So, Obama put $650 Billion of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade on the table

[ThomWV]

Off the table? Apparently not. He tells us he has already offered to sell us out on Social Security to the tune of two-thirds of a trillion dollars, and half of this place is up applauding his brave stance. I find it difficult to understand how this is a win in any way for Democrats.

Flame suite buttoned up, go ahead.

[KittyWampus]

1. It's called "bluffing".

[G_j]

6. and if that bluff was called????

:shrug:

[KittyWampus]

18. I'm sorry? You mean if the Republicans actually agreed to trillions in tax increases?

[robinlynne]

32. no, 1 trillion in taxes, 3 trillions in CUTS. that was the deal on the table.

[KittyWampus]

36. And of course the Republicans didn't take the tax increases.

[robinlynne]

50. thank goodness.

[Sheepshank]

155. No chance GOP would have accepted the deal. GOP pattern is to refuse everything, everytime

It actually is a dumb strategy, because now it's known, it can and has been used.

[Jakes Progress]

170. So you are saying that republicans save SS? Wow.

[bahrbearian]

209. That will be their new campaign slogan, 'Obama wants to kill Grandma' and it will stick.

[Jakes Progress]

216. Only because this admin is so inept.

[sendero]

233. Trillions

of tax increases were never on the table, period.

[Motown_Johnny]

143. veto

[jwirr]

185. He kept the stakes high enough that he was reasonably sure they

would not.

[TrollBuster9090]

222. There was practically zero chance they'd accept the deal, given that 95% of the Republicans

given that 95% of the Republicans in Congress signed a sacred oath, in front of witnesses, to a fat hairly little toad named Norquist. Promising to oppose all attempts to either raise tax rates OR close tax loopholes.

The Pledge is here, along with all the Congressmen who've signed it:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/070711-federalpledgesigners.pdf

It's pretty hard to break a pledge that you've put your SIGNATURE on. This means that if you offer them any deal, up to and including the dismantling of the Great Society and the New Deal, which they've been after for most of the century, they'll reject it if it contains even ONE DOLLAR of revenue enhancements.


So, here are the three themes that are successfully being built:

1. It's critical for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to be seen as the party that both CREATED and continues to DEFEND Medicare and Social Security. This they did when Pelosi and (later) Reid crashed the Obama/Boehner negotiations and said "NOT SO FAST...we're going to block any attempts to cut Medicare and Social Security."

2. It's critical for the President to be seen to put COUNTRY before PARTY, and to be seen as a "centrist" who "mediates" between both "sides" in order to get votes from independents, swing voters and even a few moderate Republicans. (Yeah, the current beltway media "center" is not the real center of political sentiment, it's only perceived to be. Nevertheless, we still have to deal with that perception. And yes, Obama loses progressive votes by doing this, but is probably gambling on gaining more votes on the center- right than he loses on the left.) So, by OFFERING to do something that the Democratic party opposes, Obama is SEEN to be putting country before party, and practicality before ideology. The critical question is: did he really think they'd TAKE the deal? I don't think he did, for the reason I mentioned above.

3. It's important for the Republicans to be painted as inflexible, recalcitrant ideologues who put PARTY before COUNTRY, and ideology before reality; and who are willing to crash the economy again in order to be faithful to their extremist ideals. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans want the debt to be reduced through a combination of spending cuts AND tax increases. That 's exactly what Obama offered them and they refused. He offered them 3 dollars in spending cuts for every 1 dollar in revenue enhancements, and even then only from the very rich, and they refused. He put two sacred Democratic Party cows on the table and they STILL refused. They'd rather destroy the country's economy than raise taxes on the rich by even one dollar. You've heard of POISON PILL LEGISLATION? It's a trick that was invented by the Republicans, and I'm amazed to see the Democrats are finally using it against them. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

In the end, the debt ceiling will be raised in a clean bill like it has 19 times before. The only difference will be that THIS time the Democrats will have accomplished these three goals at the same time. Maybe they're finally learning how to play politics.

[EFerrari]

7. You're not supposed to bluff with other people's money. n/t

[robinlynne]

15. with our lives, not just our money.

[KittyWampus]

19. Stop reading DU if you can't handle politics.

[EFerrari]

20. Skinner, is that you?

[robinlynne]

29. our health care and pensions? Maybe you dont need yours, but the majority of us

depednd on both.

[KittyWampus]

42. Then you should be thankful you have Obama for President instead of reflexively trashing him.

[robinlynne]

45. reflectively? bullshit.

[Cherchez la Femme]

101. Oh, there's something reflexive here

and it's not coming from you

[Lorien]

132. I think it involves products from a certain adult toy store

that we often see advertised here...

[robinlynne]

48. I ahve the right to be angry with Obama. I worked to get him elected. I worked hard.

[emulatorloo]

57. Then please note that the REPUBLICANS are the sole reason this is happening.

Remember that we had that 2010 election where all those "True Believer" Tea baggers got into the House.

Raising the debt ceiling has never been a big deal before. Those crazies control what comes out of the House, they created this mess.

[robinlynne]

68. Then the appropriate response does NOT involve proposing a deal with social security, correct?

[emulatorloo]

91. Remember 1. Republicans dont want to cut it, they want to destroy it.

2. Obama put ss on the table to get Republicans to put tax hikes on the table.

Probably knowing full well that the Republicans were incapable of budging on taxes.

3. There is no deal, it is not happening.

[Lorien]

133. Obama never had to give them a damn thing

he could exercise his 14th amendment rights and be done with it-but that's not what HE wants.

[Divine Discontent]

205. spot on Lorien. He should do as Clinton said if the GOP wants to try and tie our paid for programs

to the debt limit increase debate. It is disgusting to see SS attached to this mess caused by Tax Cut deals and military spending!

[robinlynne]

232. EXACTLY. Thank-you.

[jumptheshadow]

146. Social Security should never be on the table, period

Ever.

It's a horrible betrayal of the American people and it makes the President look spineless.

What a terrible strategy. Who is giving this man advice?

[robinlynne]

231. like there was no deal with the tax cuts/ and no deal with the public option?

he deals. that is what he does. he does deals with the republicans.

they just let all the torturers go around a week ago. holder dismissed the lawsuits.

one more deal.
elizabeth warren? another.

[defendandprotect]

125. Republicans made Obama offer cuts in Medicare and Social Security ... ?

[pscot]

192. The Devil made him do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ

[kelly1mm]

195. While I agree that the debt ceiling debate has never been as bad but didn't the President vote

against a debt limit increase when he was a Senator? I believe he said it was a sign of failed leadership or something to that effect.

