Skip to main content

View Diary: White House says their plan is 'not ideal' (521 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And note (130+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Calvino Partigiani, Clues, gooderservice, howabout, 420 forever, Words In Action, maryabein, RichM, 3goldens, rbird, kareylou, aliasalias, dance you monster, lunachickie, leonard145b, Laurence Lewis, NoMoreLies, Lefty Coaster, peregrine kate, praenomen, ratzo, bleeding blue, ctsteve, BlueDragon, shaharazade, leeleedee, Mr Robert, chuckvw, orestes1963, PinHole, elwior, JesseCW, Ginger1, Chi, fenway49, SpecialKinFlag, Little Flower, mookins, bluicebank, Jackson L Haveck, quagmiremonkey, Heart of the Rockies, AverageJoe42, zaka1, gulfgal98, Don midwest, Brown Thrasher, jeopardydd, midwesterner, mikeconwell, dss, PrometheusUnbound, apimomfan2, CorinaR, tarheelblue, Shockwave, cocinero, psnyder, triv33, bibble, bronte17, beforedawn, BusyinCA, Aspe4, susakinovember, flowerfarmer, Gooserock, Joieau, salmo, Aunt Martha, tardis10, JerryNA, Williston Barrett, divineorder, tofumagoo, ichibon, badger, MikePhoenix, middleagedhousewife, quill, TracieLynn, ybruti, Willa Rogers, miasmo, pgm 01, Lucy2009, Seneca Doane, rl en france, banjolele, Jeffersonian Democrat, democracy inaction, J M F, Stripe, blue in NC, DWG, isabelle hayes, jbob, expatjourno, asterkitty, greenbell, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Sychotic1, PhilK, Cthulhu, PhilJD, orlbucfan, The Nose, Suzanne 3, Eric Blair, ChemBob, DannyX, SouthernLiberalinMD, vigilant meerkat, Timothy J, Thomas Twinnings, Boudicia Dark, mrchips46, Buddha Badger, NCgrassroots, Capt Crunch, milton333, penguins4peace, coral, RUNDOWN, schnecke21, socindemsclothing, thomask, KateCrashes, radmul

    that this is being strictly proposed as a 'deficit reduction plan'. The Social Security savings go right into the maw of the wars, the Bush tax cuts, and tax incentives to offshore workers.

    you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

    by Dem Beans on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:13:29 PM PDT

    •  Funny how Obama is paying for Bush's (104+ / 0-)

      war and tax cuts, with our social security.

      Bush said in 2005 "I have political capital and I plan to spend it"
      He tried to spend it killing medicare, and he failed.
      His own party revolted.

      Obama's boy Axlrod says 1 day after swearing in "We don't have a mandate."

      Obama proposes cutting social security, and his base revolts.

      I know he doesn't like to "look backwards" but maybe he should have and known that Social Security and Medicare are popular.

      No matter how much his boss Pete Peterson tells him otherwise.

      •  Yeah Obama is just like Bush (8+ / 0-)

        I'm sure McCain would have stopped and reversed the economic freefall and got us out of the mess in Iraq and not provoked another senseless war, and saved the auto industry and created universal healthcare in the face of the most hostile, moneyed opposition ever.

        •  I don't want to hear about McCain (91+ / 0-)

          He's irrelevant.

          TripleB is right on this. The White House is doing this because the White House wants this, along with their elitist 1% friends who don't give a shit about anybody but their select little neoliberal austerity agenda'd set.

          The only response to this is WTF and Hell No!


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:23:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tripple B's argument is faulty. Everybody and (5+ / 0-)

            his/her alien cousin know that Republicans want to get into Americas venerable social programs.

            Do you and triple B believe that most Americans with the slightest notion of politics suddenly got up ignorant to who the Republicans really are?

            The Republicans? The same old Republicans who for years have been stepping on the poor to get to the Rich?

            Except for the racist faction of the population who are xenophobic as well as homophobic, do you see anyone else voting for Republicans?

            I put it to you that everyone who votes for the Republican Party either votes for them because of Fox News, votes for them due to fear that the President, gays, various ethnic groups, and women are taking over the country, or votes for them to protect the wealthy.

            The majority of people without a biased agenda will not believe that Democrats want to destroy Medicare and Social Security, despite the President's current proposal,  and that Republicans who have been trying to stomp them dead dead dead for years are somehow saviors of these programs.

            May I remind you and triple B that the Republicans spent millions, hundreds of millions, in the last election portraying Obama as the individual who wanted to savage and kill Medicare while Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney wanted to save it.... Hmm?

            Well do we remember what the result of the election was? Yes, owing to the argued point of this diary, today Willard Mitt Romney is our President.

            Yes, I guess you are right, the public did buy that ridiculous argument that Republicans, the same bunch that is obsessed with repealing Obamacare every waking day, are for protecting our social programs (that Paul Ryan wanted to stomp dead dead dead) and Democrats who established these very same programs, and who recently passed a healthcare bill to give the uninsured access to healthcare, just want to kill them.

            Uh-huh....

            •  Everybody and (42+ / 0-)
              Everybody and his/her alien cousin know that Republicans want to get into Americas venerable social programs.
              Which is why the Republicans want Democrats to do it for them: because a wide swath of the public doesn't know that Democrats like Obama want to do it too.

              “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.” – Abraham Lincoln

              by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:00:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A wide swath of Americans do not and will not (5+ / 0-)

                believe the President want to destroy Medicare and Social Security. Again, this did not work during the 2012 election.

                The Republicans tried to run on Obama "killer of Medicare". They put up countless ads declaring that the President cut 716 billion from Medicare, in order to rob and cripple the program, and they lost big time! The public saw that they were lying.

                Of course, many of you who support this argument will keep presenting it because it allows you to say that Obama has given a gift to Republicans and Obama has sabotaged the Democratic Party, but there is nothing to back up your argument. Nothing.

                I can actually back up my point through the experience of last year's election, in which President Obama and Democrats shellacked Mitt Romney and the Republicans, despite their hundreds of millions of dollars supported propaganda.

                This quite clearly illustrates that this argument being bandied about is simply just empty rhetoric.

                •  If he actually starts cutting SS, they probably (24+ / 0-)

                  will believe it. He hadn't made any cuts prior to the 2012 election. It's your argument that's faulty, not BBB's.

                  If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

                  by MikePhoenix on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:39:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He did cut Medicare. They ran on it. Tried to spin (5+ / 0-)

                    it, but they lost. Some of you were saying he was going to be blamed for cutting Medicare too...you were wrong!

