]

65. Waiting for talking points. nt

[liberation]

103. There is always a small void when the morning and evening shifts change

[branders seine]

34. Obama makes reagan look like a socialist.

[troubledamerican]

42. Is Obama a Cheney sleeper-cell?

[upi402]

44. kick

me in the brains

[Oilwellian]

48. This part was interesting

In January, pressure from a broad spectrum of activist groups killed an amendment by senators Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, and Judd Gregg, D-New Hampshire, to create a special bipartisan commission that would submit a broad deficit-reducing plan to Congress for an up or down vote by year-end. The commission's bipartisan makeup, its procedural restrictions in Congress, and the timing of its recommendations – arriving just after the midterm elections – were all designed to insulate the decision-makers from popular pressures that might take entitlement "reform" off the table. Moreover, because the 18-member commission (10 Democrats, eight Republicans) would require 14 votes for in order to report its recommendations, giving both parties veto power, cuts to Social Security and Medicare were widely assumed to be a necessary component of any consensus. In order for the commission to accomplish anything, Democrats would have to concede such cuts to Republicans in return for tax increases.

After the defeat of the Conrad-Gregg commission, groups defending Social Security had little time to rejoice before Obama resuscitated the plan, creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform by executive order. While the Commission's proposals will not be limited to an up or down vote in Congress, it's otherwise exactly as Conrad-Gregg envisioned, and Pelosi and Reid have promised to put them to a vote before the end of the current session of Congress.

At least it won't sail through with an up or down vote. This will be the death knell for the Democratic party if they privatize SS. And it certainly isn't a freaking "entitlement." Rat bastards.

[Lasher]

50. They'll try to bring it up for a vote after the November elections.

and before the new Congress convenes in January. Vichy Democrats.

[laughingliberal]

71. Oh, I was raising heck about that at the time

How much more evidence do we need of the intent than the fact that Conrad and Gregg were pushing for this? And what does it say to us that the Reagan on steroids, Judd Gregg, was President Obama's first choice for Secretary of Commerce?

Thank goodness, the 'up or down' vote scheme was defeated in the Senate. But I'm sure we'll see the same months long kabuki theater farce we did with HCR before they capitulate and then start selling us on how historic it is.

[Melusine]

51. +1

So I guess this is what's meant by "post-partisan politics."

:grr:

[laughingliberal]

66. Yes. Post partisan seems to mean Democrats adopt the Republican policies we once opposed. nt

[salguine]

52. Jesus Christ. Has Obama yet found a henhouse he couldn't pack full of foxes? What the fuck?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Karmadillo]

57. We need a primary challenge in 2012.

nt

[cali]

70. bwahahahaha.

yes, that will solve everything. A primary challenger who will lose massively. brilliant, honey.

[Jakes Progress]

74. So let's give the bullies what they want

and maybe they will not hurt us any more.

Yeah. You're right bending over is easier than standing up.

[Karmadillo]

87. Per cali, passivity is the preferred path. Always a fount of wisdom, that one.

nt

[cali]

91. some of us live in the real world. some of you live in delusionalville.

[Karmadillo]

93. Real World? You're Puck, right?

nt

[liberation]

104. The fact I just got that reference makes me feel old...

thanks for the LOLz though ;-)

I find it funny the Obama fan club considers it "impractical" and non "realistic" when people expect the campaign promises they were crooning about to carry after the election. Me thinks their doublethink is so strong that they haven't stopped to think they are justifying lies as expected MO at a very basic level.

[cali]

105. huh? Is that some bizarre Midsummer's Night Dream reference?

[ClarkUSA]

63. Gee, another anti-Obama Administration story full of "guilty until proven innocent" speculation.

Barack Obama just passed landmark HCR which past presidents crashed and burned trying to accomplish and is having the best first year in history.

Get over it.

