oleeb's picture

    Will the Obamabots now finally admit he's not worth re-electing? If not, are they really okay with cutting Medicare to fund endless, illegal wars?

    By oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:11am |

    Here's what our fake Democratic President had to say when pressed to disassociate himself from comments Leon Panetta made about cutting Social Security and Medicare in order to fund the fucking Pentagon:

     

    "Our challenge is the need to tackle our deficits over the long term last week we reached an historic agreement -- reached an agreement that weill make historic cuts to defense and domestic spending," Obama said. "But there's not much further that we can cut in either of those categories. What we need to do now is combine those spending cuts with two additional steps: tax reform that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare."

     

    "Adjustments" my ass!  He's going to sacrifice Medicare on the altar of permanent imperial war!  He wouldn't defend his own mother in a negotiation let alone defend Medicare and Social Security.  This guy has got to go!

     

    Could he make it any clearer that he no more cares about Medicare and Social Security than the Man in the Moon?  Could he make it any clearer that his entire Presidency is the most cynical excercise in preserving the status quo and the comfort of the the rich and powerful?  Can the Obamabots continue to defend this Bendict Arnold to the Democratic Party and the common American after he has come out in favor of cutting Medicare in order to fund illegal, immoral, pointless and ruinously expensive foreign wars against an "enemy" that barely exists?

    The time has come to return to this schmuck the favor he has done to us and to abandon him and find someone else to be President.  But if no one emerges to run against this jerk we can still refuse to support him as he has refused to support us.  I don't see how the people who have made excuses for his every rotten decision since being nominated can continue to defend this man who is an open enemy of one of the most important, successful and popular government programs of all time.

    So Obamabots please tell the rest of us whether you finally see him for what he is or whether you will continue to defend him no matter how horrendous, ruinous and anti-progressive his policies and positions are.

    Comments

    Does "Obamabot" equal thinking that he's most likely better than the Republican alternative? Because if so, there are a lot of "Obamabots" here who think he's doing a really horrible job, that he's been either weak or complicit in undermining several positions he seemed to be advocating for, and that he's not the liberal we thought he was.

    We could also give you a dozen reasons why we'll still vote for him in 2012. If thinking Obama is better than Romney or Bachmann makes me an Obamabot, then I am an unapologetic Obamabot. (Please note the "if" part of that statement.)


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 6:34am

    Oleeb's polishing his pitchfork again, VA. I feel his frustration.

    So far, I'm still with you on the hypothetical 2012 Obama vs. Republican-alternative meter. But I can no longer think of a dozen good reasons why he'd be better. And the list continues to contract.

    Besides, 2012 is irrelevant. It's 2011 I'm worried about. All this focus on the next election is misplaced, energy misspent. What we've got in front of us here and now is enough. As a wise man once said, "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Do the right thing today, worry about the election when the time comes to campaign in earnest.

    There's one way in which I think Obama has been worse than Republicans. By posing as a liberal, or at least progressive, Democrat, yet acting Republican-lite and embracing Republican goals and methods, he is contributing to the ongoing economic and social chaos in this country and allowing the public to pin the blame on liberalism.

    Just when liberal politics looked like it had a chance to regain influence, the best chance in a generation, Obama may turn out to be the final nail in its coffin. I'm a liberal. I wouldn't like that, not at all.


    by Red Planet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:43am

    I think I'm almost exactly where you are, and I'll even agree that it would be challenging to find all 12 of those good reasons I alluded to (ruling out degenerate cases such as naming the Justices one-by-one), though I do think I could find them. I also recognize that it's possible for a bad liberal to be worse than a good conservative.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:28pm

    No.  For me, a bot is one who follows him blindly and defends him no matter how wrong, counterproductive, illegal or immoral his decision.

    And, as far as voting for him goes, people can do as they like, but there is no argument left to vote for him as far as I'm concerned.  The old reliable Democratic rationale that the Republicans are worse isn't really true and has no credibility when you consider that there's virtually no difference between what Obama has done as President and what McCain promised he would do.  And his mediocre Supreme Court nominees aren't enough either.  Sorry.  He'll have to morph into an actual Democrat for me to consider voting for him, but how anyone can vote for a politician who supports cutting Social Security and Medicare to pay for wars we shouldn't be fighting and that are destabilizing the nation is, quite frankly, beyond me.


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:59am

    Wouldn't Obamacrat be a better label than Obamabot. Or how about Obamabrat, or Obamalover, or Obama-ingenue, or Obamadope, or Obamanerd, or Obama-crapper, or Obama-noser, or pehaps even Obama-basher--you know, goes to his own  birth day bash.  


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 8:24am

    Oleeb, you hit a nerve, excuse my crappy post. I'm generally with you. It's just that Republicans, speaking metaphorically, want this guy to publicly bleed in the street and I'm fed up with the whole process.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:19am

    I agree with you about what the Republicans want to do.  What makes me crazy is how he accomodates their wishes and offers to open his own veins for them!