                    I know you all are grasping tightly to this because you need this argument, but the public does not view Obama as some "Evil Republican" out to distroy Social Programs as some of you have been suggesting. This is the same Obama who passed the Affordable Care Act....

                    Yup, you all are wishing hard on this but wishing don't make it so.

                    •  It worked for them in 2010. (22+ / 0-)

                      It's the real reason Rethugs they took back the House. They ran shitloads of ads saying that Obama was going to cut medicare and scared the crap out of a bunch of old white people. They will do it again this time. And Obama just handed them a giant gift by proposing cuts to medicare and SS in HIS budget. There is no political upside to this for Dems. The diarist is drawing the only logical conclusion: Obama is proposing this because he wants it. He lives in a bubble with all the other beltway elites whose ecosystem is fueled by corporate billionaires. He sucks.

                    •  He didn't cut Medicare benefits. As I recall the (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RudiB, orlbucfan, Cthulhu, Timothy J

                      cuts were a few minor tweaks in some reimbursements which didn't affect most people. i'm on Medicare and I never noticed them. The chained CPI is an actual cut in benefits, which ALL recipients will feel.

                      Anyhow, we will see soon enough who is engaging in wishful thinking, if this goes through.

                      If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

                      by MikePhoenix on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:13:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Medicare benefits to seniors were not cut (7+ / 0-)

                        Medicare reimbursements to certain insurance companies and providers were cut. Chained CPI would be a cut in SS benefits to seniors, a series of lower COLAs in the future.

                        Did you ver notice how har it is totype accurately on an iPad?

                        by RudiB on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 02:42:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  He DID cuts mostly to providers 700B in all (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rlochow

                        And look at the enormous electoral damage this did in 2010.  
                        Enormous.  And remember the House and the Senate has to run in 2014, but Barack Obama doesn't have to run again.

                        Just think how much Dems lose if this passes ...and the only way it passes is with Democratic votes.  Hell this isn't even in Ryan's budget.

                        When Boehner breaks the Hastert rule to allow it to the floor, he won't make any Republicans vote for it.  It will have to pass with Democratic votes.

                        So the only ones who will be strong armed into betraying fundamental principles will be Democrats. Republicans will be gloating all the way to keeping the House and winning the Senate.

                        So it is the Dems in the House and the Senate who need electoral protection.  Obama doesn't need to be protected.

                        And if you are concerned about his legacy then you too should not let him do this.  It will be a stain on his legacy.
                        It will also tie the hands of any 2016 nominee for President.

                        It is a fundamental betrayal of everything that is humane and everything this party has ever stood for.  

                        It is also a prescription for turning a winning hand into one that will keep losing.

                        Debra "But what I have concluded over the years is that talent is universal, but opportunity is not." SOS Clinton

                        by debcoop on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:23:54 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  so right you are nedsparks (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BenderRodriguez, Beetwasher

                      how does the voting public view pbo, that is the point

                      the most important is taking back the house in 2014, when the voting public will be needed

                      if the generalized perception is that the prez is willing to aggravate some of his base with an offer that should have been attractive to the right, which refused a good offer, again

                      the administration will get the benefit in the very next election

                      •  I'm all in favor of more democrats in power (4+ / 0-)

                        but I now have no reason to trust President Obama, and no reason to try to help pass his legislative agenda.  

                        I'd rather focus on 2016, which I believe is much more important than 2014.  

                        Or, said another way, the most important thing is electing a Demcratic President in 2016, and giving that Democratic President a mandate in Congress.  Its not to focus on 2014, to enable a lame duck President with no skin in the game to finally cram through a betrayal of the principles of his party.  

                      •  administration is not running in the next election (0+ / 0-)

                        Individial Democrsts are running.

                        Barack Obama is never running for anything else again.

                        Debra "But what I have concluded over the years is that talent is universal, but opportunity is not." SOS Clinton

                        by debcoop on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:27:21 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  This is the same Obama who skated away from (14+ / 0-)

                      single payer and public option, giving us the insurance company giveaway which is the ACA.

                    •  I think you are delusional (6+ / 0-)

                      I just spent time at a retirement community in Florida -- the retirees know very well what Obama has proposed, and seem very, very angry.  

                      Democrat.   Republican.   Independent.   They all know that they've been screwed.

                      This isn't "wishing" the President ill -- this is mere observing.

                    •  Those cuts were to providers, which don't show up (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Liberaltarian

                      as fast as impacts in people's pocketbooks, and even so the Republicans used it to help boost their 2010 wave.

                      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:32:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Obama will say that he "strengthened" SS (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    2laneIA, Liberaltarian, rlochow

                    and the lemmings will believe him.

                    I'm already seeing that a lot of Democrats actually SUPPORT Obama's proposed cuts to Social Security. (Most who oppose the cuts apparently plan to "hold him accountable" by signing online petitions.)

                    Based on what we've seen with previous betrayals, it's a good bet that the majority of the Dems who oppose the cuts right now will eventually follow Nancy Pelosi's "lead" and adapt the talking point that cuts aren't cuts but are, instead, moves to "strengthen" Social Security:

                    Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

                    Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill that a cut proposed by President Barack Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations would in fact "strengthen" the program, echoing the claims often made by Republicans about entitlement programs they want to slash.

                    “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.” – Abraham Lincoln

                    by Sagebrush Bob on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:02:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  but he really is proposing to do just that (10+ / 0-)

                  so, yeah, they'll believe it.  I have to believe that he is down with weakening SS because he has repeatedly said he wants to make changes that result in citizens getting less out of the system than they would if it isn't changed.  To me, that is a benefit cut, and a benefit cut is weakening of the program.  Just listen to what the man has repeatedly said he wanted to do.  Or put your head back in the sand. Up to you.

                  Power to the Peaceful!

                  by misterwade on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:51:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My head was never in the sand, the Romney (3+ / 0-)

                    campaign didn't convince America that Barack Obama is against their interest and a handful of people in this community won't convince America of this either. I have no doubt that a few weeks from now, the President will be seen by most people as just as Democraty as as ever.

                    •  He proposed cuts to my future standard of living. (16+ / 0-)

                      In my book that means he sucks. Seems pretty simple. Do you support cuts to the safety net or not? Why are you defending such proposals?

                      •  I don't necessarily see what the President is (0+ / 0-)

                        proposing is the end of the world, especially if there will be measures taken to protect the elderly and poor. And I am all for Universal Pre-K which is apparently part of this package.

                        •  Tranferring Social Security from the middle class (8+ / 0-)

                          to the poor.  The Republicans will be able to explain how that works.  YOU get less for the rest of your life because Obama took YOUR money from YOUR payroll tax and gave it away.  

