dagblog - Comments for "Obama Wants It (Social Security Cuts and Tax Increases On The Middle Class)"

He plays the base by

jollyroger — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:50:36 +0000

He plays the base by deliberately creating a problem to beat them over the head with...Sequester, son of debt limit fiasco. sired by extension of tax cuts out of criminally negligent political malpractice in not demanding debt limit extension dollar for tax cut dollar while he had whip hand AND it was the fair thing to do.

When u engineer ur own

jollyroger — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:41:44 +0000

In reply to If the Republican Lite

When u engineer ur own undoing, if ur not a tragic hero, ur a lowdown sell-out artist...

Teach it...

jollyroger — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:33:36 +0000

In reply to If the Republican Lite

Teach it...

If the Republican Lite

AnonymousPP — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 06:03:00 +0000

In reply to ..the honest belief that not

If the Republican Lite Democratic candidate doesn't distinguish himself from the so-called compassionate conservative business-experience GOP candidate, then yes, Romney can get 61 million votes. Romney may have been uninspiring, but he mostly knew how to stay on message. (47% was a bad gaffe).

Where's our wave of liberal legislation for term #2? Nope, we're debating not whether to cut Social Security, but how much. Austerity is our plan of action, not creating jobs. Unlike 2009, no talk of closing Gitmo - major prisoner strike now and it doesn't even hit the papers 't 'all. We passed a $10 million exempt estate tax, extended the Bush tax cuts except for those making over $450K, while capital gains is lower indefinitely - so now we need another bit of sacrifice so that the rich might pay their fair share - we'll close loopholes and somehow they'll stay closed? That is hope.

And we'll put cutting Social Security on the table with some presumed hope that there will be safeguards for the needy after all the committee meetings and Paul Ryan/Rand Paul/Boehner grandstanding, and of course no real guarantees for those who just put into the system and expected it to run as designed.

In one universe, Obama's looking for a Mommie who'll tell him, "yes, son, you did all the right things, you shared and compromised, and those other boys were mean". Meanwhile, those other boys are eating the lunch he packed for school and getting him to do their homework.

In another universe, Obama's snickering and saying, "it all worked out like I wanted it - half a loaf is better than all other loaves. Perfect is enemy of the good".

Just for the sake of clarity.

ocean-kat — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:08:42 +0000

In reply to Have you personally read it,

Just for the sake of clarity. Maiello posted, "Health care without a public option? We all know he'd have preferred a public option, right?"

tmc posted, "Let's not go over the single payer meme again, okay, it's a old discussion where most people don't know what they are talking about, (Pierce, You, Everyone at FDL, KOS, all the places where the knownothings purport to know something, and I am just plain tired of it"

Look, if you don't know the difference between a public option and single payer you weren't paying very much attention to the health care debate. I've seen this confusion a few times here at dag and yes, I'm tired of it. If you're going to go off on a rant and call people know nothings you really should know the difference.

And BTW: The whole notion

SleepinJeezus — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:03:38 +0000

In reply to That sure is a whole lotta'

And BTW: The whole notion that we must surrender on principles and policy to win elections is not only ludicrous, but extremely insulting and counter-productive on its face. It explains more how we have gotten into this predicament with the lunatics running the asylum than it offers any kind of a sane prescription for the future.

That sure is a whole lotta'

SleepinJeezus — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:59:13 +0000

In reply to Have you personally read it,

That sure is a whole lotta' words to get at one truth: Obama is negotiating against himself, again.

We've seen this act before, but I will indulge your insistence that we not "go over that single-payer meme again, okay" because SOME of us "don't know what we are talking about."

There is only one guy in Washington who could put the so-called "political third rail" of Social Security and Medicare on the table for discussion without causing all the "real liberals" to get up in arms in its defense. Here's your proof.

Obama does very well playing the script that's written for him. Maiello and Pierce (as always, it seems) pretty well nail it.

Excellent info Momoe. Thanks,

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 23:55:39 +0000

In reply to I waded through all the

Excellent info Momoe. Thanks, retirees are often very well organized which is great! They have a good amount of power and pressuring their representatives will surely help.

Pointe 1 answer: True, except

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 23:53:38 +0000

In reply to It's not a vent, TMac, these

Pointe 1 answer: True, except that we also need those taxes increased. Families aren't really giving up anything at this point, because the budget isn't supposed to come from the President, the budget is supposed to come from the House, and the President basically lobbies for the things he would like to see included. That is in Article One of the Constitution. All spending bills originate in the House, all of them, not some, not a few, all. And I do want Mitt Romney's taxes raised, and I want his massive IRA taxed. And it seems the Republicans have agreed that they don't want to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens... LOL, even though they've been looking to privatize Social Security. But because this President proposed the chained CPI, the Rethugs are against it suddenly.. also a large LOL, but they are trapped. Good.

2. No benefits have been cut, because no budget has been passed by the House, where the budget is supposed to ORIGINATE, (that's trollish of me I know), but it's my main point here, Article 1 Section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

No mention of the President here at all. None. His budget proposals are meaningless except he got the Republicans to reject their own chained-cpi wet dream. So why am I to worry and why would I fret about something that isn't going to happen.

The thing that bothers me is, congress never gets their act together, never, ever, they don't care about the country. And by blaming the President for something that isn't going to happen you are absolving congress of their Constitutional responsibility to propose and pass a budget.

I waded through all the

trkingmomoe — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 05:52:17 +0000

In reply to Have you personally read it,

I waded through all the firebagging on Kos too, looking for comments that knew what they were talking about. One thing that is happening here in Florida is the representatives in Washington is hearing from retirees. They are contacting the Republicans and Democrats. This is a good thing because once they get started on a complaint they add all the other stuff they are not happy with in the rant. Most of these people are not ideologs, just pragmatic in their thinking. With the climate in Washington, there is lots for them to rant about and they want the legislature to return back to working. They want fairness. Also, they are making it clear they will not stand for any kinds of cuts, roll backs or increases in age eligibility used to bargain for tax increases on the wealthy. This is a issue that has no party loyalty because it is the 3rd rail of politics. I am with you T-Mac, I don't see the President's budget proposal going very far. The sequester is not permanent because it is not sustainable over time and will have to be fixed.