    Here's a good post that's up at Huffpo on this subject by Cenk Uygur that is well worth reading:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/obamas-tipping-point_1_b_921805.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=080911&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

     


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:01pm

    Thanks.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:41pm

    Who is your alternative candidate?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 8:35am

    Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one emerging.  Beside, it isn't my job to have another candidate waiting in the wings.  Obama sucks for Democrats and progressives, lost the House and is heading the nation toward a full blown Republican disaster by accomodating the crazies who got us in this position to begin with.  His every move weakens Democrats because if we lose following Republican policies how do we then condemn them when we've adopted them?  We can't.  It would be nice if he would withdraw but his enormous ego won't let that happen.  He has, I think, deluded himself into thinking that his out of touch, naive tactic of unconditional surrender in advance is something people want to see.  He'll find out next year just how wrong he is on that.


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:05pm

    If Obama steps down and there is no replacement at the ready, wouldn't the result be a Democratic Party free for all that would result in the election of a Republican?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:16pm

    Hypothetically speaking, of course you are right rmrd0000. But 2012 isn't our problem right now.

    2011 isn't going so well. If 2011 continues to not go well, 2012 won't be far behind. 


    by Red Planet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:23pm

    A. We already have a Republican President as a practical matter.

    B. We are going to have a Republican President if he runs either way.

    So what difference does it make if he's out and we have someone else?  At least we would have the opportunity to work and vote for a Democrat instead of a Republican who only claims to be a Democrat.  I'd say we're better off losing while supporting an actual Democratic candidate than this Republican substitute that we got hoodwinked into supporting in 2008.


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 4:18pm

    Using the same quote we can also say:

    Obama vows to defend domestic spending while raising the taxes on the rich!

    Sounds like someone pushing the leftist agenda to me.

    So wait, you mean he giving something to the right and something to the left in return for sacrifices from the right and left?  Hmmm.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 8:39am

    You could say it but it would have no credibility and would be totally misleading. 

    He's getting nothing in return (as usual), he's putting Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block, harming the economy, and clinging to his illegal, immoral war and police state policies.  His promises to get something in return are completely empty.  "Fool me once, shame on you!  Foor me twice, shame on me!" right?  This is the guy who promised not to extend the tax cuts but capitulated.  His failure to let those cuts expire precipitated and guaranteed this fake crisis would occur.  He will get nothing from the idiotic "Super Congress" either.  You can dispute this all you want, but like every other major issue, those of us who point out that he's not going to come through will be right again so it really isn't worth arguing about.  It's time for people to see this guy for the fraud he is and has been and to turn their backs on him as he has done on the common citizenry of this country, the Democratic Party and its most important achievements.


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:17pm

    Look at the quote, which is what you based your rant on.  You only want to get validity to those portions of the quote that maintain your narrative.  In the same sentence he want to keep both defense and domestic spending from severe cuts.  In the same sentence he wants to raise taxes on the rich and reform medicare (he doesn't mention SS, so at the moment he can't say he wants to touch it, let alone dismantle it). 

    But as you say we have to wait and see what happens.  You can believe you can see what will unfold and make pre-judgments based on this vision.  I prefer to let the process play out and make my judgments then.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:32pm

    Considering that the outcome has been the very same and 1quite predictable each time our incompetent President says he's going get something in return for his capitulation I know I'm on very solid ground.  How many times do you have to be sold out before you realize the guy is lying to you?  Really.

    I guess you just like to argue for the sake of it, but if you're familiar with what Panetta said in the first place in the Wapo then you know that even though Obama didn't say the words social security that it is part of what Obama is referring to.  Panetta was quite clear, as was Obama's "mentor" Joe Lieberman the day before that, that we cannot continue to fund the endless wars and the bloated Pentagon budget without cutting Social Security and Medicare.  This is, not coincidentally, the same disgusting tune that Obama's Catfood Commission was singing and which was so roundly rejected by the public.  But this fake crisis is the way Obama and his fellow travelers will use to achieve this goal.  This isn't even debatable at this point.  It's all out on the table for anyone who cares to review the facts to see.

    Your smug and naive belief that the outcome of Obama's next surrender cannot be predicted is your problem not mine.  So you go ahead and refuse to recognize the obvious, but I don't have to go there with ya and won't.


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 4:26pm

    Part of the problem is that I believe that there does need to be sensible reform of the entitlement system.  Everyone who call the commission the "catfood commission" come from the perspective that to touch the entitlement system is always to be equated with gutting it.  In fact, as soon as I see "catfood commission" I tune out pretty much everything else the person writes. 

    And quite frankly I could care less whether the public resoundingly rejected it.  I assume that by using this assertion as to the validity of the policy approach, you look at the public polls for your stance on every issue.  Or do you just bring up where the public stands on an issue when it corresponds to where you stand?  And since you're behind the people so much I suppose you see the election of all those tea party candidates as a breath of fresh air from the people's revolution, applauding those politicians as they stuck to their campaign promises. 

    And I don't argue for the sake of arguing (well most of the time).  I am aware what Panetta said, etc etc.  What I think we should be arguing about is what Obama actually said, and not a version altered in order to fit a narrative.  In this case the narrative driven by those who see the Democratic Party as solely a liberal party.

    But let me just say this:  the Democratic Party is a big tent.  Now you can claim you have stance that those who are pure and true Democrats have, and those who deviate from it are DINOs.  You are just like the purists in the other party.  Obama is not a liberal, nor are many of the Senators and Representatives who were the D on their lapel.  It doesn't make them Republican-lite.  It makes them the conservative and moderate wings of the party. 

