Skip to main content

View Diary: White House: "Social Security Is Not A Driver Of the Deficit", Address It Separately (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  why, what did Ed say? nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany, elwior

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:47:57 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  David Plouffe saying that (18+ / 0-)

      liberals were going to end up hating Obama because they're going to try to compromise by cutting entitlements.

      Maybe they won't cut SS.  Maybe they'll just cut Medicare and Medicaid.  Ed asked the question, didn't we just WIN this past election?

      And the answer that comes to my mind is, he wanted to do this before the election, he wants to do it after the election, he doesn't even want to wait for a new congress to come in with more votes...  The man just really, really wants to do this.  So it was never a matter of it being so hard to work with a recalcitrant congress.  It's just what he wants to do.

      •  yes, the rest of the linked article talks about (17+ / 0-)


        But Carney said that the president "remains committed" to the notion of compromise in order to reach a deal, which is why he is willing to discuss changes to the retiree health program, Medicare, and the health program for the poor, Medicaid.
        but it's more honest than lumping in SS as if cutting it will reduce the deficit

        "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

        by eXtina on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:55:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Some people can't take yes for an answer (7+ / 0-)
        •  This statement isn't "yes" however. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina, quagmiremonkey

          I wish it were.

          "Yes" would be a direct statement from Mr. Obama himself, something like

          I will never sign legislation that cuts Social Security benefits, raises the retirement age, or in any other way impinges on the financial security of retirees in America, now or in the future.
          There are, unfortunately, many ways that Carney's apparently "strong" statement can be walked back or reinterpreted in the name of "compromise."

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 09:15:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is disingenous. (7+ / 0-)
        And the answer that comes to my mind is, he wanted to do this before the election, he wants to do it after the election, he doesn't even want to wait for a new congress to come in with more votes...  
        If the WH waits for a deal, everyone's taxes go up.  Mind you, I'm not suggesting he should "cut entitlements" (whatever that means).  I am saying that it's unfair to suggest that his personal motivation is the only reason the WH isn't waiting.  Many economists have estimated that a tax-increase on the middle class will be a serious short-term drag on the economy.
        •  The WH only has to wait a few weeks (14+ / 0-)

          Yes, at the end of the year, the Bush tax cuts will expire as Republicans designed them to do when they were enacted for a 10-year period. The following week, Democrats can come forward with a bill to cut taxes on everyone's first $250K. Let's see Republicans vote against that. No sacrifice of programs for the elderly and disabled required.

          “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

          by RJDixon74135 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 05:26:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the dems already passed such a bill in the Senate (8+ / 0-)

            the trick would be getting boehner to bring it to a vote.  

            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

            by Cedwyn on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 06:05:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  By then there would be tremendous public pressure (6+ / 0-)

              with the entire Middle Class facing a tax increase. The table could be turned, saying that Republicans are blocking a tax cut.

              The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries.

              by Words In Action on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 06:14:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's just not realistic. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                eXtina, TheLizardKing, Deep Texan, davekro

                The House Republicans will bring up -- and pass -- a one-year continuation of the tax cuts for everyone "while they work out a deal."  (If talks fall apart, I seriously expect them to do this BEFORE December 31.)    That would take the pressure off them -- they would be all over the place saying they just did vote to keep tax rates where they are on everyone while they worked out the "Grand Bargain" the President wants.   We'll be right back where we are now -- having to broker a deal.  

                •  where it'll get really interesting (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  eXtina, Words In Action, Larsstephens

                  is the budget talks come february, when boehner's caucus, and hand, will be considerably weaker.

                  Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                  by Cedwyn on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 07:04:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I think this is the way things will play out (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  eXtina, slinkerwink

                  Even if it goes past, they will just pass a full tax cut.  

                  But leverage will be gained if Dems push it shows they don't care about the deficit.   But no one should count in the vote against a tax cut meme.

                  "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

                  by justmy2 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 07:12:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The problem for Democrats is that the President (0+ / 0-)

                    campaigned on a "balanced approach" to reducing the deficit, which he said meant $2.50 in cuts for every $1 of revenue, AND bringing spending down significantly:  

                    The President has put forward a specific, balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases that reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, including $1 trillion in spending cuts he signed into law last summer as part of a deal with Congressional Republicans. His plan includes $2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue increases, while bringing annual domestic spending as a share of the economy to its lowest level in 50 years.
                    I can't imagine that Democrats retain the "upper hand" if they go against what the President promised in the campaign and the people voted for.  
              •  tremendous pressure? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                from who? There are many people, perhaps most, who do not bother to contact their representatives because they feel it is a waste of time. There is plenty of time to parse words spoken by anyone, especially the President, and to discuss ad-nauseam future events that are not real, but no time to pick up the phone and call those who actually legislate.

