Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans start to squirm over sequester (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ummm two days ago, our President....link to diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Losty, musiccitymollie
    •  No, I don't think so. SS cuts were Boehner's idea, (0+ / 0-)

      ... according to the article you linked, not the White House's. And, on a skim of the President's remarks - the subject of the article - I saw no such proposal.

      I know he he's proposed it before ... but the more specifics he takes off the table now, the more fuel goes on the fire. It's agreement the parties have to get to now. The President's message two days ago was, I believe, intentionally vague, a deliberate counter to Boehner's desperate attempt to embarrass Democrats into offering cuts in safety nets.

      That said, I'm with you on no changes in SS. On M&M - which has serious and ongoing funding problems that it is in our best interests to address - I want to see specific proposals before I'll argue that changes are unthinkable.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:05:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  President's quote during that speech: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Losty, musiccitymollie
        "In order to achieve the full $4 trillion of deficit reductions, these modest reforms to our social insurance programs must go hand-in-hand"
        "Modest Reforms" to a program that should be left the hell alone......sure sounds like cuts to SS to me.

        In any regard, our side doesn't need to be saying these things...ever.  We are not the party of cutting government or social programs.  Once it is said, it can't be taken back and it becomes a sound bite to be used during elections, even if it never materializes. We know they put it on the table in December, and Pelosi, of all people,  went around talking to cameras and saying she agreed with it!  WTH??

         Now, we are back to a Grand Bargain  when again, we have zero reason to do it???  It makes no more sense than when we gave up the 250,000 threshold, that we said we would never cross.  We had no reason to do that either.

        I am sick to death of "bargaining" when we hold all the cards and have a complete mandate to tell them to jump off a cliff.

         If SS gets cuts, Democrats will have the blame.  They put it out there, they are willing to "talk" about it, they want to "bargain" when we don't have to.....no reason at all for any of this.

        •  See Jay Carney's press briefing today. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GoGoGoEverton

          Look at the emphasis, the strong emphasis.

          SS is off the table. M&M is on it, as any program that costs that much and growing must be. Our job is to help make alternatives possible that do not involve cuts in benefits.

          Politics is bargaining. And I disagree that we hold all the cards, not by a long shot. Unless you mean the wholesale cut-and-slash tubing of the public interest that the sequester deal was. But IF you mean that is one of our cards and you're willing to play it - frankly, I've looked at how the sequester could/must-by-its-terms be implemented - I'd be willing to go with it for a while. Mostly because it would prompt triage within the walls of the Pentagon that probably would not occur any other way. That might well be worth the hit on vital domestic programs, at least for a while. (Which, if I recall correctly, includes safety nets.)

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:15:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Our side shouldn't put ANY social program on the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musiccitymollie

            table, period.  We have zero reason to do so.  No reason at all.

            If the Republicans are so backed into a corner about the sequester, why should we offer a damn thing, much less any part of the Big 3?

             If it must be done, let the GOP spell it out for the public...so they will get the blame.  Otherwise, we will get the blame...mark my words.

            •  OK, so any domestic spending cuts will come ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... from all other domestic programs. Are you sure that's the wisest overall course to take?

              Or, do you oppose all cuts on the domestic side? In which case, there's no bargain to be had, negotiations are unnecessary and whatever will be, will be. What will be?

              In 2013 for domestic cuts, $6B in payments to Medicare providers ($11B in 2014) and an 8% cut in almost all other domestic programs (except Social Security). This would be Head Start, education, health programs and prescription drug benefits, job training ...

              I agree with you on the optics of having Republicans take the heat. After all, they deserve it. But all of us will take the hit.

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:41:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  You are correct. And the reforms are not modest. (0+ / 0-)

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible." --Frank L. Gaines

          "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:20:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site