    Personally I am liberal.  I am a Democrat.  And I know that there are those in my party who are much more conservative than me.  Sometimes quite a bit more conservative.  I know if I drive out all those who are right of me on the spectrum, my party would become a powerless piece of nothing.  It would pure, and it would be powerless.

    And I don't think it's smug nor naive to say anyone can predict how this is going to unfold.  Quite the opposite.  There have been some interesting poll data among other things, and as the politicians put their fingers to where the public sentiment is blowing after the debt ceiling debacle, there may be a compromise in the works.  While I believe that there is definite distortion because of the lobbyists, etc.  I still haven't just given up on our system of government and the people who are sent there to make it work.  Of course many of them are conservative moderates at best, so I don't see much from a liberal agenda coming through.

    So you go where you want.  And I will go where I want.  And based on how you have articulated things, I know where I want to go is definitely not where you want to go. 


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 5:57pm

    Look, you're just wrong. Get that through your pedantic head okay?  the record demonstrates quite clearly that you are wrong.  Obama has a very clear record.  His pattern of behavior is now quite predictable to all who care to pay attention.  For those of you who like to play naive games and act as though somehow doing the same thing over and over is going to produce a different result then that's your privilege, but your constant refusal to admit what is plain for all to see and easy as easy can be to predict only makes real progress more difficult.  You prefer your pseudo intellectual foot dragging to making progress. You aren't really interested in progress at all.  You're interested in having endless, pointless discussions that satisfy your personal desire to impress the rest of the kids in the class.  Again, fine, but don't pretend you care about what is actually happening or what will happen as a result of sitting back and pretending we don't know how this whole thing will play out.  And if you really believe that it isn't easily predictable, and if you really believe that Obama isn't putting a gun to the head of Social Security and Medicare  in order to fund endless imperial, illegal and immoral wars against the Muslim world then I feel sorry for you. Really. 


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:17am

    Usually do much better than this oleeb.  Respectfully, I happen to live in the real world and maybe, just maybe I see just as much if not more than you do every friggin' day. I don't care to be screamed or lectured at by you or those Tea Party folks.  The difference between you and them is that I know you can do better than this.  And ditto on what Verified Atheist said.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:09am

    DC Democrats need to take lessons from the Democrats in Wisconsin. Throw the Rethugs out. You cannot negotiate with the current GOP. Anything that increases the chance of more Congressional Republicans is a non-starter for me. If there are Democrats running who show more intestinal fortitude, I'll be supporting them.

    Those who use the Obamabot slur, have no viable alternative to offer.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:20am

    No one is compelling you to read what I write or agree with it.  If you don't like it, just pass it by.


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:19am

    Oleeb, I've read and admired your posts for years now.  Unless you ask me otherwise, I hope to continue to read what you write. 


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:29am

    I choose to defend him no matter how horrendous, ruinous and anti-progressive his policies and positions are.


    by brewmn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:25am

    I am unsure as to the goal of your blog Oleeb, did you write this to pick a fight and yell and tell everyone who will vote for this President we are stoopid?  How does this approach differentiate you from TBags?

    Hopefully this blog of your will make you feel better.  It's main problem as a blog is that you don't offer any solutions which is what makes your blog only an exercise in ginning up anger. Where are your solutions to making the system better? At least I know I continue to work to get better candidates elected at the local (including school boards), county, city, state and federal levels. I work with the organization that fits my beliefs most closely, which happens to be the Democratic Party, and when individuals screw up I keep working, since we've all been known to screw up a time or two in our lives.  That is reality. We have done well here in Washington by taking this approach, that we work from the ground up so we can push further ahead with more progressive legislation. We take steps back too, but we keep working.

    Oh look at that Oleeb all that without calling you a name once.  Too bad you can't say the same.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:29am

    Nope.  Just wondering why anyone who calls themselves a Democrat would support a politician willing to cut Medicare and Social Security to fund illegal and immoral wars that are bankrupting the nation.  I don't think it's all that difficult a proposition.


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:19pm

    Objection, assumes a proposition that is not in evidence.  My evidence professor use to say that you could ask virtually anything on cross examination.   His favorite example was, Mr. X, isn't it true that you enjoy sodomizing parrots?  Don't make it so, but it sounds pretty bad.

    Oleeb, I respect your views but you will never win any converts, no matter what, if you lead with integrity challenges.  Like I said, I live in the real world.  And you are practicing what in the real world we call bad form.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:34pm

    sodomizing parrots?

    I always prefer the formulation, posed to the reputation witness, "Would you believe the same characteristics for probity and good conduct if you had heard that Mr Chaim Yonkel was once seen fucking a goat?


    by jollyroger on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:37pm

    You are incorrigible Mr. Roger! 


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:33pm

    Don't blame me, blame Isaac Bashevis Singer...


    by jollyroger on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:00pm

    I'm not interested in converting.  I'm interested in waking people up before it's too late though it amy well be too late already.

    As I'm not in a court of law I'm not particularly interested in the rules of evidence.  All the evidence I need is Obama's appalling record of humiliation, retreat, surrender and sellout.