[StarsInHerHair]

90. thankful? money market account were pilfered! Obama's protecting the Banksters!

:crazy:

[defendandprotect]

126. 1000% ---

[TrollBuster9090]

223. If you think Obama is protecting the Banksters, go to OpenSecrets(dot)org and see what the Banksters

and the Wall Street hedge fund managers have done with their money since Dodd-Frank was passed, since the Credit Card holders bill of rights was passed, and since the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created.

For example, here are the Goldman Sachs donations before and after:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?cycle=2010&id=D000000085

Before Dodd-Frank:
2008: 80% donations to Democrats, 20% to Republicans.

After the Dodd-Frank and the Carl Levin "Shitty Deal" report:
2010: 33% donations to Democrats, 67% to Republicans.

2012 fundraising so far: 20% to Democrats, 80% to Republicans.

You may think Obama and the Democrats are on the Bankster side, but the Banksters don't seem to agree.

[defendandprotect]

123. Only elites have reason to be "thankful" -- or "grateful" to Obama ... as Rahm made clear!!

[Lorien]

131. No one is "reflexively trashing" Obama; it's called criticism. Try handling it

he's given us a LOT to criticize-and HE HIMSELF asked that we hold his feet to the fire. Who are you to say that we shouldn't?

[lark]

142. Something missing

like a sarcasm tag? Either that or you are not aware that one of Obama's top priorities has always been cutting SSI to give all the money to the rich. He's gone to the well again and again. He put this on the table, just like he appointed mostly SSI foes to the catfood commission. Pretending it's a bluff may make you feel better short term, but what are you going to do when Obama stabs the working class in the back again, just like he did with keeping the artificially low tax rates on the rich intact.

Smell the coffee, the odor is quite strong.

[INdemo]

229. Problem is Obama is a Republican

[defendandprotect]

122. "Politics" effects people's lives every minute of their lives ... many Americans suffering ...

[toppertwot]

156. THIS IS BEYOND POLITICS

Mr Obama is a flim flam man, a cheat and a liar! This lifetime yeller dog Democrat will not vote for him again. Obama needs a primary!

[TrollBuster9090]

224. So, Mr. Yellow Dog, you'd like a repeat of Carter/Reagan 1980 would you?

Teddy Kennedy primaried Jimmy Carter for being too conservative. He failed, but Carter was sufficiently weakened to get Reagan elected, and we've been suffering under Reaganomics and a gang of activist conservative Supreme Court justices ever since.

[Jakes Progress]

171. Stop posting on DU if you can't face reality.

Making stuff up and calling people names for not going along is just wrong.

Obama offered up SS. You can try to defend this in many ways. You could agree with him. You could always us the old excuse that he is a powerless wimp under the thumb of the big bad republicans.

But you can't say he didn't do it. He said he did it. Why do you think the president is lying to you?

[EFerrari]

30. I know. My mom plays medication roulette every month.

This isn't a casino.

[Irishonly]

203. A lot of people do

It's just wrong. More and more disabled and elderly have to choose between food and medication. The cost of food keeps going up as well as copays. I am sorry for your mom. We aren't there yet but I know many are.

[defendandprotect]

124. Who is Obama "bluffing" ---? Looks more like it's the American public ... !!

[Frisbee]

164. Even if this is just a bluff...

The mere fact that a DEMOCRATIC President put this on the table makes it more likely that there will be cuts at some point, either now or down the road. It used to be just a republican wet-dream, but now it has the endorsement of a Democratic president as well. So even if the final package ends up not touching one dime of the "Big Three", Obama has still put them at greater risk.

And by the way, are there ANY of his campaign promises we can really trust at this point. Bush stole his way into the White House and Obama lied his way in.

[DJ13]

8. Its only a bluff if the other side doesnt call the bet by accepting

[KittyWampus]

You think the republicans would accept trillions in tax increases?

[DJ13]

46. From what I understand, Obama was wanting to close loopholes in this deal

It seems he was willing to deal with actual tax increases at a later date.

That kind of deal might have been acceptable, if they felt enough pressure from their wealthy donors.

[TrollBuster9090]

225. The plutocrats are trapped between a rock and a hard place on this one.

On the one hand, they don't want their taxes raised. But on the other hand, most of them are in the bond market and the stock market, both of which would suffer if there's either a credit rating downgrade or a default on the National Debt. That's why the Chamber of Commerce is pressuring the Republicans to just stop horsing around and raise the debt ceiling on a clean bill, and the CEOs of 400 of the fortune 500 club companies sent them a letter saying the same thing.

The ADULT Republicans in the House are listening, but the loonie tea party peanut gallery isn't. In the end, Boehner will have no choice but to make a deal with Nancy Pelosi to pass a clean debt ceiling increase with all the Democrats and moderate (realistic) Republicans voting for it, and all the loonie tea party freshmen voting against it.

This is going to split the Republican party like it's never been split before. Typically, the Republicans have been hammering away, splitting the Democrats with gun control, gay marriage and flag burning for generations. It looks like the Democrats are about to haul out the biggest wedge Washington has ever seen.

[EFerrari]

54. There is zero evidence trillions in tax increases were on the table. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

196. If I understood correctly

there were "revenue enhancements"...but not tax increases. Loopholes being closed, etc. But no tax increases.

We are being sold down the river by brand D. Time to find a primary opponent.

[TrollBuster9090]

227. So, you missed what BOTH Boehner and Obama said yesterday about the talks breaking down because

Obama "moved the goal post" from the 800 billion in revenue enhancements they'd agreed to to 1.2 trillion in revenue enhancements that they couldn't agree to?

[libmom74]

175. If Obama agrees to do it at "some point

in the future" or some other such BS, yes I do think they will in order to fatally wound and kill social programs that they hate. This whole "Grand Proposal" makes Obama look bad, in fact when you go to YouTube and look at his campaign videos where he talks about Social Security it makes him look like a liar.

[slipslidingaway]

12. So he was not being honest with the people in this press conference, just bluffing. n/t

[tokenlib]

13. Those of us who will or may need those programs are not amused..

Because the bluff only works if you are taken seriously. And what if Obama is serious???

[KittyWampus]

21. Political fights aren't for your "amusement". And if you have a problem, blame the Republicans.

[October]

38. +1

[tokenlib]

49. Blame the republicans for Obama playing by their rules and with their language??

Obama should never put the social safety net on the table..period! People have a right to be concerned..

[chill_wind]

61. And on their turf. Negotiating from the right of center

and moving further right from there.

[emulatorloo]

BLAME the Republicans because this ENTIRE MESS is because of them. especially the teabaggers in the

House.