                          •  Nobody will believe the Republicans have a leg to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beetwasher

                            stand on when it comes to social programs like Medicare and Social Security. People didn't believe they wanted to protect these programs in the last election and they won't believe they want to protect them in the future.

                          •  are you being serious (6+ / 0-)

                            voters "refuse to believe" that Obama will cut SS and Medicare benefits, even when he includes SS and Medicare benefit cuts in his budget?

                             "the generalized perception is that the prez is willing to aggravate some of his base with an offer that should have been attractive to the right, which refused a good offer, again the administration will get the benefit in the very next election"

                            ......there are still people who think this is a viable strategy, as opposed to, i dunno, defending SS and Medicare and liberal policies in general? holy crap.

                          •  The argument that is being put forth is that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beetwasher

                            voters will decide to vote against Democrats in the next election because Obama has put forth this proposal.

                            Folk will run over to embrace Republicans because, as the argument suggests, people will say Democrats are against Social Programs because Obama proposed chained CPI and now we all just loveeee Republicans....

                            Yeah right....

                          •  More likely is that even more Democratic voters (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            milton333, Dem Beans, miasmo, misterwade

                            decide to stay home. If enough stay home, Republicans will gains seats and people like you will blame those people who stay home for any such losses. We've seen this game before.

                            Frankly, I no longer care. Until we break out of the duopoly fear games, the drift to the right will only worsen. I suspect that things will have to get a lot worse before people finally wake up.

                            “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.” – Abraham Lincoln

                            by Sagebrush Bob on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:24:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If people want to stay home and allow Republicans (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Timeslayer, Beetwasher

                            to further take over Congress. Then that's on them. And if this means repealing Obamacare (I'm sure some on the left would love that) and adopting Paul Ryan’s plan to totally eradicate Medicare and get into a war with Iran and place more conservatives on the Supreme Court and totally destroy the nation to finish the job started by George W. Bush then good luck to these stay at home folk. According to them Obama is a "Republican" anyway, so it will be all fine and dandy.

                            But serious voters who have families to worry about, people who are concerned about their kids education, people who are worried about their kids lack of health insurance, people who are worried about their elderly parent having healthcare, these people will vote Democrat.

                            Why? Because these other individuals are always looking for the best solution for their lives, not individuals who want to throw temper tantrums and not care if it will affect their future. "We'll show Obama!" If the argument is Democrats are just like Republicans so who cares? Let them adhere to this belief and see who really cares.

                          •  and there it is (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            miasmo, rlochow, bryduck

                            "If people want to stay home and allow Republicans to further take over Congress. Then that's on them."

                            that's what it always comes down to, right? the Republicans would be worse, so if you don't Do Your Duty and vote D like a Serious Voter with Serious Problems that you approach with Serious Pragmatism to Seriously Cut Social Security... well then, if the R's get in, it's all your fault. the Obama administration itself shares no blame in that for any of its actions (unprecedented safety net cuts or anything else) in your failure as a Serious Voter.

                            it's so, so very tired. do you really believe that this is such a "center-right" country that liberal ideas have absolutely no chance in the public discourse? is there so little support for protecting the safety net and other liberal ideals that the very best we can do is offering the opposition what they want and hoping they don't take it? so we look "reasonable"? how has that helped us so far?

                            please. i'm done with Clinton Dems and corporate Dems and Very Serious Dems. if Obama drives a split in the party here, i'd be just fine with that. the left needs a real voice. at some point we have to stop endlessly compromising our values and making excuses for plutocrat party leaders and most importantly of all, we need to stop this bullshit watering down of all our liberal principles for the sake of chasing the moderate unicorns. we are never, ever rewarded for it. in this country, the left ARE the moderates. we ARE the mainstream. we've proven that. if it takes a split from the Dems, so be it.

                          •  To answer your question, I do believe that liberal (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beetwasher

                            ideas have a chance in the public discourse. I am a liberal, but see, I am also a pragmatist. And I believe that incremental change is better than no change at all.

                            Since Barack Obama became President this country has swung further left than we have seen in many decades.

                            We passed a healthcare bill, giving the uninsured access to healthcare, the same bill allows women contraceptive care.

                            We have taken steps to improve the environment,
                            we improved fuel efficiency standards and have more than doubled production of renewable energy since the President took office and investment in this area that is more than any other President in history.

                            We have extended to millions of individuals an opportunity to receive an education through the expanding of the Pell Grant program. A big deal for the poor or others unable to afford going to college.

                            We've put an end to DADT, we've placed two women, on the Supreme Court.

                            The Liberal agenda is alive and well, take a look at the many accomplishments of this President since he entered office.

                            Still, it is important to note that Liberals will not get everything they want in one swoop, because the country does not solely consists of Liberals.

                            The Democratic President will have to compromise, and yes, to the point where we will be unhappy, but Democratic President's have always had to compromise LBJ could have gone for a broader healthcare reform bill all those many decades ago, but compromised and signed Medicare, which saw improvements over time.

                            So, many Democrats disagree with the President's current proposal, but it is clear that this agile President struggles with immobility because the Republicans insist on continuing to block every single initiative that he places before the American people.

                            Should the President just decide nothing will ever get done and just throw his hands up in the air or try to work out some compromise that will allow him to continue to help the poor and the disenfranchised?

                            I say he has to, even if he has to deal with hostage takers. Who are we kidding? Everybody everyday deals with hostage takers.

                            This latest chained CPI proposal is a tough offer to make, but if the President is able to make sure that the elderly and the poor are protected from these adjustments, and if the Republicans are willing to free up revenues that will help people to go back to work as well as allow the President to expand the social contract by instituting Universal Pre-K, then I think it is, pragmatically speaking, worth looking into.

                            For Democrats who want to punish all other Democrats and decide to stay home and allow Republicans to take over the full reins of government, because they feel there is no difference between the two parties, let them.

                            If they want to stay at home to render some type of revenge on Barack Obama, let them. Everyone has to make decisions most favorable to his/her personal situation in life. If this benefits them, I say, indeed, go ahead.

                          •  there's nothing "pragmatic" about these cuts. (0+ / 0-)

                            protecting "the poorest of the poor" is fine but fun fact: money problems aren't just for the poor anymore, the middle class is getting sucked out as well, and they're the ones who are going to be hit by this the hardest.

                            i can make a laundry list of Obama's accomplishments as well. starts with "zero bankers going to jail", rounds out with "Heritage Foundation health plan" and ends somewhere around NDAA.

                            offering to help kill the New Deal to appease the current crop of Republicans is inexcusable. maybe try to defend it, since you're the Democratic POTUS. there's not an excuse in the world you or anyone else can make for them now.