    Bad form?  You're entitled to your opinion.


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 4:29pm

    Oleeb,  The Obamabots will never change. So be it.

    They have been forewarned, either the democrats put up a better candidate or risk losing our votes.

    We people, of good conscience will never compromise our principles, we won't accept blood money, as our fellow citizens suffer from both Republican and republican lite.

    The Obamabots have deceptively convinced themselves, that their motives are pure.  Even though they know full well the people suffer, Instead they salve their  conscience, by convincing themselves it could be worse.

    They only view it from their own selfish perspectives, never thinking about how worse it is for those already suffering

    They convince themselves and others voting for the lesser of the two evils is better.

    Better for whom? Those already suffering or those about to suffer?   

    Don't rock the boat, incremental change  Ya All;  is a battle cry for capitulators.

    Democrats you have been forewarned, either you primary this faux Democrat or risk losing a major constituency.

    Misery loves company, I will not be a party to the eventual death of the working class.

    "Death by a thousand cuts 

    I am tormented by this Presidents actions.

    TORMENTED by blind followers  


    by Resistance on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:40pm

    Who is your candidate of choice?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:50pm

    Judas wouldn't be one of them.


    by Resistance on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:57pm

    OK Obama is Judas. Who is your replacement candidate?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:05pm

    Beelzebub for president!


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:21pm

    Are you announcing?wink


    by Resistance on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:25pm

    I should ask you;  Is the Democratic party so devoid of good potential presidential hopefuls?

    Tell me rmrd, who will be the next Democratic nominee should Obama get re-elected and when his term is up?

    That day is upon us now, don't reelect the republican- lite, go right to the next step, who will be the replacement?

    Put Bernie Sanders up against Obama, let Obama defend his actions, let him tell prospective voters why he should be reelected. Let the voters decide who better adheres to the party platform, our ideals.

    Wheres Ralph the corporate fighter? Remember him; those with a conscience do.


    by Resistance on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:23pm

    Bernie Sanders is an Independent Socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. Ralph Nader is also an Independent. What Democrats do you propose to fill the void?

    I'm not the one looking to replace Obama. My conscience is just fine, thank you very much.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:41pm

    It's obvious then. your conscience has been seared. You know Obama has let many progressives down and yet you'll turn a blind eye.

    'they have eyes but cannot see; they have ears but cannot hear"  

    As for Bernie Sanders, he has more honesty in his little finger than Obama has in his entirety.

    Obama won his election posing as a Democrat, Bernie doesn't run from the term Socialism as in Social Security or Medicare.

    Obama would preside over the continued attacks on the two bedrock principles of the Democratic people.

    Obama would sacrifice these bedrock principles to appease his capitalist friends.

    We were looking for a Moses who desired to live amongst the slaves rather than dwell in the house of Pharoah. We were looking for a leader to get us out of the wilderness of trickle down and Republicanism,  instead we got Dathan and it is us that are getting swallowed up.

    We got Judas who gave us a kiss and we thought he loved us  but instead betrayed us.

    He has sold out the peasant class, instead, seeking favor from wealth and prominence. I'm sure he'll find a nice cushy home and job opportunities after leaving office.

    If he had a brother named Joseph; would he sell him to slave traders, convinced it would be better for Joseph to suffer a little, to toughen his mettle.  

    I am not alone in my criticism of Obama. who got  up before the Nation, as the market crashes(Rome burns) and the market dumps because they know Obamas words are useless.

    The mans clueless, the mans an empty suit posing as a Democrat, but deep down he knows how to bend his followers to the arc he subscribes to.

    Bend over        


    by Resistance on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 6:46pm

    I'm not bending over, I'm making the most rational decision. Obama's approval among Democrats is 77%, a level that hasn't changed much in 2.5 years. Obama's approval among Liberals is 72%.

    If someone wants to bend over and let the Republicans gain even more power, than that's on them. Democrats in Wisconsin don't seem to have a problem knowing whether it's better to have Democratic or Republican representation.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:27pm

    Absolutely. I only hope that even if the repubs hold tonight in WI (I understand these 6 districts are pretty deeply repub) the dems will continue the recall efforts in other districts. Scares the crap outta me that the whole country could look like WI.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:43pm

    This is a stock Obama talking point but somewhat misleading.  The number is an aggregate of those who approve of the job he has done somewhat or alot.  The breakdown is that the Democrats are becoming less and less enthused about his performance.  Yes, it's in the 70's due to the nature of the question and Democrats will support the Democrat on such a generic question.  But what is clear is that the trend is for weakening support among Democrats, particularly liberals/progressives.  In order to win he'll need much higher support from Democrats that merely in the 70's--even the high 70's.


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:24am

    Very biblical, Resistance. Except for that last remark, which is revolutionary.


    by Red Planet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:38am

    Obama continues to support Wall Street, not main street

    He may think the US continues to be AAA country, but socially it gets an F.


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:54am

    Yep. No argument from me.

    There's no question whether our bond obligations will be met. The only question is whether we will meet our obligations to "the least of these, my brethren." 

    Apparently, Christ's commentary from the Mount of Olives was just blowing in the wind. The real politicians always knew that the real power lay in the hands of those money changers in the temple.