We would not be having this conversation except for them -- They are ideologues who are threatening the country with economic Depression.

The debt ceiling has been raised time and time again with no fanfare.

[lark]

144. lots of blame to go around

True, Repugs should never have politicized the US paying for the debts they incurred by cutting taxes while 2 wars are ongoing. They are heartless MF'ers who only care about increasing the money to the upper class, themselves and their benefactors. HOWEVER, Obama deserves lots of blame too. He unilaterally put SSI & Medicare on the table, most of the 4 TRILLION in cuts came from tehre. This was in exchange for the Repugs maybe considering cutting a few tax loopholes, but oh yeah, they could also lower the rates for all rich people. So, Obama was getting a big maybe on revenues, but all the cuts were permanent and immediate. Obama is not one of us and does not support working people. We have a damn good eason to blame him and be very concerned. One can only hope tha the t-baggers will prevent this travesty, because Obama is giving Repugs everything they ever wanted and is doing zilch for workers. As always!!!

[bluethruandthru]

113. [phone]

How about some leadership for a change? How about the president NOT parroting the republican party line that social security is increasing the deficit??? How about the so-called democratic president shouting from the rooftops that he refuses to let the republicans get away with lying to the public about social security? Why not tell Americans with their short memories and attention spans that we had a budget surplus until the REPUBLICAN president spent it away on giveaways to millionaires and on illegal wars?

[Muskypundit]

220. and their language... yea.

Im surprised I havnt heard him call the rich "Job creators" Yet. Thats next week.

[eilen]

87. I'm sure the word "serious" was tossed around quite a bit

in regard to this "Grand Plan or Grand Deal --whatever the fuck it was since all we were told for sure was that it strengthened and modified SS, Medicare and Medicaid. and something about us being adults and eating peas..... But it was Serious.

[TrollBuster9090]

228. The fact that Obama and Boehner had agreed to 0.8 trillion in revenue enhancements, and then Obama

and then Obama "moved the goal post" to 1.2 trillion (Boehner's statement) causing Boehner to walk out suggests to me VERY STRONGLY that he was NOT serious. He just needed to find the sweet spot where the Republicans would refuse. They HAD a deal, so he had to raise the revenue enhancements until Boehner rejected it.

[rhett o rick]

16. So you say that Pres Obama putting SS and Medicare on the table is a bluff? nm

[KittyWampus]

24. Can't handle being wrong, can you?

[EFerrari]

37. You mean, the Washington Post isn't making this up?

:wow:

[rhett o rick]

83. What the hell does that have to do with my question? What was I wrong about? nm

[Divernan]

153. It has nothing to do w/ your question.It was just next on her list 4 today's snarky replies.

Have you noticed Kitty's incessant and undocumented references to $3 trillion tax cuts? Even after others have pointed out the correct number? And she is mentally incapable of comprehending or acknowledging the difference between immediate, specific, concrete tax cuts and some vague, unidentified tax cuts which will be determined at some unspecified future date. For Kitty, Job One is staying on message - regardless of how inane and illogical the message, or how puerile her pathetic insults.

[CreekDog]

70. that's the best you can say? that he offered it up, mentioned it today...

yet does not mean it?

this is the most charitable way you can put it?

and i'll bet you consider yourself a supporter. :eyes:

[bvar22]

137. When the BEST defense of Obama is that "he is lying",

you KNOW we're in trouble.

[CreekDog]

174. no shit!

:wtf:

[eilen]

85. So... has he pulled it back

and put the genie back in the bottle?

[rhett o rick]

86. I am guessing you never have played poker, right? If he is bluffing, that means he

is hoping they will fold and settle for less. He put $850 billion of SS, Medicare and Medicaid on the table. All Boner has to do is call.

[Blue_In_AK]

89. This isn't a game. n/t

[RobinA]

108. Of Course

it's a game. Just because the consequences aren't serious doesn't mean that, at heart, it isn't a game.

[Marr]

100. That still makes as little sense as it did when O'Donnell first tossed it out there.

I'm really amazed that you're still pushing that line, to be honest.

It's pretty clear that Obama was frustrated because he put his prized deal on the table (which was selling us all out) and the idiot Republicans were too stupid to accept it. This was supposed to be his big moment, and the morons messed it up. But there's always next week.

Really-- if this were a bluff, then why would he be so hopeful about still working out a deal? He can't retract the proffered items now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. Or, just plain lying?

[Faryn Balyncd]

115. The only bluff he made was in 2008, and stupid me fell for it.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

176. We all fell for it. Is it any wonder Obama has so much contempt

for progressives? He must really think we're fools for trusting him to not kick us in the teeth after we elected him.

[Poll_Blind]

120. Your insta-revisionist commentry grows tiresome.

PB

[defendandprotect]

121. dupe

[JDPriestly]

154. No. It's called lousy negotiation techniques.

If you were bitten by a dog, and your lawyer offered to pay the dog owner's vet bills without getting anything for you, you would find a new lawyer.

The GOP fought vanity wars and gave tax cuts to its donor base thereby running up debts. Obama has proposed to pay the debts the GOP ran up at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable in the country without getting any proposals from the GOP on ending their tax cuts and vanity wars.

If Obama can't do negotiate better than that, we need to find a new, more progressive president who will fight for us and demand a good proposal from the GOP before offering to pay their bills out of our pockets.

[julian09]

180. Can't negotiate with no no no

Obama has the hand that seniors delt him in last election by staying home or voting for the Gop. Gods waiting room, Florida is not too happy with their new Gov, as are Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan. The Gop want all concessions and cuts, no revenue increases, no loophole plugged. Like Obama said what can they say yes to. He couldn't get a yes with all he put on the table. You want to take everything off the table and expect a yes.

[juajen]

226. Don't blame this on seniors, please; or, at the minimum give me a link!

[JDPriestly]

237. I don't think that it was seniors who stayed home last Fall.

I think it was young people.

Youth Voter Turnout in 2008 Elections

Youth (18-29) voter turnout rose to 51 percent in 2008, an increase of two percentage points from the 2004 Presidential election. Our fact sheet regarding turnout in presidential elections can be downloaded here (PDF). It includes historical trends and a 50-state breakdown.

. . . .

2010 Midterm Elections

2010 Young Voter Turnout
An estimated 24% of all eligible young people ages 18-29 voted in the 2010 midterms. Younger voters chose Democratic House candidates over Republican House candidates by a margin of 57%-40%. This is by comparison to the national results for all ages that chose Republican House Candidates over Democrat House candidates with a 52%-45% margin.

http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/

So, there was quite a drop in voting among young voters in 2010.