                            i won't vote for a Dem who votes with the Pres on this. if you continue to feed the cycle, it will never stop. we as the left are alone now, the Democratic party that claims to represent us refuses to acknowledge we even exist.

                          •  I don't think the heritage foundation would have (0+ / 0-)

                            supported the President's healthcare plan. And Republicans would not have passed this bill. As I've pointed out before, the Obama healthcare plan, Obamacare, is quite different than the Republican heritage foundation plan or Romney care. And here is why:

                            1. Obamacare premium support and cost sharing subsidies help families with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty line, vs. 300% FPL under Romneycare.

                            2. OC bans lifetime and annual benefit caps and RC does not.

                            3. OC eliminates medical underwriting and pre-existing condition exclusions for all health insurance policies. Massachusetts did this in the 1990s and so there was no need for this to be addressed in RC.

                            4. OC requires health insurance companies to spend at least 80-85 cents of every premium dollar on medical costs as opposed to profits, marketing and overhead.  RC includes no such provisions.

                            5. OC allows young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance policies until they reach age 26. RC allows young adults to stay on their parents' plan for up to two years after they are no longer dependent, and no older than age 25.

                            6. OC requires that all health insurance policies cover preventive care services (ie: contraception) with no co-pays or other cost sharing. RC has no such protections.

                            7. OC requires that all Members of Congress and their staffs can receive federal health insurance coverage via the new state health insurance exchanges. RC did not make any similar requirement on Massachusetts state legislators.

                            8. OC improves Medicare for its beneficiaries by: closing the prescription drug "donut hole;" providing an annual wellness checkup with no cost sharing; lowering beneficiary premiums; and extending the life of the Hospital Insurance/Part A Trust Fund by about 8 years. RC does not address or improve Medicare at all.

                            9. OC instigates a significant effort to lower the health care system's administrative costs. RC has no such provisions at all.

                            10. OC instigates a series of reforms in the delivery of medical care services, including the establishment of accountable care organizations, medical homes, value-based insurance designs, penalties for excessive rates of hospital acquired infections and readmissions, and more. RC does not address delivery system improvements at all.

                            11. OC establishes a series of programs and initiatives to improve public health, prevention and wellness, including the creation of the first-ever national prevention strategy. RC provides funding for some existing public health programs, though no new public health or prevention initiatives.

                            12. OC requires every chain restaurant with at least 20 outlets to post on menus and menu boards the calories of every item on its menu. RC has no such public information requirement.

                            13. OC includes major new funding for community health centers and the National Health Service Corps to improve the nation's supply of primary care services. RC has no such provisions.

                            14. OC requires the establishment of a National Health Workforce Commission -- appointed, though blocked from convening by House Republicans. RC does not address health care workforce needs at all.

                            15. OC establishes major new provisions to combat health care fraud and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. RC includes no provisions addressing fraud and abuse in any sector.

                            16. OC establishes new standards and a national framework to
                            combat elder abuse, including violence, neglect, and financial exploitation. RC includes no such provisions.

                            17. OC requires that drug, medical device, and medical supply companies publicly report all gifts, honoraria, and other gratuities to physicians and other licensed medical professionals. RC includes no such provisions.

                            18. OC directs the Food & Drug Administration to create a pathway for the approval of so-called "bio-similars" or generic-like versions of biopharmaceutical drugs, provisions strongly supported by the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. RC has no such provisions.

                            19. OC includes provisions to ensure that nursing patients and their families are able to obtain transparent information about the ownership and corporate responsibility of nursing homes. RC includes no such protections.

                            20. OC establishes a new 10% tax on indoor tanning services, which have been linked to the explosion in serious skin cancers, especially melanomas, among young women ages 15-35. RC does not address this epidemic.

                            http://www.boston.com/....

                            This idea that this is somewhat of a useless plan and that it is a Republican plan is a myth. Republicans would not have passed Obamacare.

                          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                            "I don't think the heritage foundation would have supported the President's healthcare plan."

                            they countered Hillary's stab at healthcare with the individual mandate. the ACA's foundations are in conservative arguments against a public option in the 90s.

                            it's not a useless plan. insurers not being able to turn away based on pre-existing conditions is huge. the Medicaid expansion would have been great if the SCOTUS hadn't neutered it and allowed R governors to be assholes, like here in WI.

                            but the fact remains that the ACA is designed to make marginal changes to a system that is rotten from the inside out. the public option was "taken off the table" in backroom deals with insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. that's what we needed, and the public support for it was there. you cannot say that the public was not ready for it. it's kind of a big reason he was elected in the first place.

                            but he didn't do it because the republicans were being so mean about it?  was this not expected? they made it clear they wanted it dead from day one and are STILL trying to repeal it. do you think the way the Republicans treated the real ACA would have been discernible from how they would have treated a public option?

                            all that was needed was a little spine and a willingness to tap into the strong public support for some sort of government option. i mean, he is a Democratic President. maybe if he actually spent political capital on the left, the real left, not the "appeasement" left, he would find success, but obviously he has no desire to do that

                          •  You notice that you have jumped from saying it (0+ / 0-)

                            is a Heritage Foundation Healthcare Plan to it has its foundation in conservative arguments.  Very few legislation are without it's influences from many quarters.

                            Many of the President's critics have been trying for years to denigrate the ACA as a Republican plan, when the facts as they are, based on what is in this plan, indicates that no Republican would have passed this plan. None. The Pre-existing condition alone would have been a disqualifier in the eyes of Republicans.

                            More importantly, Obamacare premium support and cost sharing subsidies help families with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty line. Republicans would never consent to that.

                            And the fact that Obamacare requires health insurance companies to spend at least 80-85 cents of every premium dollar on medical costs as opposed to profits, marketing and overhead, would simply be considered an insanity by Republicans.

                            I have one simple question: Do you represent that Republicans would have passed this healthcare plan as it is constructed? This is a yes or no answer. And if it is no, it is not a Republican plan. Period, despite what some individuals on the left have been claiming. This claim, in simple terms, is a lie.

                            By the way, it should be pointed out that the reason Romneycare even exist at all is because most of the state legislators which ushered it through were Democrats.

                            Democrats in the legislature held a veto-proof super-majority, which dictated that Romney had no choice but to cooperate with them or else he would get nothing done. Romneycare is in fact, a Democratic plan.  

                          •  i didn't jump anywhere (0+ / 0-)

                            the "individual mandate" concept originated from the Heritage Foundation. the individual mandate was originally a conservative counterargument to liberal healthcare reform in the nineties. the individual mandate is the centerpiece of the ACA. therefore, the ACA has its foundations in conservative thought. does this require further clarification?