    And look what they did to Jesus.


    by Red Planet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 2:09am

     Obama (Caiaphas)


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 2:17am

    Caiaphas. Now there is a name that will forever live in infamy. And his rule was exceptionally long.


    by Red Planet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 2:28am

    Obama: two additional steps: tax reform that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare.

    Oleeb: "Adjustments" my ass! He's going to sacrifice Medicare on the altar of permanent imperial war! He wouldn't defend his own mother in a negotiation let alone defend Medicare and Social Security.

    Anything is possible when guessing what "modest adjustments" means. But however naive you might think me to be, I still tend to think that when most Democrats talk of Medicare reforms, it is along the lines of stemming the incredible escalation of the corporate health care industrial complex under the current Medicare fee-for-service model. So that Medicare's costs will work more along the lines of with the programs of other nations, where they have managed care and don't feed the medical industrial drug, test and health appliance beast but take care of the health of individuals, and where the costs are escalating at a much lower rate. A sort of scenario where Medicare won't end up being such a huge percentage of GDP predicated by neutrals like the CBO that the younger generation resents it and wants to get rid of it.

    Yes, when I think of the possible meaning of "modest adjustments," silly me thinks of the suggestions of Medicare Czar Donald Berwick, the recess appointment Obama purposefully made to avoid his execution by Republicans.


    by lamont (not verified) on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:37pm

    Just in case you are unaware of Dr. Berwick's beliefs, and chose not to look at my wikipedia link, here's a quote from the latter:

    Berwick's critics have cited his statements about the need for health care to redistribute resources from the rich to the poor, and his favorable statements about the British health care systems. [....] They point to statements such as, “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional"


    by lamont (not verified) on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:51pm

    Don Berwick is a jewel. He stands out as one of the best of all possible Presidential appointments, and we are lucky to have him there.

    Some things can be done to make Medicare more efficient. Reforming Part D recommends itself for immediate action. Let Medicare negotiate drug prices with Pharma and drug costs will go down.

    Reducing benefits is another matter altogether, however.

    The challenge is to reduce the cost of health care, which will bring Medicare costs down with it. That can't be done just by diddling with Medicare. And guess what, no Super Congress is going to be willing or able to make that part of a deficit reduction deal between now and November. Nor are they going to agree to significant reforms to Part D, because Pharma has them by the bank account. So the things they are likely to come up with are benefit reductions, cuts in payments to private insurors who offer Medicare replacement plans (which will be passed on to patients as premium increases), an ineffectual swipe at "waste and fraud,"and maybe cuts in provider payments which will redound to the detriment of patients in the end by reducing the number and quality of providers willing to take Medicare patients.

    The result of putting Medicare on the table for the Super Dupers to slice and dice over the next three months is not likely to be pretty. Ditto for Social Security.

    Some folks say, let's wait and see. Okay. But if what you see isn't what you like, too bad, it'll be what you get.


    by Red Planet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:18pm

    The admin was pushing that the Part D thing was important to them on the budget topic way back in April. in response to the Ryan proposal.


    by lamont (not verified) on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 5:17pm

    By the way, Dick Morris was one who rightly saw that move for what it was:

    an attack on the medical industrial complex that the GOP wants to continue to see healthily funded with Medicare dollars. And Morris attacked back doing the death panels meme on Berwick's IPAB. I.E., lets have nanotech surgery for everyone over 65! Whether they need it or not!


    by lamont (not verified) on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 5:31pm

    You can think of what some doc had to say all you want but what Obama is talking about is cuts to the Medicare and Social Security programs in order to pay for war.  Why do I think that?  Because that is what Obama's Secretary of Defense said just a day or so previously.  Obama's remarks were made in response to a call from Barney Frank to disavow Panetta's statements.  Instead, Obama reaffirmed that Panetta was speaking on behalf of the administration.  The use of the word "adjustments" is merely a device used to give the gullible reason to cling to the false idea that no harm will be done to the Medicare program and the millions of elderly who depend upon it.  You are simply choosing to ignore the clear, obvious meaning of Obama's remarks.  Nothing against the doc but his job will merely be to try and minimize the damage done by Panetta and Obama to the program as they begin the process of destroying Medicare and Social Security.  That's the reality.  Look the other way if you want, but it's as plain as day.


    by oleeb on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 4:35pm

    One thing that's clear to me is that you have a lot invested in your narrative, facts be damned. When you see a tidbit that could support it, you want to make sure that no one brings up nasty nuance.


    by lamont (not verified) on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 5:33pm

    My "narrative" is factual. I base my assessment on facts. 

    Your desire to avoid facing the very clear and stark facts and instead think of something else and label it nuance doesn't change the fact that your nuance is beside the point. 

    The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta called for higher taxes and cuts specifically to Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for the bloated Pentagon budget and our illegal and immoral wars in the Muslim world.  This is a fact.

    When asked to disavow this position by a senior member of Congress, Barney Frank, Obama's public declaration was to reaffirm what Panetta had said: not to disavow it.  This is a fact.