[Jakes Progress]

169. You're incorrigible.

Even when the president tells you what he was doing, you call him a liar and make up excuses so that your house of dreams doesn't collapse.

[roomfullofmirrors]

194. No, it's called putting SS, medicare, and medicaid on the table.

[meow mix]

211. bwahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha rofl

funniest (and most foolish) post i ever seen on DU yet. congrats!

[liberation]

214. "bluffing" does not mean what you think it does

see, that's your problem right there.

[AlabamaLibrul]

238. bluffing would be threatening to take it into default, not adopting the Repuke position n/t

[KittyWampus]

2. Oh, it's also called hanging an albatross around your opponent's neck.

[defendandprotect]

129. Don't think you see it yet, but Obama has hung an "albatross" around his own neck ...

[liberation]

215. Whoah, again that term does not mean what you think it odes...

on a roll today, aren't we?

[EFerrari]

3. Welcome to Bizarro World. n/t

[Skidmore]

4. Do you play poker?

[choie]

5. It's not a win..

but the apologists continue to live in their dreamworld.

[robinlynne]

9. That is i ADDITIOn to the first trillion of cuts. And there is another trillion missing in

his explanation.

[NightWatcher]

10. I'm no advocate of the "chess argument", but Obama was ready to sell us out and the pukes still said

NO.

I dont think that they'd agree to anything. He lost based on this same technique during the healthcare talks, but I think that the pukes really want to default us and blame it on O.

I doubt this was chess, but maybe Obama finally got pissed because he was ready to sell us out and they still wouldnt take his deal.

[robinlynne]

22. Thank god they wouldn't take it!!!!!!!! but he is meeting again tomorrow morning.

without Boehner. he said any plan is worth tlaking about but the Progressive Caucus wrote up a damn good plan to fix our eceonomy. It has never been as much as considered by the WH.

[AllyCat]

27. Higher interest rates would actually help a large number of their REAL constituents

Banksters. I don't think they care if we default. And I think many WANT it to happen. But he would sell us out to do it. I don't think this is bluffing, poker, or anything else.

[KittyWampus]

31. It's obvious now that some DU'ers are totally wedded to their prejudice.

You've got your bias and refuse to accept any other possibilities.

LOL! Yeah, Obama can't strategize. He just got "pissed'.

Sorry, your post is absurd.

[lark]

147. It's also obvious some DU'ers

are really good at closing their eyes, ignoring the obvious, and hoping and praying their dream date won't stand them up, yet once more time. Sad.

[AllyCat]

11. I think it is more part of the triple decker chess game that convinces us in some

crazy way that he's fighting for us while we are sold up the river to the rich people again.

[defendandprotect]

130. +1 --

[fascisthunter]

14. heckava a job Obama!

:sarcasm:

[FLAprogressive]

17. I dunno, but according to the Confucii of the forum, we are supposed to apologize. So start

apologizing and eat your peas.

[tularetom]

23. I salute you for saying this so much better than I could

I'm glad he's pissed off but I don't see how this changes in any way the details of the offer he has already made to them.

Yeah, big fuckin deal. Giving away the farm wasn't enough? Does this mean the offer is gone and he's going to invoke the 14th amendment.

I don't see a whole lot to celebrate yet.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Boehner: "The Pres. is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs."

More on why he walked out on President Obama today:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1551796

[EFerrari]

34. You believe Boner over Obama?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1550589&mesg_id=1550589

[ClarkUSA]

56. Yes. What Obama has said backs up what Boehner said.

[EFerrari]

66. LOL. No, it doesn't in any way unless you believe 650 billion in cuts

is not substantial.

[emulatorloo]

75. See my post below.

[ClarkUSA]

76. So? The numbers were part of Pres. Obama's bluff and Boehner folded.

[rhett o rick]

93. Excuse, but I heard $850 billion in cuts. But why are you responding to "ignored"? nm

[emulatorloo]

74. Boehner wanted Ryan Plan on steroids. Basically destroy SS, Medicare

Obama would not give them that. Additionally Obama said the same thing - Boehner walked out over Raising Taxes and Entitlement programs.

You are a smart guy, I know that put two and two together.

I also know that you will not demagog the word "cut" like some others will. There are all kinds of cuts that can be made to programs to make them more efficient.

What if the govt stop printing and mailing out all those checks, and just went to Direct Deposit for recipients who have bank accounts? Would that be unacceptible to you? No, of course not.

Medicare was cut in 92, also in HCR. In 92 it was all provider side cuts. In HCR it was fraud and waste. The word "cut" is not a synonym for "benefit cut."

[lark]

149. raising the age for medicare is a cut

that's what Obama put on the table for Medicare and SSI. He didnt put lifting the cap on SSI, a smart move, on the table since it it would hurt his real constituency, the rich.

[Sheepshank]

157. where is this a statement from Obama?

during these particular negotiations...?

[AllyCat]

41. Boner wants MORE "fundamental" changes than Obama wanted so that's what he means

We want NO changes. The people want NO changes.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Your opinion is similar to Republicans who refuse to raise a cent in taxes.

Speak for yourself. You do not speak for "The people" at all. Polls show that.

[AllyCat]

67. Social Security should not even be on the TABLE!!!! Not at all.

It does NOT contribute to the debt. It is our money we have paid into since we were old enough to work and now they want to take it away.

If you think that is the same as Repukes not wanting to raise taxes, you need to brush up on public policy and the history of the New Deal.

The polls say "the people" do not want changes to SS. Unless you are watching Faux. Maybe that's where your disconnect is.

[ClarkUSA]

72. Polls show Americans want both parties to compromise. Pres. Obama is bluffing. Do you get that?

Boehner folded. Nothing happened. Stop with the melodrama already. :eyes:

[AllyCat]

119. We'll see what happens in the weeks to come. Since we have already cut

payroll taxes that support SS, I can imagine this as the next step. Obama has not acted as a defender of the working class. When this shakes out, I don't think this will be "melodrama".

[bread_and_roses]

150. polls show we the people do NOT want cuts to SS/MA/MC

and what our Quisling Pres is talking about ARE cuts. He's trying to please his corporate overlords (gotta keep that cash flowing - to his campaign coffers, that is) while trying to fool the rest of us.

[Dept of Beer]

158. Sigh... You're grasping at the whole bale again.

sad.

[Generic Other]

26. Is this not almost the same amount as the amount given out to beneficiaries last year?

Makes zero amount of sense. Just a cover-up for a robbery.

[chill_wind]

28. Well

he did at least get really, REALLY mad while he was offering up cuts in our vital safety nets for the sick, poor and elderly. So there is THAT.