                            "I have one simple question: Do you represent that Republicans would have passed this healthcare plan as it is constructed? This is a yes or no answer."

                            no. so what? i already said they wanted it dead from day one. it didn't matter that the individual mandate originated from their side, but that doesn't erase the fact that it was.

                          •  Well, thank you. Republicans would not have (0+ / 0-)

                            passed the bill even if a Republican proposed it. In fact, he would be voted out of office.

                            By the way, mandates as such are not a Republican inventions, the 10s of millions of beneficiaries that will rely on Social Security this year can do so because of taxes, a kind of federal mandate.  I pay taxes for someone else’s future and someday, someone will pay taxes for mine.

                          •  Social Security =/= the ACA (0+ / 0-)

                            yes, you pay for Social Security with taxes that go to a service the government provides to you. you're not required to buy a product put out by a private entity as a means to price control. that's a plan that acknowledges the corruption inherent to for-profit healthcare and seeks to placate the hunger for profits with.... millions of new customers required to buy the product by law.

                            as i said: marginal changes and improvements to a system that's rotten from the inside out. the public support for a public option was there. the political will on the part of the president was not.

                          •  here's my simple question: (0+ / 0-)

                            if the Republicans treated the ACA that we got as an apocalyptic doomsday bill (and you know that they did) and are even now still trying to kill it, what was the use of killing the public option? what was gained by sparing the Republicans the pain of having to "seriously"' discuss the public option.... as an option?

                          •  Because the Democrats needed 60 votes in order (0+ / 0-)

                            to thwart a Republican filibuster. The Public Option was forced out of the bill otherwise we would not have a healthcare bill today.

                            Are you saying we should have let the Republicans block the healthcare bill, because it did not include a Public Option?

                            When we lost Senator Kennedy's vote the Democrats lost that crucial 60th vote, but then Paul Kirk was appointed as Kennedy's replacement bringing the vote back to 60. But the difficulty did not end there. Democrats had to keep conservative Democrats in place who threatened not to vote for the bill unless the Public Option was ommitted.

                            People like Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman said "no" on the Public Option. Lincoln said:

                            "I am opposed to a new government administered health care plan as a part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by leader Reid as it is written.”

                            http://www.examiner.com/...

                            If the Democrats had not gotten the votes of these individuals who were against the Public Option the bill would not have advanced beyond the Senate.

                            By the way, your disqualification of the notion of a mandate in SS because the public isn't paying into a private plan, does not mean that my paying into a plan out of my paycheck weather I want to or not is not a mandate.

                            You might be suspicious of the purity of the healthcare law because it is not a government run healthcare plan, but that does not negate the fact that everyone is required to pay into social security as long as they receive taxable income. If I have no choice in the matter, it is a mandate.

                          •  the difference is simple (0+ / 0-)

                            SS is a mandate to pay your tax dollars towards a government program. the ACA is a mandate for you to buy a private product. why is the government subsidizing the insurance industry? that's the distinction. that's why conservatives don't like it. hell, i don't like it for the same reasons, and i'm a liberal

                            as to 60 votes, it's a good thing we allowed Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin and Fox News to dominate the discourse. if Obama were willing to whip the conservative Dems to a public option the way he's whipping progressives to cut Social Security maybe we could have won that fight.

                          •  Blanche Lincoln was from a state that hated...let (0+ / 0-)

                            me repeat, hated Obama. Beyond Bill Clinton her state must have only elected two or three Democrats to high office in close to than 50 years or even more. She was not gonna vote for the Public Option if Barack Obama was in her bible.

                          •  still a Dem (0+ / 0-)

                            pretty craven for a Dem

                          •  So what would you do to win her vote? (0+ / 0-)
                          •  i'd put pressure on Conservative Dems (0+ / 0-)

                            to try and pass something big that will actually change the system like a public option instead of just limply accepting the "pragmatism" of watering down policy while the middle class starves.

                            the public option may not have passed, but it would have been a good start. could have moved the dialogue to the left, instead of choosing between lukewarm conservative ideas and batshit theories of Death Panels. you control the dialogue, you have major influence on policy. the R's understand that. why can't you?

                            again, it all comes down to a lack of political will to spend political capital on the progressive left. he's certainly not afraid to bend Progressives to the will of austerity! if he were willing to do the opposite, perhaps the healthcare debate would be different today. but we'll never know because he never tried.

                          •  Put pressure on Conservative Dems you say? How? (0+ / 0-)

                            You know, what you just said is quite funny. So  Blanche Lincoln who is certain that she would lose her seat in her conservative state if she voted for the PO. How do you force her again?

                            “My first loyalties are to the people of Arkansas,” Lincoln insisted. But a Zogby poll released earlier this week found that Arkansans opposed health care legislation by a 64 percent to 29 percent margin, and after pollsters explained what was in the legislation, that number grew to 68 percent to 26 percent. It also showed that her reelection chances would be severely hampered in 2010 if she voted for the bill.

                            “I’m not thinking about my reelection, the legacy of a president, or whether Democrats or Republicans are going to be able to claim victory in winning this debate,” she said in announcing her support to advance the bill to the Senate floor.

                            But while securing a short-term victory for Reid, Lincoln also complicated things by vowing unequivocally to block any bill that included a government-run plan from getting a final vote.

                            “Let me be perfectly clear,” she said. “I am opposed to a new government administered health care plan as a part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by leader Reid as it is written.”

                            http://spectator.org/...

                            So, yes...you would pressure her to accept the Public Option.... This is the kinda stuff many of you have been saying for years. And I'm still waiting to hear how?

                          •  same way you get Progressives to cut SS (0+ / 0-)

                            you just do it, regardless of whether or not the bill will pass this time, because that's how you control what other politicians and the media talk about. then the whole country is talking about the public option instead of the fucking individual mandate that everybody hates. it's pretty simple.

                            seriously, Obama's budget proposal almost mirrors the situation exactly. only instead of proposing something with broad public support, he's proposing something horrifically unpopular and putting pressure on Dems to cut Social Security. he sure doesn't seem to have a problem putting on pressure for his party to take risky (even suicidal) votes, as long as it's from the right

                          •  But Democrats have not cut Social Security and I (0+ / 0-)

                            can guarantee you that the majority of Democrats will refuse to back the bill as is. The Progressive caucus has refused to back the bill and has made statements declaring their opposition to backing the bill as is. The President knows this, and he has known it all along.

                            Your answer is he should have force Conservative Democrats to pass the bill in the: "same way to get Progressives to cut SS." The bill has not been passed, what do you mean?