          •  Completely unrealistic. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina, TheLizardKing, Deep Texan, VClib

            The Republicans won't have to "vote against" that.  Because it will never come up for a vote in the House.  Period.  Nothing comes up for a vote in the House unless Speaker Boehner wants it to.

            The Senate already passed exactly that kind of bill -- keep the tax cuts only on income under $250,000.  How many times have House Republicans had to "vote against" that?  That's right -- exactly zero.  Because it won't come up for a vote.  

            If Republicans allow the Democrats to get what they want on taxes, Republicans lose any leverage to get the spending cuts that they want in exchange for tax increases.  Anybody can see that.  Which is why they haven't brought that bill up for a vote yet, and won't do it after January 1.  Instead. after January 1, House Republicans will bring up -- and pass -- a bill extending ALL the tax cuts. And we'll be exactly where we are now -- having to negotiate a deal, or letting all of the effects of the so-called "fiscal cliff" stay in place.

          •  I tend to disagree with Fou's point above (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina, slinkerwink

            But...I don't buy this argument.  Tax changes have to obstensibly come from the house.  So what stops the house from repassing the bush tax cuts.  Then what?   We are right back where we started.

            I don't think the timing changes anything.  But I also don't think the world will end if the tax cuts expire.   It will actually show a huge deficit drop and hang deficit hawks out to dry.   That is why I like goin past Dec, not due to new leverage

            "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

            by justmy2 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 06:24:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The House can repass the Bush cuts (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              And that bill will die in the Senate. Won't even need the Presidential veto to kill it. The House does not make law on its own.

              There is no reason to blow off this leverage we have and going past Dec w/o trying to get a deal now. There is too much work to be done to waste two months. And if no deal is managed now, nothing is lost. We go past Dec. But that's Plan B not Plan A.

          •  The GOP did not want the sunset provision (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And on another topic, why do you advocate throwing away political leverage? The expiring Bush tax cuts put pressure on the GOP to make a deal. If they do not make a deal now, your idea remains, unblemished, as a Plan B.

            There's a double-shitload of work to be done in DC so why are so many Kossacks in favor of throwing away a golden opportunity, of wasting two months doing nothing when much could be accomplished?

        •  Plouffe speaks for the president in this video (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Slightly Wobbly, Ginger1, rlochow

          and says that the president wants entitlement cuts.  Entitlement cuts and a flattened (less progressive) tax structure.  It's a Republican wet dream. This is what they have wanted for decades and Obama is going to give it to them.

          Plouffe says right there that this is what the president wants.  There is no mind reading involved.  And it's the same thing Obama has been saying for a long time but he has said it in clever ways that fooled voters.

          Get honest about this.

          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 08:39:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  your comment is overstated from what he said (6+ / 0-)
        •  It was. As was ed's response, (7+ / 0-)

          but that's nothing new

          I recall Ed's tantrums during the public option debacle, stomping his feet and vowing not to vote for Obama's re-election.

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 06:05:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  His point was right...and still is. We can argue (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina, slinkerwink

            over the histrionics.   If the WH wants to go on attack against the "professional left" again, they deserve the loss they will run into.   We all have to work together.   And the points being made are absolutely valid, and folks like Durbin should stop creating strawmen about liberal commentators.   He likes getting beat up by joe Scarborough more than rational discussions with progressive commentators.

            "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

            by justmy2 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 07:17:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I've heard Mr Schultz exactly once (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eXtina, askew

            Back when Air America was starting out. To me he sounded like just another talk radio shocker who says provocative things to ensure the call in board is always lighted up. It's just that he was coming from the other side politically.

            Don't get people to call in and your career is brief in talk radio. So I've never taken his for anything other than a guy guarding his paycheck. I don't take him seriously at all. Look what happened to this Kossack who did.

            (I don't have cable so I never see his show now that he is on the telly.)

      •  It's also what he campaigned on. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, pamelabrown, Deep Texan, notagain

        He did not campaign on "let's raise taxes and that's it."  He campaigned on a "balanced approach," and specifically said that meant $2.50 in cuts for every $1 in revenue.  He's been using that same phrase -- balanced approach -- since 2011, when he made clear that "entitlement reform" would be on the table if Republicans agreed to raise tax revenue.

        So it can't be any surprise to anyone if the President negotiates a deal exactly in line with what he's been saying for 18 months and what he campaigned on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site