[emulatorloo]

33. Boehner: "The Pres. is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs."

You assume a lot about what the cuts in the proposal were. Fraud. waste. all check go to Direct Deposit rather than printed and mailed? There are ways to make a program more efficient and cost effective.

Think about what Boehner said. Boehner wanted Ryan Plan on steroids - Destroy SS, Medicare, Medicaid

[EFerrari]

39. Or you could just believe Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1550589&mesg_id=1550589

[ThomWV]

44. So, one of them is a fucking liar - you tell me which one.

[AllyCat]

52. both

[ThomWV]

59. dam ..... you're right.

[emulatorloo]

80. Did you watch the press conference? Obama said boehner walked

because of entitlements and revenue increase.

Obama's statements were entirely consistent with Boehner.

Boehner wanted Ryan Plan on Steroids and Refused to close Corporate Tax loopholes.

Thats what Boenher said, Thats what Obama said.

So forget the "fucking liar" angle, it just makes you look foolish.

[ClarkUSA]

94. "Obama's statements were entirely consistent with Boehner." Thank you for the facts, emulatorloo.

:thumbsup:

[rhett o rick]

163. They dont agree on the definition of "fundamental" as re. changes to SS.

Obama means cleaning up fraud and sloppiness. Boner means cutting benefits.

[xxqqqzme]

168. Enough with the direct deposit, jeebus!

Direct deposit is being done NOW. Has been since at least 1999, because that is when I started getting SS Disability. I have never received a 'check in the mail'.

[Broderick]

35. We just continue for the last decade to negotiate from

Republican plans! Where is the Democratic plan??? Where is Obama's plan??? Everything starts from the Bush days, wherein we negotiate from their plan and play defense. Where is the offense besides the media, and saying we can't take their plan. The only plan is a Republican plan and even Obama is trying to negotiate from a point of weakness.

Where are the cuts to the military
where are the Tax cuts on wealthy being repealed
Where are corporate tax loopholes like GE stopped. 5.1 in profit. NO TAXES. WTF???

And we negotiate from their plan and they take their cookies away when they don't get what they want. It started with them. It should start from a Democrat starting point. Where is Obama, Pelosi and Reid???? Where are their plans. They let the Republicans frame the debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[AllyCat]

47. I agree...we are in power, not them. We put out the plans, not them

And we act as if this is the best we can do because they have us (gasp!) hogtied again. We let ourselves be hogtied. We need a leader!

[Broderick]

53. Sickening

But yet he gives a speech and everyone falls in love. Did they listen to the cuts in social entitlements he would have accepted??? I hear platitudes, but I see NO PLAN.

[eilen]

92. Is he a Pusher or something?

he makes a speech and people fall all over themselves.

As if we didn't know Republicans were total assholes. That's why we voted for change! He spends 3 weeks trying to out-republican them and they still won't give him colors. So who put the black ball in the box? It seems to me that the republicans are arrogantly certain that he will fold like a cheap lawn chair and all they have to is say "No."

There is no room for negotiations in this scenario. Trying to craft a deal other than "raise the debt limit morons or the economy will crash and anything but a clean bill will be vetoed. I don't care if I serve one term because if I have to be in a room with mouth breathers like you for another 4 years I'll have to give up 20 IQ points by pure exposure."


Then the democrats could actually run on saving and preserving the safety net without being total hypocrites.

[Broderick]

111. You get it

Some it merely takes smoke and mirrors.

[emulatorloo]

81. Self Delete

Wrong place

[G_j]

40. thank God Boehner 'pulled out' ! nt

[grahamhgreen]

187. LOL

[ProSense]

43. Did the President

specify what the cuts were? Or is this more speculation that he planned to cut benefits?

Obama Singles Out Drug Companies for Savings

[EFerrari]

58. Why aren't you quoting his own words, ProSense?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1550589&mesg_id=1550589

[ProSense]

64. Here

Obama Singles Out Drug Companies for Savings

Those weren't my words. Sorry for having confused you.

Teh stupid burns!

[EFerrari]

73. No, his words on the deal, not on your cherry picking:

He said 650 billion in cuts to "entitlement programs".

Video here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x602681

[FLAprogressive]

95. Why are you taking Obama's own words and using them against him?!!?!?!!?111!?1 Do you want PRESIDENT

BACHMANN?!?!?!?!?

[Sheepshank]

159. Where is there a reference to cut in benefits?

Cuts to drug companies is consistent with prgram expenses that could be cut.

[ThomWV]

63. Nope, he only named the big three as up for $650 Billion in cuts

And you don't get cuts like that buy sending out all the payments electronically and if there is that much fraud and abuse in the program then the whole damned Government ought to taken out and hanged.

[ProSense]

69. Did he specify benefits?

Democrats cut Medicare last year, it was not a cut to benefits.

[L0oniX]

51. Anyone who cuts funding for "needy" old people on SS is evil.

[Rex]

55. It is more of 'relief' then anything else.

Relief Gopukers are stupid and don't know how to play poker.

[SnoopDog]

62. Obama actually said he was going to screw future beneficiaries of SS

To even put SS on the table, whether a 'bluff' or not is anti-democratic.

Anyone who messes with SS in an adverse way is a traitor to the American people. It is that simple.

[ThomWV]

65. I agree, it is no relief to learn that my son is fucked rather than myself

[kenny blankenship]

71. No! He's just talking about cutting *waste* They order A LOT of unnecessary office supplies @ SocSec

A few less post it notes, a few less pens - 650 billion in savings is totally doable without cuts to benefits, docs dropping Medicare patients, folks not surviving to collect benefits and not enjoying them for long.

You guys are so unfair.

[emulatorloo]

78. How much money could be saved by going Direct Deposit with all Govt Checks

for those who have bank accounts?

All these checks are being printed and mailed.

Is that 650 billion savings? No. There are lots of creative ways for these things to be done more efficiently

[DJ13]

82. SS has already begun to phase out paper checks

[emulatorloo]

84. Good. Can Medicare negotiate with Drug Companies for better prices

like the VA can?

No, they can't. If they could Medicare would not have to pay as much for prescription meds as they do now.

When did DU become unable to think outside the box?

[rhett o rick]

96. Why are you insulting DU? You are free to leave. nm

[slipslidingaway]

118. No, the administration gave that away when they made the deal with Tauzin...

although the ability to negotiate drug prices was in Obama's HC plan where he cited a study saying Medicare could save about 300 billion.

Why don't people remember this?

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost
Published: August 5, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=5&hp

"Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement..."

[kenny blankenship]

98. Yeah, and why do they staple everything!?

that costs money.