                            You have seen the link which documented that it was a popular sentiment in Blanche Lincoln’s state to oppose the Public Option. How are you going to force Lincoln who has the backing of her constituents, to do something she and her constituents as a principle are against?

                            As insightful as you are, I know you must have a better answer than "same way you get Progressives to cut SS." (Again the President's bill has not been passed).

                            This is the conundrum of many on the left. They know that they themselves could not figure out a way to get tea baggers or blue dog Democrats to vote for their initiatives yet they expect Barack Obama to be able to defy political and human reality and force people to do what they insist they will not do. How do you apply political pressure, when an individual, based upon the support of his/her constituents, is immune to political pressure????

                            I am rooting for you to give me a reasonable answer. If you are unable to, you have arrived at the dilemma Presidents have faced for hundreds of years.

                            If there wasn’t such a dilemma, faced by the best of Presidents to get people to vote for their issues, we would have had Universal Healthcare a hundred years ago. LBJ would have passed one in the 1960s which many in his base had wanted instead of settling for Medicare.

                          •  Do not pretend the two things are unrelated (0+ / 0-)

                            You say that Obama didn't push for a public option because it would have been simply impossible for him to get that 60 votes from D's who may as well be R's. perhaps. but right now, Obama is pushing for Dems to vote for cutting Social Security. if poor Blanche Lincoln was going to get taken to task for voting for a public option, are Dems who vote for cutting SS not in the same position? "well it didn't pass yet" so fucking what? he's pushing for it. he's putting pressure on Dems to cut SS when he knows that's a death-knell for pretty much everybody in his party. but he really, REALLY wants to do it, so here it is.

                            he's willing to put progressives on the line for cutting SS, but he wasn't willing to put ConservaDems on the line for voting for a public option. it is illustrative of what he believes and what he is willing to fight for as President.

                            do the Republicans ever let not being moderate, or even if the bill has any chance of passing, get in the way of proposing and debating legislation? fuck no. it may be batshit but they'll throw it and see if it sticks because even if it doesn't, they will control the conversation. that's how abortion rights have backslid, and now we're fighting over access to contraception. it's called "moving the center", and it seems to work pretty well for them. Paul Ryan's budget is crazy and political suicide but they threw it out there anyway and now it's considered a "bold, serious" alternative to the Grand Bargain.

                            if Blance Lincoln would never have voted for it, he should have found a different senator. i dunno, maybe have a bunch of dinners with conservative Dems to beg them to come to his side on the public option, the way he actually does that with bankers and Republicans today. the public support for a public option was there; as a President, that's huge leverage. there's no way you can tell me that it was simply impossible for him to make a strong case for the public option and attract a few members of the conservative party. how should he have done it? he could go total kiss-ass on them (like he does with the R's) or he could have gone hard-ass on them for being on the wrong side of history. he could have gone out of his way to actually paint a picture of how precarious a position the middle class is really in, how rotten the private system is. he could have started from the Left with the public option in the actual bill, instead of the center-right, killing it in the back room. were it in the actual bill, perhaps the public option would have been taken more "seriously" by the media and the public.

                            you let the conservative opposition define our own agenda. the Dems obviously listen to people like you, which is why all of our legislation is watered down, even when the actual leftist positions are supported by the people. it's the assumption that leftist policies are never effective in American politics because the conservatives are just so mean, and i can't imagine what it must be like to call myself a "liberal" and have that attitude. that's not "incrementalism", it's capitulation, refusing to fight for the ideals you supposedly stand for. if the Pres proposes a public option, fights for it, spends political capital on it, and it fails because of shit ConservaDems, THAT is incrementalism, because you can bet there will be a stronger case for the public option next time, now that it's out there in the media and public discourse.

                          •  "'well it didn't pass yet' so fucking what? (0+ / 0-)

                            he's pushing for it. he's putting pressure on Dems to cut SS when he knows that's a death-knell for pretty much everybody in his party."

                            First of all, you have no facts to show that he is pressuring Democrats to vote to cut SS. If you do, please show me.

                            But let's take your point, since you are dealing in hypothetical’s, let's say you are a Progressive congressman and you are against cutting social security and not only you but your constituents are hair-on-fire Obama hating Progressives...people who have hated Barack Obama, since the first day he entered office. They are morally opposed to the notion of cutting social security. And you agree with them in your own moral gut.

                            Obama invites you to dinner and asks you to cut Social Security, simply for the good of the nation. You believe it is not for the good of the nation to cut it....

                            Are you going to cut Social Security?

                            What could Obama do to force you to cut Social Security?

                          •  what? what? what? (0+ / 0-)

                            "First of all, you have no facts to show that he is pressuring Democrats to vote to cut SS. If you do, please show me."

                            are you... are you being serious here? It's in his budget, dude! What the fuck! why would he propose such a budget if he didn't want Dems to vote on it, if he didn't want it to pass? are you seriously going to bring out the eleventh-dimensional chess set? the one that's gotten us so many wonderful things in the past?

                            if you're going to stand there with your fingers in your ears going "lalalala" we don't really have anything to discuss.

                            the point you seem to be pushing is that Dem Presidents are absolutely powerless to exert pressure on their own party, let alone the opposition.that's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe as long as you discount the history of every president that came before him. that's the "pragmatist" attitude that has allowed liberals to be kneecapped for the past thirty years. this is Obama spending political capital on something he wants. as i said earlier: if the President was willing to pressure ConservaDems for a public option the way he's willing to put Progressives on the hook for cutting SS, maybe things would be different. you defend his lack of effort for the former, and are in utter denial about the latter.

                          •  Yeah, right (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            miasmo

                            WHat part of the Republicans ran against Democrats in 2010 on just that basis, don't you get?

                            What part of the fact that Republicans won seniors in 2010 don't you get?

                            Debra "But what I have concluded over the years is that talent is universal, but opportunity is not." SOS Clinton

                            by debcoop on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:45:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  they will stay home (0+ / 0-)

                            Hell, I might, if this goes through.  Why wouldn't ya?

                            Power to the Peaceful!

                            by misterwade on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:54:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so explain how the R's ran on it and won in 2010 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            miasmo

                            Debra "But what I have concluded over the years is that talent is universal, but opportunity is not." SOS Clinton

                            by debcoop on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:30:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The R's ran on Obamacare in 2010 and Democrats (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beetwasher

                            who didn't like Obamacare because it didn't go far enough promoted the idea that people stayed home. You are asking me about 2010, which had a number of variables. I can address 2012 which they ran on spending hundreds of millions of dollars that the President cut 716 billion from Medicare to cripple the program. They lost.