[laughingliberal]

67. We have no doubt 'get over it' will be the same message once they accomplish the gutting of SS.

This is the same message we heard when we saw the signs the public option was being deep sixed. Months of denying that was what was happening. Then months of defending it as the right thing. Next up: those who don't want SS privatized think they can have a pony.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

76. Yes, a "landmark" sale of us peasants to mass murdering insurance companies n/t

[sabrina 1]

85. Correction, he passed HIR legislation, which he said

as a candidate he would not pass. As did many Democrats who caved to Corporate America in the end, giving them what they have dreamed of for so long.

Let's not pretend that this bill was anything but a bail-out for a corrupt and failing industry.

How will you characterize the Privatization of SS when it comes up? And can you explain this bi-partisan commission. Do you support the privatization of SS? Investing those funds in the Stock Market and mandating private savings accounts?

[laughingliberal]

68. Damn it all

If I wanted my SS deduction squandered away in a crap shoot casino, I'd prefer they let me do it myself. At least I could get a room and a couple of meals comped while I lost the money.

[yurbud]

78. here's a thought, cut the cap, apply the tax to all kinds of income, and lower the rate

that would be guaranteed vote getter, but would hurt the campaign contributions from banks.

[eridani]

82. Yes, that would work

So let's bombard the White House and Congress with that message.

[yurbud]

83. it would need to get the attention of some of th activist groups

Progressive Democrats of America
Firedoglake

etc.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

79. and the beat goes on..........

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

111. ....

[defendandprotect]

84. One step forward, two steps backwards . . .!!!

[ClarkUSA]

86. Meanwhile, "Obama Signs Largest Reform Of Student Aid In 40 Years" By Stiffing Corporate America

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=254020&mesg_id=254020

I just thought I'd offer some facts to offset the purely speculative "guilty before proven innocent" OP.

President Obama just stood up to Corporate America and kept a campaign promise 40 years in the making that past presidents couldn't even begin to manage, much less accomplish. I'll bet the banking industry loved the CHANGE that took place today, eh? :eyes:

Two-term presidents in my lifetime have done much less.

Barack Obama sure is having the best first year of any president in history. And he's just getting started... much to the dismay of 24/7 Obama critics.

[eridani]

88. Student loan reform = good

Privatizing Social Security = bad.

[Jakes Progress]

90. That was a good thing.

Packing the boards to reduce Social Security is a bad thing.

I celebrate and support when the administration does something good. When they side with the neocons to privatize schools and social security, they need to be called on it. THe HCR is barely a wash. Nothing is in there that republicans wouldn't support if the same bill came from bush or reagan. It is hyperventilated puffery to call this bill standing up to corporate america. It is a huge windfall of tax-guaranteed profits for the health care corporations and a guarantee of no competition pricing for the pharmaceutical corporations.

This was not standing up to the corporate interests but bowing to them. All the puffed up chests and outlandish cries of "landmark" won't change the facts.

[liberation]

106. LOL.... using the Chewbacca defense already

and we are not even half way through Obama's first term yet.

[Raine]

98. and America goes down the same path no matter

whether the Democrats or Repukes are in charge, we're all screwed. x(

[alarimer]

101. It takes a Democrat to pass Republican policies.

It happened with NAFTA and welfare "reform" too, both largely Republican bills. As is this version of health care reform (despite Republican's efforts to deny it).

So tell me again what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats? Well I guess Republicans would just shove SS "reform" through Congress, while Democrats need a "commission" to tell them what to do.

[Odin2005]

113. We are being screwed. and the Obama fanboys will be cheering it all the way.

[DesertFlower]

114. clinton raised the tax on my social security disability

benefits. i was paying tax on 50%. he raised it to 85%. i was really pissed, but i got over it.

[ooglymoogly]

116. He is riding the wave of fake capitol

for the insurance looting ride on his wealthcare success.

[midnight]

117. This is the big f***ing deal they were after..... Social Security

[Nikki Stone1]

118. Anyone remember this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x450389