[valerief]

136. Yeah, and what's up with all this war? That costs A LOT OF MONEY. nt

[quaker bill]

77. And it was not enough

do you get even an inkling of what the R's really want?

[emulatorloo]

79. I do: Republicans want total destruction of the safety net, and no taxes on corporations or the rich

They want to poor and the middle class to bear most of the burden.

[Major Hogwash]

88. Obama needs to up the ante to get a deal, he should offer to overturn Roe v Wade.

That won't make Boehner agree to the Big Deal either, but it would be funny to see his eyes come popping out of his head when he hears Obama say that!!

[rhett o rick]

99. Are you joking. Our corp-overlords dont give a shit about Roe v Wade

except as a campaign issue. If overturned, then it is no longer a campaign issue. You must give the Boner something the corp-overlords want. Like eliminating the EPA or opening the National Parks to exploitation.

[Marr]

97. Well see-- he did it "forcefully". He had a sexy gleam in his eye.

The trick is to turn off your critical thinking abilities and focus only on the dreamy, swoon-inducing celebrity.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. Not to worry. He will withdraw his bid and promise to veto any cuts to present or future beneifits.

Sure he will. Absolutely. It was just a head fake.

[Bluebear]

104. That's true. He made them blink, and played chess, & called their bluff & looks great in a swimsuit

Pay not attention to how much he offered up in 'entitlements'.

[suffragette]

105. No flames from me, Thom

K&R

[myrna minx]

106. This is my question too. K&R n/t

[spanone]

107. well, he offered it, but it had to go through congress...he knew it didn't have a prayer

[Creideiki]

109. Definitely a bold ploy to throw away Florida in 2012!

Especially now that it has even more electoral votes.

[Historic NY]

110. Define changes..change SS cap, reduced payments to wealthy recipients...

do some means testing for Medicare or Medicaid, group profits on drug prescription plan......there are lots of changes that can be made w/o blowing up the entitlement programs.

[treestar]

112. So you prefer the default?

Do you want us to just default on the debt?

[Forkboy]

116. Does this mean you support cuts to SS?

[treestar]

141. Do you prefer the default?

If there is no deal, we will default on the debt. It is not a matter of what I prefer. Those are the facts.

[lark]

145. Quit buying the story

Obama can just go the constitutional route and raise it unilaterally. Make the Repugs blink for sure. They hate him anyway, even though he's the best thing their side has ever had, so take it all the way. If they want to start a constitutional row, OK, let's see how this turns out. Will SCOTUS side with Wall St. and let this slide, or will it go with t-baggers and take it out?

:nuke:

[Forkboy]

201. Do you support cuts to SS, yes or no?

[udbcrzy2]

114. I agree with ThomWV - it's the same ol shit again.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[MilesColtrane]

128. Please return your name tag and towel on the way out.

[woo me with science]

127. K&R It's not a win, by any means. It is an outrage and a crying shame. nt

[pnwest]

134. so, here's what I heard the President say:

I heard him say, briefly and only once, that he was asking for the same amount in tax revenue as he was offering in cuts to the entitlement programs. That seems extremely fair, and intelligent to me. He's saying "If I'm going to ask my base to support me in sacrificing X am't of dollars to serve the greater good which is a balanced budget, then you (Repubs) should ask your base to offer up the same am't in tax revenue", effectively turning a passive spending cut into a a positive cash flow, and doubling down on its value.

I also heard him say that the offered cuts were structured in a way that would not directly affect current recipients.

What he isn't saying, but I deduce from the larger picture, is that he's offering these measures to protect them in general. If he can get them to agree to some cuts we don't like but can live with, then he's effectively cutting the legs out from under the plan the Repubs REALLY want, which is to eliminate these programs altogether.

The thing I'm not hearing, and is pissing me off, is how about throwing in cuts to military spending...but that's a fight for another day I suppose.

[bread_and_roses]

152. So we oldsters are supposed to sell out our children and g'children?

goddess above, I hope my cohort sees through that.

[on point]

135. Here is what he SHOULD have proposed

Single Payer health care - save the country at least 200 billion a year
Eliminate bush tax cuts for the wealthy - raise their rates to 40 %) - 100 billion a year.
(Sorry did you not like that plutocrats? OK, then how about 70% or 90% like it used to be until we pay off the debt you ran up!! Gee I thought you would compromise at 40%)
Eliminate oil and corp tax loop holes - 100 billion a year
Cut pentagon spending 400 billion a year
Eliminate subsidy for nuclear power, coal companies - 100 billion a year

The above could add to a trillion / year. It is easy to find ways to set our fiscal house in order without cutting a dime needed by the average person.

What is difficult is getting the powers that be to look inside their own wallets for the solution and not inside the wallets of the average person. What is difficult is finding politicians, repukes and dems who actually are interested in the general welfare of the country and the average person.

So is Obama craven, corrupt or cowed? He certainly is not doing the job he was sent to Washington to do.


If PTB don't wake up and start fixing things ASAP they may find themselves in a Marie Antoinette moment.................

[Middle finga]

138. So Obama's message on the campaign trail

will be, "I offered to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by billions of dollars but the republicans refused my offer...vote for me." Maybe the MSM pundits and wallstreet will like that message but not average working folks.

[Hubert Flottz]

139. Some can't tell the difference between Chess and liar's poker.

The GOPers know that this deal is going to cost Obama some votes big time. if the democrats mess with the seniors, it's game over in 2012.

[Jim_Shorts]

167. 18% real unemployment & cuts to SS and Medicare

Must be that 3 dimensional vulcan chess shit logic again. Sad considering the corner we had the repugs in just a few months ago.

[fadedrose]

140. Wouldn't ya hate to play poker with Obama? nt

[ThomWV]

212. I am an adult, I do not play games with money.

That is why I was able to retire at 57 with adequate savings to put me through the rest of my life without worry. I did not gamble, I saved and invested. It is what adults do. If a person wants to play games they should do it will balls or chits, or chess pieces, not money.

[Vattel]

148. To believe that the cuts to Medicare and SS

that Obama offered to Boehner would not reduce benefits at all lacks credibility. Five reports from insiders say that in the earlier negotiations Obama offered to raise the eligibility age for Medicare. Obama's own press secretary did not deny those reports. Instead he said that a lot of what's being reported is true. In his press conference yesterday, Obama said that benefits to "current recipients" would not be cut, but why did he put it that way if cuts to benefits for future recipients were not on the table?

The Lawrence O'Donnell theory that his offers have been insincere, that he has been bluffing, is almost certainly false. Why was he so pissed off if rejecting his offer was part of his plan? Was he just faking his outrage whilst chuckling to himself on the inside? I really, really doubt it.