                          •  The next election is 2014 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            miasmo

                            So 2010 is the only relevant election.

                            And Republicans has thousands of ads trashing Democrats on cuttingn700 billion out of Medicare ( not nearly as real a cut as chained CPI and those ads were enormously successful)

                            And just how many new Republicans were elected in 2010.  70 or 80.

                            If you are an Obama partisan, the way to salvage his place in history is to get him to abandon this terrible, no good, very bad idea.

                            Debra "But what I have concluded over the years is that talent is universal, but opportunity is not." SOS Clinton

                            by debcoop on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:49:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  2010 is relevant for the purpose of your argument (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beetwasher

                            2012 doesn't suit your argument. It is clear that the Repubs ran on Obamacare on 2010, it wasn't a referendum on Obama cutting billions from Medicare. It was Obamacare and every single crazy tea party notion that came to their heads.

                            If some Democrats had not joined in the fray, by calling for sitting out the election the losses would not have been as big as they were.

                        •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          miasmo

                          slow starvation is not the end of the world.  

                        •  Social Security (0+ / 0-)

                          is more important than universal pre-K.

                          Can we stick to the issues? Please!

                          by AnthonyMason2k6 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:19:11 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry, no. (7+ / 0-)

                      I'm not reccing this diary because I don't pretend to know what goes on inside the heads of people I don't know personally (i.e. President Obama).

                      But Romney lost on his own, um, merits. Not because he was unable to convince the voters that Obama is against their interest, but because he was unable to convince them that he was for them. He was one of the least populist, most out-of-touch people ever to win a national nomination. Looking more like the people's champion than Romney was not a huge challenge, especially for a gifted politician such as Obama.

                      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                      by sidnora on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:05:25 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And so Republicans somehow will win on this (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Beetwasher

                        argument that Democrats want to destroy social programs because their merit isn't equally as faulty as Romney?

                        •  It won't be hard to win the argument (6+ / 0-)

                          If Democrats actually do cut Social Security.  Punish the party that screwed you not the one who talked about it but didn't do it.

                          •  And I guess if republicans accept this proposal (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beetwasher

                            as Obama giving them something they wanted, they could then go out and say, we accepted it because we didn't want it? Really?

                          •  They won't need to; they can let (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sidnora

                            the centrist Dems--and those who support them blindly--take the fall for it when they pass it with minimal Republican support. Which Rs will vote for it, creating your cherished, if fanciful, electoral dissonance? Just enough to get it to pass, and those will be Rs with zero chance of being defeated in 2014 despite any voting record. And there are a whole lot of them . . .

                            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                            by bryduck on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:39:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They did it with Medicare in 2010 (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm sure they can figure out how to do it again.

                            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                            by sidnora on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 04:43:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, they can. (0+ / 0-)

                          This is not a presidential election.

                          The classic dynamic in a midterm election is to punish the party in power. Neither Obama nor his charisma will be on the ballot - only Democrats in the House and Senate, or those hoping to be, whose task it will be to defend his policies.

                          It's already going to be a very heavy lift holding the Senate and making any headway in the House, given the gerrymandering of the House and the retirements in the Senate. At least some of the Republican candidates will be more talented than Romney - it would be difficult for them not to be. You really think having to defend cutting Social Security is going to help?

                          Please go back and look at what 2010 was like.

                          And BTW, I wasn't sitting on my ass during that election either - I worked very hard for a 5-term Democratic Rep who survived a challenge from a well-funded carpetbagger by less than 400 votes. You'll be seeing a lot more races like that next year, with or without throwing the Congressional Dems an anvil.

                          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                          by sidnora on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 04:56:55 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Remember debate 1 where PBO (0+ / 0-)

                    basically said that his plans for Social Security were not that different than Romney's? I think that was a Freudian slip.

                    Can we stick to the issues? Please!

                    by AnthonyMason2k6 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:17:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  hello? (5+ / 0-)
                  there is nothing to back up your argument.
                  2010.
                •  If they don't believe it (0+ / 0-)

                  then they're not paying full attention.

                  “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.” – Abraham Lincoln

                  by Sagebrush Bob on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:20:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Excuse me! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ozsea1

                  About that 2012 election. Obama shellacked Mittens because nobody with half a brain wanted the dead eyed Mormon dude and the lunatic who wanted to Ayn Rand your ass and at the same time was going to probe your vagina. That is not a choice that is the best of two evils. The publics reaction to the first debate the one where Obama was as Axelrod said 'honest' was not received well  to say the least.

                  Talk about empty rhetoric that is all we get from this administration that and double speak that calls a Republican Third Way agenda 'reform'. Obama like Reid was damn lucky his opponent was something out of a dystopian horror story. How in the hell does this excuse the implementation of bogus austerity and cuts to our social programs along with an economy that demands we all sacrifice for the plunder and profits of the multinational Visiogoths? Get real he won cause people were scared shitless of the RW lunatics waiting in the wings.

                  •  Oh, if only I could rec (0+ / 0-)

                    1000x, let alone once.  But The New DKos seemingly gives you about 45 seconds after a comment is up to rec it.  

                    You have NAILED it.  

                    I noted above (but after your comment) that the batshit-crazy wing of the GOP (which of course is almost all of them by now) enables and empowers the "Third Way," DLC, corporate wing of the Democratic Party.  And it's for precisely this reason.

                    Get real he won cause people were scared shitless of the RW lunatics waiting in the wings.
                    That's it, in a nutshell.  How many times have you read around here the same old bullshit of "You want McCain?  You want Romney?"  

                    I personally believe, at this point, that the Democratic Party power structure loves their lunatic Republicans.  It enables the corporate Dems to enact and advocate for policies signifcantly to the right of the GOP of 30 years ago, and still look sane and "centrist".

                    Anyway, thanks for the great point.

                    I also feel constrained to note that, having been thoroughly shredded in this thread, NedSparks has apparently left the room.

                    "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison

                    by gharlane on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:29:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah. Jesus, this is gravy for them. (8+ / 0-)

                They get destroyed social security and medicare, and the Democrats take the blame.

                If you're  a Republican, what's not to love?

                if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:31:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  If you don't blame Obama for the Ryan Budget, (4+ / 0-)

              you shouldn't blame Republican's for the Obama Budget.

            •  NedSparks - Obama is trying to cut Social Security (9+ / 0-)

              The response of many people is going to be: Why vote? Both parties are trying to screw us. Most of those people would otherwise have voted Democratic.
                 Goodbye, House and Senate.
                 Hello impeachment proceedings.

