So are Social Security and Medicare going to be gutted? Did Obama

[ProSense]

CAVE?

[Lil Missy]

1. No, they were not gutted.

[gateley]

4. I don't even think they were touched, were they? (I'm still scrambling

for details.)

[Lil Missy]

26. Far as I know - cuts to Medicare PROVIDERS, and lower rate of COLA for SS

Suggesting Medicare and SS have been gutted is hyperbole in the extreme, or an outright lie.

[lbrtbell]

34. Lower rate of COLA = SS cut

If that's indeed what's going to happen, then our elders HAVE been sold out. It's bad enough Medicare providers will be paid less, meaning fewer doctors will accept it (and, by extension, seniors will have fewer doctors to choose from).

Fuck ANYONE who supports this!

[Lil Missy]

36. No, not a cut. A lower yearly rate of INCREASE to SS.

For example, COLA might be 1.2% instead of 1.4% For my SS, which is higher than average, that means $2.

Certainly not worth all this hysteria.

[Telly Savalas]

40. Paying less than what was going to be paid otherwise represents a cut

Anyway, I thought I'd read that SS was supposed to be untouched.

Just because the hyperbolic bullshit we've been flooded with for the last month didn't come to pass doesn't mean this is a good deal.

Austerity measures during a recession is moronic.

To the degree that nothing is being done on the revenue side, this isn't the "balanced approach" that Obama had been advocating for.

A clean debt ceiling increase was the goal here, and it doesn't look like we're going to get it.

[RC]

42. How can we have less than zero?

No COLA's for the last two years.

[Lil Missy]

46. It's not retroactive. n/t

[sad sally]

53. Guess you're one of the lucky who will see no increase in medicare?

[NorthCarolina]

31. They'll let the super committee do it using the automatic trigger. Congress members will conviently

escape negative public exposure by never having to cast a public vote against Medicare and Social Security. Completely and utterly cowardly, but at the same time devilishly clever.

[CakeGrrl]

2. No, he sure did not.

Perhaps the "Satan Sandwich" is not quite as satanic as initial reaction would have us believe.

[dbonds]

5. Sugar coated satan sandwich.

[CakeGrrl]

10. Well maybe there's more sugar on that sammie than originally thought.

;-)

[femmocrat]

3. Well .... time will tell.

:shrug:

Depends on how tough the dems in congress can be. Not holding my breath for that.

[Logical]

6. No, and I guarantee the left being pissed about the possibility in the last week helped prevent it!!

[treestar]

7. The New Deal is Dead!!

That is the hysteria on GD!!!!!

:rofl:

[gateley]

8. Wouldn't it be nice to have a nickel for everyone who was totally

convinced that he WOULD throw SS/Med/Med out the window?

[AmericaIsGreat]

9. Medicare could face cuts if the committee can't come up with 1.2 in cuts

By whatever date; I don't remember.

SS and Medicaid and veteran benefit services are exempt from these cuts so they will not be affected at all.

[femmocrat]

12. Thanksgiving?

Is that right?

[Big Blue Marble]

13. Remember they are only protected from the

cuts spawned from the automatic trigger. The Super Congress can offer what ever cuts they want.
And Obama said tonight that everything was on the table. So do not relax, yet.
This is only the beginning of the big squeeze.

[AmericaIsGreat]

18. Good point

And don't worry, I'm certainly not relaxed. This deal is bullshit, in my opinion.

[LiberalFighter]

27. WH Fact Statement

Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.


The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.

[Big Blue Marble]

11. Let us see.

I heard the President say that now everything is on the table in the coming months. Everything does mean everything.

And if no deal is struck, the medicare is cut. Either way the hair cuts continue for our precious social safety net.

[CelticThunder]

14. Has he ever caved before?

[Unvanguard]

15. Obama says everything is on the table. I believe him.

Do you?

[Tx4obama]

16. Obama did NOT cave

No slashes to Medicare, did not touch SS, and Medicaid is still intact!

The Bush tax cuts are being left untouched, meaning they WILL expire December 31, 2012!

And there is NO Balanced Budget Amendment stipulation in the new agreement :)

[earthside]

17. In a word? Yes. n/t

[Kolesar]

19. $150 billion in cuts/year is about equal to the "war operations" in Iraq and Afghanistan

Cut those and beginning to downsize the fighting forces.
The US added tens of thousands of Marines and Army personnel during the Iraq War.

[JoePhilly]

21. That's actually most of the cuts that Obama agreed to.

The draw downs in both Iraq and Afghanistan are supposed to be a big part of it. That's part of why the GOP is so angry. They don't count these as real cuts.

[Kolesar]

24. Good catch...eom

[Unvanguard]

28. Maybe a part of the $350 billion reduction from defense.

Which is only a part--less than "most"--of the $900 billion in cuts to discretionary spending that we get off the bat. And that's not even considering the $1.5 trillion second-stage debt reduction, which I don't think includes existing plans for drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[JoePhilly]

20. Sorry, the goal posts are already in motion.

No one on DU ever said those would be gutted or slashed. No one said they would be dismantled.