[Sheepshank]

161. Stated assumptions to a reduction in benefits also lacks credibility.

It's clear from all public realeases and pretend releases of negotiation items...we simply don't know. Yet there you are, pressing the benefit cut meme as if it had more creditibility that no benefit cut meme. Disingenious

[Vattel]

178. No, I offered evidence. A respectable objection

to what I said would be an argument that what I offered as evidence isn't really evidence, or that the evidence to the contrary is stronger, or that the evidence I offered is very weak evidence. But don't accuse me of just assuming what I tried to support with evidence.

And here's more evidence: Referring to the more recent negotiations a senior administration official said that among the provisions to which Obama had said yes were the following:

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92539/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-press-conference-concessions-revenue

[Sheepshank]

184. unknow sources and hear say are hardly credible evidence.

since you admit it's weak evidence, I suppose I should let it go. The reality is that even your link doesn't provide hard proof othe items you listed....it's merely an Op Ed piece.

...I realize that I’m a bit biased since I’m hearing this more from the administration’s perspective (I haven't had time to reach anybody in the Speaker's office directly).

and

Among the provisions Obama to which Obama had said yes, according to a senior administration official...

And if you are so quick to grant credibility to someone's opinion who admints the opinion is biased and based on unnamed and likely unreliable sources, I'd ask, why that opinion why not another?

[Vattel]

206. Well, at least you are addressing my argument.

That's a start. The author's bias in favor of Obama wouldn't affect what he heard from the senior administration official. And then there's the other five unmaned sources from the earlier negotiations. Add to that Carney's response to the question about those reports that I mentioned earlier. Is everybody lying? Maybe, but I doubt it.

[EFerrari]

202. Nope, informed by a week's worth of reporting.

Statement on Using the Chained CPI for Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/statement-on-using-the-chained-cpi-for-social-security-cost-of-living-adjustments

Statement on the Gang of Six Plan
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/statement-on-the-gang-of-six-plan

Debt celing talks. Some interesting stuff today in Bloomberg, TPM, The Hill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1556757&mesg_id=1556757

Paul Krugman: What Obama Was Willing to Give Away ("Horrifying")
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1557003&mesg_id=1557003

DeFazio: Obama extends Bush tax cuts to create a crisis then cuts spending to protect tax cuts!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x602748

Sen. Sanders: Congratulations Coburn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x601712

Pushing Crisis: GOP Cries Wolf on Debt Ceiling in Order to Impose Radical Pro-Rich Agenda
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/22/pushing_crisis_gop_cries_wolf_on

ETA:

Obama's Giving Away the Store / digby
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1558477

[Sheepshank]

204. Opinion posts are just that...opinions with no hard facts or supporting evidence

There's plenty of opinions floating around here without having to link to the opinions of non du'ers. Thanks anyway.

[Vattel]

207. Opinion pieces often cite facts in support of the opinions.

To write them off complletely because they are just opinion pieces is beyond silly.

[EFerrari]

208. LOL

[Somawas]

151. BERNIE SANDERS IN 2012! Fuck this noise.

[whistler162]

162. Sarah Palin thank s you for your support!

[emilyg]

191. That old line doesn't

work anymore.

[Somawas]

230. Doesn't work for me.

Gandhi pointed out that non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral duty as is cooperation with good. Obama is cooperating with evil motherfuckers.

[emilyg]

234. Thank you. I will never

again vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Leontius]

160. The question has been asked 'Why did Boehner walk out?"

I think all the Obama worshipers better consider this, he listened to the people who pit him in power unlike this so called Democratic President who has basicly told the Democrats to 'Shut the fuck up I do what I want and it's not to serve you or any Democratic principle, I've heard my masters call and I will do their bidding.'

[Somawas]

235. Bohener walked out because he is a motherfucker.

He canno stop being a motherfucker. It is right there in the word. He fucke his mother. It is what he does.

[newspeak]

165. Bill Maher had a "libertarian" guest on last night

who had written a book about independent voters. The guy was a damn repug who talked over everyone. I remember getting an ad to subscribe to Reason magazine, after looking at some of the shite it was spewing (from the ad), I knew it had as much "reason" as "fair and balanced" faux. This guy has a website called "reason." Spreading the rightwing meme "we don't have a revenue problem, we have an entitlement problem. Nothing but a damn Randian fan. When we take care of our own everyone does well-he needs to move to Somali where they have no programs and he can be king of the hill, if he survives.

Yeah mister, that which we paid into, we are ENTITLED. These greedy sociopaths with their international corporate no regulation buddies will be the knife twisting in the public's back.

[pnwest]

189. Loved it when the woman seated next to him...

...totally punked him on his leather jacket when he was harangueing Bill about how many cars he owns. He was a tool.

[Doctor_J]

166. AS caller on Hartmann yesterday astutely observed

If the head of the Dem party is OFFERING to kill SS, then the party as a whole serves no purpose. What you're seeing is the final death throes of the party of FDR & LBJ. Obama has spat all over every Dem president of the 20th century. And rest assured that if the Repukes didn't take him up on his offer this time, they will soon.

[Jakes Progress]

172. A moment of silence

and a moment of stifled amusement at the dozen or so ever faithful here who are having their heads explode. It will take them a while to come around to the fact that this is what the president did.

But they will survive. Just as soon as they can wrap their minds around the idea that cutting SS and Medicare is a good thing. Yeah, That's it. SS is a menace. It must be dismantled. Soon they will have absorbed the new idea. They will stop defending the indefensible and start saying that the indefensible is a good thing.

[defendandprotect]

173. Obama is finished -- unless we're all insane -- ????

[emilyg]

190. Lots of people have become sane.

[earcandle]

177. Bush might have been uneducated, but he had balls.

[WiffenPoof]

179. I posted this earlier...

..to those that continue to cheerlead for the President.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that President Obama does not touch any of the entitlements...that he never had any intention of doing so.

Why would he ever, EVER float that in the first place. It is political suicide even if he did not intend to follow through. All you do is put it in the heads of the American people and the body politic that these entitlements are to be "looked at" at the very least. It doesn't demonstrate that these entitlements are sacred and they are in the minds of the voters in the future.

No, you don't even consider floating these kinds of ideas when you are a Democrat. As a result, I'm convinced that he is INDEED making these kinds of considerations. So, to those who say...look, he hasn't done it yet...don't assume...etc. etc. The damage has been done the first day that they appeared on the table BY THE PRESIDENT himself.

Don't be pissed at those of us that are trying to defend the very principles of our party...that which made us the "Party of the People."

(Sorry...I'm not happy this morning).