    Thus, the President of the United States is supporting the proposition of cuts to Social Security and Medicare in order to protect the obscene budget of the military which now easily exceeds $1 Trillion annually when you include the cost of the wars with the regular Pentagon budget.  That amount is more than all the other nations on earth combined spend on defense annually.  Let me repeat: that is more than all the other nations on earth combined!  and our President says there is nothing to cut, therefore in order to preserve the Pentagon budget the money will have to come from "adjustments" (a euphemism for budget cuts) to those programs.  In short, the President agrees with his Defense Secretary and favors cutting Social Security and Medicare to pay for war and the preparation for war.

    It doesn't get any clearer.  Your desire to believe that Doctor whoever he is, is going to have any say in this is nothing more or less than your own wishful thinking and isn't based upon anything else. 


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:36am

    No big surprise here, I'm sticking with Obama!

    He's been a disappointment in many ways, but given what he has had to face, I can't imagine how anyone else could have done any better. He has had to face more than any President in history when you consider the challenges themselves combined with a treasonous faction of the opposing party, the unrelenting 24/7/365 barrage from the internet (right and left,) a media bought and paid for by corporations, and a SCOTUS with a right bend that is infuriating.

    There is much to be upset about as far as his choices go, but I am not going to roll over and play dead to the right on this. I am going to do everything I can to keep them from destroying his Presidency,

    Like Bruce, I live in the real world, and in the real world there is no way to have all we want. I wish I lived in a country where the majority of people are liberal, but I don't. So I realize that no matter how badly I want what I want, chances are what I end up will be a smaller, lesser version of it. And that's all I can get for now.

    What you and those like you refuse to address is the reality that the other alternative is almost unthinkable (although Wisconsin comes to mind as an example of something close.) But the way Obama is getting the shit kicked out of him from all sides, we may find out just how bad it can be. I will try really hard not to say "I told you so."


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 6:33pm

    "all we want"?  Who said we must have all we want when the issue has come down to cutting Social Security and Medicare in order to continue funding the obscene Pentagon budget?  This is a red herring and an avoidance of the issue at hand.  No progressive or critic of Obama has ever complained that we must have everything we want or Obama is no good.  The complaint is that Obama is working for the other side, undermining the very things he claimed in his campaign he was in favor of and severely diminishing the ability of Democrats to defend the great and historic programs they established and which have kept this nation prosperous for 75 years!  We won the election and Obamas entire administration has been about unconditionally surrendering to every Republican demand no matter how outrageous, impractical or harmful.  All we want indeed.


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:40am

    Obama: "Throw me the ball and I'll run it down the field and score a touchdown".

    He didn't tell you, he would run it down the field, the wrong way?  


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:49am

    Precisely!


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:39pm

    It's very interesting to me that the left calls him a republican and the republicans call him a socialist. If he is such a republican, you'd think the repubs would be smart enough to want to keep him in office. Why take the blame for everything if you can have a shill in office taking the hit for you while you get everything you want and can still villainize him?

    There is no doubt in my mind that there is waste and fraud in Medicare, and small changes to SS that can improve the system... Before you get completely hysterical, couldn't you just wait and see what the proposed changes are? Maybe, just maybe, it'll be something you can live with. Whatever it is will undoubtedly be better than what we would get w/ a repub in office.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:53am

    "Do not trust the horse, Trojans. Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts."

    Virgil's Aeneid, Book 2, 19 BC:


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 2:08am

    Clue #1: He's black and the Republicans are the party of white racists in America.  He could be the second coming and they wouldn't support him.

    Clue #2: Republicans always oppose and obstruct every Democratic President just as they have with Obama.  They did it to Carter and Clinton.  They did it to FDR, Truman and Kennedy too.  They had deep hatred for LBJ but they were so weak at the time and he was so strong and skilled they had a hard time villifying him in the same manner as the others.  But because Obama is black, the Republicans have felt a special obligation never to give an inch.  They also have recognized his aversion to any conflict and his willingness to give away the farm in return for peanuts as a major weakness (which it is) and have only been encouraged to be all the more implacable and rigid in their obstruction as a result.  He keeps rewarding them for it and they've gotten everything they have asked for and more from him.  He's the perfect opponent for them: he is easily demonized in their party because of his race and he gives them anything they demand.

    Clue #3: His agenda as far as SS and Medicare are concerned is as clear as can be.  You take this very same wait and see posture on everything and he has hoodwinked you every time with his excuses and pleas of how mean and implacable the Republicans are.  You've been proven wrong to do so in every instance by the record of outcomes we've seen and yet you still cling to this hope that he isn't lying this time.  Wow!


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:49pm

    Stilli,

    I live in the real world, too, the world where ordinary people are trying to make a living and make the world better for their children.

    In my world a dearly beloved mentor once said to me "If you believe in something and you want it to happen, then every day you must take one action in furtherance of your goal. Some days, it will be a big, important action. Some days it will seem futile. But in the end, every day will add to the chance of success."

    He was an architect who accomplished many unlikely things in his career, against the concerted opposition of the local power elite, because he lived what he believed.

    He was no great man, just a committed human being. That is what I do not see in our President, and, at this late date, do not expect to see.

    So it is up to us to try to force him to do the right thing.