No one said that Obama was "hell-bent" on ending these programs.

The new outrage is that today Obama agreed to the same cuts that he'd already announced as part of the troop draw downs.

The Tea party and parts of the left have found agreement, there should have been no deal to raise the debt ceiling.

We should have defaulted.

[rug]

22. Did Cro-Magnons paint mammoths?

You should be writing Geico commercials.

[Bonobo]

23. Sucking billions out of the economy with no increased revenue from the wealthiest?

Yes, he caved.

[LiberalFighter]

25. From the WH Fact Sheet it doesn't look like they are touched.

On the Medicare side it is touched on the provider side.

[Unvanguard]

30. That's not what the WH Fact Sheet says. This is a very important and very common misunderstanding.

The WH Fact Sheet says that Medicaid and Social Security are protected from the enforcement mechanism, and Medicare is only affected on the provider side. That means, if the committee doesn't reach an agreement, or Congress doesn't pass it, the across-the-board cuts that ensue won't affect Medicaid, Social Security, or the benefits side of Medicare.

But the committee is still free to recommend cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's what the reference to "entitlement reform," and both parties putting their priorities on the table, is about.

[ProSense]

35. Wrong

"But the committee is still free to recommend cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's what the reference to "entitlement reform," and both parties putting their priorities on the table, is about."

It's not free to recommend cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits.

[Unvanguard]

38. Yes, it is. Find me a contrary source.

One that can, you know, contradict the express statement of the WH Fact Sheet:

"To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform."

Meanwhile, there is no mention of the limitation you suggest, which one would expect the Administration to tout as a major policy victory.

[ProSense]

41. Maybe

"To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform."

...read the whole thing instead of cherry picking. Where does that say cutting benefits?

Mechanics of the Debt Deal

Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.

President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.

Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

<...>

3. ESTABLISHING A BIPARTISAN PROCESS TO ACHIEVE $1.5 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION BY THE END OF 2011

The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.

This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.

To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.

4. A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER

The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.

Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.

<...>

[Unvanguard]

43. As I explained in the post you replied to, those are different things.

The parts you bold concern the enforcement mechanism if the committee's recommendations are not passed into law. I'm talking about the scope of the committee's authority. "Entitlement reform" that involves decreasing the deficit means spending less on "entitlement" programs; one obvious and straightforward way to do so is to cut benefits. You can bet it won't involve removing the payroll tax cap for Social Security; no tax increases is what Boehner has promised his caucus, and I think he'll deliver.

Again: do you have any source--any source at all--supporting your statement that, contrary to the implication of the WH Fact Sheet, reductions in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits are off the table?

[ProSense]

44. No,

that's your spin. The facts speak for themselves.

[Unvanguard]

45. Again, do you have a source to back up your claims?

Find me one that says that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits are off the table for the congressional committee. Surely, if it's true, the Obama Administration and its liberal defenders will be shouting it loud and clear, right?

[ProSense]

47. Sure

the one you're ignoring.

[Unvanguard]

48. Again, if you understand the mechanics of the proposal, the fact sheet doesn't say what you say.

So, in other words, you have nothing.

There is going to be a lot of surprise on DU when the final details of this begin to emerge: a lot of people who will feel betrayed, a lot of people who will think Obama and his supporters misled them, a lot of people who will remember being told that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid were protected, but will find out that it isn't so. Better, I think, to make the details of this clear now, rather than later.

[Zenlitened]

50. I would be thrilled to see a link to that, too:

Find me one that says that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits are off the table for the congressional committee.

[Zenlitened]

51. Now would be a good time to admit that you are incorrect, based on...

...the WH fact sheet itself.

[lonestarlib]

29. Yes, he has to wait till Thanksgiving to gut the Big 3.

[BklnDem75]

32. I'm sure someone will look for the tiniest thing...

and call THAT a cave.

Oh! Too late. It's already started.

[earthside]

33. "Tiniest thing"???

"In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act."

Those are the words of Pres. Obama ... and that is not 'tiny'.

It is huge.

[BklnDem75]

39. He's always said that

Pretending to be more outraged over words just doesn't have the same effect as actions does to me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. "The Big Three" unscathed, and yet the Obama Derangement Syndrome here at DU

and Krugman hysterics are in FULL effect!!

[applegrove]

49. There is something to be said for reforming SS and Medicare while Obama is in power. So we can

put in means tests and in other ways get the rich to pay more. Because if not then the GOP will have a supermajority in the next 30 years and they will privatize and destroy them both.

[boxman15]

52. Agreed.

Reform doesn't mean slash or gut. It could mean means tests. In fact, I'd be shocked if there's anything much more than that.

[flamingdem]

55. I dislike hearing him mention Medicare, but you've got a point, better under him nt

[flamingdem]

54. I think he worked his tail off to execute a deal with ridiculous extremists

whose stated goal is to destroy him, and if necessary destroy the US economy.

So all in all I guess it was a good deal!