-P

[Smilo]

182. I agree

why did the Prez bring it up if he wasn't serious -

He has given in too much to the GOPT - he can't win anything with the GOPT they are totally against him, so why bother? President Obama, think for yourself and do what is best for the country.

[MissDeeds]

197. +1 n/t

[South End Liberal]

181. Blame Republicans AND Democrats for looting the Social Security trust fund

Here's a link to what's probably one of the best explanations of how Congress and the wealthy stole our social security trust funds:
http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/

The author, Dr. Smith, said this:
“The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money…. Given the fact that much of the surplus revenue from the 1983 payroll tax hike ended up in the pockets of the super rich in the form of income tax cuts, I propose a special tax on this group of taxpayers to recoup the missing Social Security money. The government used revenue from the Social Security payroll tax hike to fund tax cuts for the rich because that was where the money was. I think the government should recover the ‘embezzled’ money by taxing the rich.”


I agree with him.

[grahamhgreen]

188. +1

[on point]

198. Here Here!! Absolutely. let's try 70% tax rate until debt is paid down!

[DFW]

218. No, let's not

We don't want tax flight, we want those who can pay to stay and pay, not move to Dubai like Halliburton.

Just bring the rates back to where under Clinton and close some loopholes. You'd be amazed how good a shape
we'd be in within 3 years. A 40% (from 35%) top rate isn't enough incentive for a gazillionaire to move his
whole wealth, including companies that employ Americans, offshore. A 70% rate is.

[on point]

221. Hey I'm willing to compromise at 50% !! This is the discussion we should be having.

[DFW]

236. That is a dicey limit.

Might work, might not. I don't know any billionaires very well, and the only one I DO know (Peter Norton)
is so easy-going, I doubt he even cares what he pays at this point. But it's important to stay competitive
and encourage money and jobs to stay here. Actually, I think the real reason Halliburton moved to Dubai was
not to avoid US taxes, but to avoid prosecution for massive defrauding of the U S government in Iraq. As long
as we provide a decent business environment and don't appear confiscatory, businesses will stay and thrive.
We have the workforce, skilled and willing. We just have some large companies unwilling to invest, preferring
to sit on their hands (and their cash) right now. With interest rates at practically zero, it is a legitimate
question to ask why?

[Kablooie]

183. So this puts the entitlement cuts squarely on the shoulders of Democrats.

It will make it difficult for Democrats to win in the next election when the GOP points out that the cuts were from the Dems.

[bertman]

186. REC. nt.

[Vinca]

193. I'm so sick of the games. The people in Washington are doing nothing more than political theater.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we wonder what would happen if Obama's "bluff" had been accepted. Maybe I'm a world class puss, but I don't think anything should be put on the table you aren't prepared to follow through with.

[OwnedByFerrets]

199. Who would have EVER thought that we would have to be BEGGING

a democratic president NOT to cut these programs. I dont like the world I live in.

[German]

200. How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen

– Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go?

How Republicans, Democrats and the Mega-Wealthy Stole Your Social Security Money

As I’ve been reporting for quite some time now, trillions of our tax dollars have been looted by Wall Street, wars, global corporations and the richest one-tenth of one percent of the population. The economic crisis has made this blatant fact much more evident to the average person. Now that these elaborate schemes are coming undone and major cuts to vital social programs are beginning to be implemented, the American public is going to get a harsh wake up call.

With cuts to Social Security on the way, and Obama’s recent comments saying that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out if the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised, it’s time to take a closer look at why politicians are pushing to cut this vital program.

The Social Security Trust Fund should currently have $2.5 trillion in surplus. So how is it that these checks could stop being issued if the debt ceiling isn’t raised? Economics professor Dr. Allen Smith, author of The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, has been reporting on the theft of Social Security funds for years. As he sums it up:

“The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money…. Given the fact that much of the surplus revenue from the 1983 payroll tax hike ended up in the pockets of the super rich in the form of income tax cuts, I propose a special tax on this group of taxpayers to recoup the missing Social Security money. The government used revenue from the Social Security payroll tax hike to fund tax cuts for the rich because that was where the money was. I think the government should recover the ‘embezzled’ money by taxing the rich.”

Here are reports by Dr. Allen Smith that we have featured over the past two years:

I: It’s Time to Tap the Empty Social Security Trust Fund
II: The Social Security Fraud Has Finally Been Exposed
III: How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off one of the Greatest Frauds Ever Perpetrated against the American People
IV: Obama and the Social Security Time Bomb
V: Censored Social Security Book Back in Print

I: It’s Time to Tap the Empty Social Security Trust Fund

AP writer, Stephen Ohlemacher, sent shock waves throughout the nation this week with his story, “Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs.” Social Security has been running large surpluses ever since the enactment of the 1983 payroll tax hike, and was projected to continue running surpluses until at least 2016. Instead, Ohlemacher reports that the cost of Social Security benefits will exceed payroll tax revenue by approximately $29 billion this year, because of the severe recession which has reduced payroll tax revenue at the very time that many unemployed Americans have been forced to retire early.......snip
“Wait a minute!” some readers will say. Hasn’t Social Security been receiving surplus revenue ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike? Isn’t there supposed to be approximately $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund? The answer to both questions is yes. But there is a problem. Every dollar of that surplus Social Security revenue has already been spent by the government. Much of it went to fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest has been spent on other government programs.
......snip

It has been clear for quite some time that the trust fund contained no real assets. David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, stated on January 21, 2005, “There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.” On April 5, 2005, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged the empty trust fund by saying, “There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.”

If there was any doubt remaining, with regard to whether or not the trust fund contains any real assets, that doubt should have been removed by the following words in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report:

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

There is nothing ambiguous about the above words. They make it clear that the government does not receive any cash income from the alleged interest payments on the trust fund IOUs. The interest payments are made in the form of additional worthless IOUs. The government cannot sell the IOUs because they are not marketable and have no cash value. The IOUs simply represent a debt of one branch of the government (the Treasury Department) to another branch of government (Social Security). They cancel each other out.

I can´t say if those statements are true, i look from the outside on this issue. Read the rest of this article with more revealing details here:

http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/

sorry, i just now discovered this link was already postet. Post may be deleted, if wished

[meow mix]

210. people want to delude themselves that he was "bluffing" when he was ready to sell us out

:rofl: hahahahhah hahaha

i cant say what i think of these people, it would be against the terms of service. fill in the blanks though.

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

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

[jtuck004]

213. What an utter waste of time. We should be talking jobs and the future. n/t

[sudopod]

219. Someone needs to take the table out back, chop it into pieces, and burn it.

Maybe that way people will stop putting important things on it.

We also need to do something about that bus.