    Will I vote for him in 2012? Who cares? It's 2011 now. Let's fix what's wrong today.


    by Red Planet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:53am

    Good story, but the assumption that you make about the President may be unfair. We have no idea what he is doing behind the scenes (that you and others don't see) and it may be that he IS doing just what you suggest in his own way. I can only imagine the frustration he feels at being thwarted at every move.

    I agree about fixing what we can, now. And I am doing my part. What frustrates me about that is knowing that everything I do is being countered by a person in my own party working in an opposing direction.

    Yeah, I know, I chose this party, but little did I know when I did it was even more dysfunctional than the one I left. My only consolation is that at least now I'm standing with people who, for the most part, care about the "little people" instead of protecting the wealthy and corporations, although sometimes it seems as if the corporations have taken over the whole program, and we just haven't realized yet that the war is over and they won.

    WI didn't turn out quite like we'd hoped, but it was push-back, it took hard work and dedication to get as far they got. It gives me hope that we might be able to wrestle our government out of the grips of these people.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:31am

    It's pretty well known what he's doing behind the scenes stilli and all the wishful thinking in the world won't change him into being a good guy on this.  He's with the other guys and agrees with Alan Simpson and the other enemies of SS and Medicare he appointed to his incredibly unpopular Catfood Commission.


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:38pm

    In support of Oleeb, short of a new electable candidate, could it be the Democrats are more effective as the opposition?  Does anyone believe a Democrat 40+ minority in the Senate would let a Republican cut Social Security, does anyone believe another Republican would try to, like Bush Jr. tried to do, and Obama offered in the debt deal?

    The Obama administration has indicted more 'whistleblowers' than ALL previous administrations combined according to an article in the July 2011 issue of Smithsonian Magazine. This after Obama said, pre-election, that whistleblowing should be 'encouraged rather than stifled' (see link). He has also ramped up deportations. Who can trust this guy, or care what he says he stands for, or what he will do?

    He may be 'better than' a GOP President, but with him in power the Democratic wing of the Democratic party is emasculated as is, it seems, 2 party government.  We have government of the hostage takers and the appeasers. Who knows the damage or the good Obama may do in a second term when he doesn't need to worry about his 'base' and re-election. 


    by NCD on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:39pm

    Does anyone believe a Democrat 40+ minority in the Senate would let a Republican cut Social Security…?

    I wouldn't expect it, but based on current events it's not out of the question…


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:42pm

    Who are the Obamabots you speak of here?  I don't see any.  Not one.  I'm not going to get into this same, incessant argument again.  Just want to ask:  Where is the proof that Obama wants to gut SS and Medicare?  I don't see it.


    by Ramona on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 7:20am

    Ramona, I'll take a wait and see attitude.

    If Obamas plan is to raise the retirement age or to cut benefits, that'll be bad.

    If he takes off the caps, on Social Security contributions, I am for that.

    What do you think of the means testing aspects?    


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:25am

    I know you directed your question at Ramona, and she'll provide her own answer, but that never stops me from adding my 2 cents.

    I don't look at SS as an "entitlement." I look at it as a safety net, partially funded by our own contributions to it. And as such, I don't see means testing as being a bad thing. In fact, I think that a patriotic person who does not need the money, would be helping his country by NOT taking it.

    We do not need the money, at least not right now. We are opting to wait until age 70 to decide. We'll re-evaluate our financial position at that time. If inflation has eaten into our purchasing power, or our investments have gone awry, we may need to draw it. Otherwise, I would like to think we'll pass.

    Lifting the cap on what money is subject to SS tax makes all kinds of sense to me.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:45am

    I'm with you, stilli. I don't anticipate my wife and I needing SS when we retire, and I don't mind us not getting it if it means that it will be there for those who truly need it.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 11:36am

    The sole reason SS was passed and why it has thrived for decades is because everyone is in and nobody's out.  It's nice, even quaint, to believe that those who today believe they won't need it in the future are okay with not receiving the benefits but it is perilous.  Once SS becomes a program based upon "need" or some standard scale based upon income then it becomes more vulnerable than ever before and it is only a matter of time until it is destroyed.  What keeps it healthy, strong and popular is that everyone benefits.  Change that and you've guaranteed SS is finished.  No, it won't happen immediately, but it will happen and sooner than most people think.  The entire purpose of putting SS on the table is to raid the money being paid in to pay for war.  Once the beast gets a taste it will never relent until there is nothing left to extract from SS.


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:31pm

    The problem is that it's easy to point out that I already don't benefit from SS (at least not in a selfish manner). Putting money into SS is not the best use of that money, if my only interest is in providing for my financial security. By the way, I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting that my expected need now determines my benefits later, but that my need later determines my benefits later. I stress this because you use the phrase "those who today believe they won't need it in the future". Maybe I'm wrong and something will happen to me between now and then that will change my need status, but my point wasn't that I'm confident I'll never need it. My point is that I'm OK with not getting it unless and until I need it.

    Perhaps a better way of thinking about it is as an insurance. We all want insurance, but very few of us want to use it. The need for SS is probably a little more predictable, but I think analogies can be made.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 2:26pm

    But the bottom line remains that the political strength of social security is that everyone pays in and everyone benefits.  Once you mess with that and weakened the political consensus on the program which has been the Republican goal for decades, then it is only a matter of time until the whole thing is dismantled.  So, just because in an ideal world some of the money could be made more useful, it is, as a practical matter most useful if used as cement for holding together the political consensus of support for the program.


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:36pm

    Only in the clear, unambiguous statements and positions of his Catfood Commission, his Secretary of Defense and of Obama himself.  Other than that, there really is no "proof". 


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:34pm

    Of all the disingenuous things you've ever said, this one takes the cake. There is no way in hell Obama EVER said "I want to gut SS and Medicare." The fact that you chose to use such an incendiary lie shows just how twisted your thinking is when it comes to all things "Obama." Perhaps if you stuck with the truth, your views might be more persuasive.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 2:56pm

    Sometimes I think those who rail against the "catfood" commission never read their recommendations.  For instance, one of the recommendations is too improve the ability of those who work in careers that cause severe physical hardship to receive the benefits earlier than the norm.  That is hardly gutting the system. 

    For so many on the left, SS is like guns to the NRA - never give an inch or they'll take 'em all. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 3:06pm

    Right, especially on "means testing". I have watched the very wealthy get eyelid lifts and charge it to medicare when the intent was cosmetic. I have medicare and to me the important thing is for the catastrophic event, not so much the check-ups and meds--which fortunately I have mostly avoided. I know others depend upon it much more. But there is a great deal of over-prescribing of meds, etc. I just don't see the problem with some reforms and means testing. But if they screw with that and don't raise taxes on those over $250K in the bargain I could get pissed very quickly.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 3:17pm

    Are you really that dense or is it jus denial?  I cannot believe you are dense.  Unless he comes out and says "I hate your grandmother and want her social security" you wont' face reality will you?

    Read what he said in public!  Read what Panetta said in public!  Read what Obama's mentor, Joe lieberman, said on the Senate floor!  Is it even possible that without willfully ignoring their plain and unambiguous statements that you can miss what they're talking about and really fall for their attempts to assuage people like yourself and make them think they're not really doing what they plainly intend to do?  Get real Stilli and wake up!  You aren't stupid, but you are willfully gulllible.


    by oleeb on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:28pm

    This is almost the definition of begging the question. You're assuming that Obama wants to gut SS, so you interpret what he says to mean that he wants to gut SS. If you don't make that assumption, that's not the conclusion one is drawn to.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 7:11pm

    The problem is, that as soon as you even broach the idea that SS is "in crisis", you have betrayed yourself as a "gutter", because the trustees reports clearly show that there is nothing even approaching a crisis, unless you think that a problem looming on the 27th year horizon represents an iceberg to today's Titanic.

    There simply is no SS crisis--there is a drawerful of government bonds which may need servicing, but that just requires the stamping of the magic trillion dollar coin.

    The "crisis" is that the rich just hate inflation like the fuckin'  plague.

    Some inflation is a good thing, it greases the wheels for growth and embraces the growing population as well.

    Somehow, inflationphobia has taken over the mind (?) of the rulers.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 7:26pm

    Then there's also no global warming crisis (something which I strongly don't believe).


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 7:33pm

    Oleeb, it would work just as well to ask if YOU are really that dense or just gullible.

    There is a world of difference between "gutting" SS and making some changes to it. If one is "gutted," one cannot survive. If one has some unspecified changes made, one will almost certainly survive (unless the changes are so incredibly drastic so as to make that impossible) and there is absolutely nothing being said by dems that would lead me to believe that is the case.

    No one but republicans have suggested that we not plan on SS being around much longer. Yet it sounds like you are intent on making sure they take over. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy...you are so anti-Obama, that you WANT him to fail. I have a hard time believing it, but that is sure how it sounds.

    Dems would be better served changing the premise of the debate. Stop calling it a frickin' entitlement and start calling it a safety net...after all, if the repubs can change rich people into job creators, we can do this.

    Saving the "safety net" seems like an easier sell than saving the "entitlement."


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:35pm

    There is no question that there needs to be some tweaking of both programs, but the tweaking can be done to improve SS and Medicare, not gut them, which, from what I'm reading, is what the Dems are talking about.

    There is so much waste in Medicare, I welcome a complete investigation of how that money is being spent by providers.  I am on Medicare and I have no control over how any of my care is being billed.  Thankfully, I'm in reasonably good health and don't rack up huge expenses, but when tests or procedures are billed to Medicare I have no idea whether or not the costs are in line.  I've seen some incredible charges on other people's statements, and while we question them and even laugh at them, we're pretty sure nothing we say will change that.  It's up to the government to oversee the costs, and there's no reason they couldn't keep them in line.

    Also, as you said, there is no reason on earth why there is a cap on SS.  The sky's the limit -- or should be.  If you're earning wages why shouldn't they all be subject to FICA? The percentage could be adjusted slightly if there were no caps, and the deduction would be more equitable.

    And of course, SS money should never have been placed in the general fund, yet I never hear that argument from anyone, and especially not from the Republicans.  Their only mission is to kill both programs, and do it ASAP.  This whole argument about Obama and the Dems working with them holds no water.  None that I can see, anyway.


    by Ramona on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 7:32am

    Latest Comments