              •  I vote in every election (0+ / 0-)

                come hell or high water
                Boycotting elections is a ridiculous tactic.

                Censorship is rogue government.

                by scott5js on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:18:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Imeapchment proceedings... (0+ / 0-)

                On what charge?  I keep hearing "Impeach Obama!" and have to wonder, what crime did he commit to validate impeachment.  Enacting (or even proferring) an unpopular policy is hardly a high crime worthy of impeachment.

                To put it another way, as I said to a TB relative of mine, "Impeach.  That word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

                "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience every time." --Unknown

                by Subwoofer of the House on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:32:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Charges? Since when have Republicans (0+ / 0-)

                  needed anything resembling "high crimes and misdemeanors" to impeach a Dem President?

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:41:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There was at least a farce of a charge (0+ / 0-)

                    for the impeachment proceedings of President Clinton: perjury.  Yes, it was a farce, it was political kabuki theatre, and it was a waste of congressional time, money, and legislative potential, but there was, on the face of it, a charge.

                    "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience every time." --Unknown

                    by Subwoofer of the House on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:50:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Right; you're proving my case. (0+ / 0-)

                      Nothing high crime or misdemeanor about Clinton's impeachment; and yet it went through. Why wouldn't they come up with something just as farcical and bogus another time?

                      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                      by bryduck on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:17:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Well I will tell them. I won't lie to them. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dylanfan, Boudicia Dark, milton333

              It's cool for the wonks if they still have Americans conned, but I think I might just sign up to do GOTV in 2014 so I can go door to door and explain to seniors how the CCPI will impact their benefits.  

              We really don't want Americans to believe something that is not true do we?  

              And the Democratic Party has decided that it very much wants to cut Social Security.  It wants to cut Social Security so much it wants to be sure it does before the Republicans get a chance to do it.

            •  You're deluded (0+ / 0-)

              check out the Hamilton Project video.

              Please do your homework.

              The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

              by ozsea1 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:30:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe you missed the part of the comment (19+ / 0-)

          where he contrasted the two.

          He's clearly different. Mainly in that he is more likely to be able to get away with cutting SS because the push back from Dems isn't as big.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:35:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Correction: Not mainly, but in this case (3+ / 0-)

          he is different in that way.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:36:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Weak (30+ / 0-)

          That's all you got?

          Obama is fucking up, plain and simple. He's the one in office, he's the one fucking up.

          What-if scenarios don't change the fact that yes, he's fucking this up.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:39:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama is the same or worse than Bush on Iraq... (16+ / 0-)

          ...Afghanistan, Wall Street, offshore drilling, civil liberties, drone strikes, assassinations and Guantanamo.

          Sure, Bush's prescription drug giveaway was not quite as significant as Obamacare, but it was pretty big. In fact, if Bush had proposed health insurance reform like Obamacare, big money would likely have supported it. Big money opposed it only because they didn't want Democrats to get credit for another popular social program.

          And yes, of course, there's always Lily Ledbetter and repeal of DADT.

          But in the ways most significant to me, we are seeing the third and fourth terms of George Bush.

          And the fact that McCain or Rmoney might have been worse does not make Obama any damn good.

          What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

          by expatjourno on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:38:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Close enough that it's damned unpleasant. n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maryabein

          if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:30:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Timmethy's comment (0+ / 0-)

          is a perfect example of how the batshit-crazy wing of the Republican Party (aka the vast majority of same) enables the corporate crony wing of the Democratic Party (not the vast majority, but the dominant wing in terms of political power).  

          No criticism of a Democratic President will be brooked because the alternative is always so much worse.  A great deal for you, if you happen to be a Democrat who's in bed with Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Military, and the rest.  The batshit crazy wing of the GOP enables these sick fucks in the Democratic Party, and they and their shills on Daily Kos take full advantage of that fact.

          Universal healthcare?  Riiiight.  And to the extent he got a bill at all, he did it by buying out Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Hospital at the very beginning, assuring them that their basic interest in reaming the majority of us would not be threatened by anything that eventually be passed and signed into law.

          That's how it works, these days.   Thanks, Tim, for helping out.  You're doing a heckuva job.

          "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison

          by gharlane on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 11:51:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Theft/abrogation of Contract. Pure and simple. (5+ / 0-)

        Here come da Drones: Protecting the 1% from the 99%.

        Is it 1930 yet??

        •  What contract? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TacoPie

          I don't recall being a signatory on SSI/SSD.  I don't recall having signed any single piece of paper that guarantees X dollar amount of my pay-in to be paid out.

          No, I don't like the CCPI plan.  I hate it.  I loathe it.  I am angry with the President for offering it to the Republican hostage takers in Washington.  I hope (don't think, but hope) that he really is playing gabillion dimensional chess with this.

          I don't think he is.  I'm pretty disenfranchised with this.

          That having been said, comments like this add little to the public discourse.  There is no criminal charge, no civilly actionable offense, no nothing that you can hold the President accountable for.

          "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience every time." --Unknown

          by Subwoofer of the House on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:36:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a process to watch (0+ / 0-)

            This especially aware community watches these events unfold in real time and expresses high emotion the whole while.

            Gazillion dimensional chess, bad negotiating tactic, strategery, actual intent...we will have to wait and see.

            I can imagine this particular President, in an alternate universe where there was a majority progressive House and non-filibuster abusing Senate, NOT taking this particular stance.  But we are not in that universe, we are in THIS one.  This universe has our current obstructionist/extreme House and Filibuster happy Senate.

            That is the world in which BHO must operate, and to get any tiny little thing accomplished, he has to put out some hot garbage to attract those flies.  I know it doesn't work, so why not flirt with the Chained CPI to see if a deal can be reached, especially when the public at large isn't paying close attention, and there is plenty of time to recover politically before 2014.  

            I don't think the deal will happen, and I would have preferred a staunch defender of progressive awesomeness resulting in pure ideological gridlock, but apparently the negatives outweigh the positives by doing so, and this mixed bag of crap I will blame on the toxic Congress and cut BHO some slack!

            •  I absolutely agree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dont Get MAD

              While I will never be a moderate apologist DINO type, I agree with the thrust of your argument.

              I understand the heightened emotions here, I really do. This is a direct threat to the bottom line of some of our most vulnerable citizens. That bring said, nothing is done until it is done. So fight on, but do so with logic and reason, not reactionary, incendiary commentary that adds nothing to the conversation.

              At least, that's my philosophy.

              "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience every time." --Unknown

              by Subwoofer of the House on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:02:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  lol huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenderRodriguez

        How could he be paying for Bush's wars and tax cuts with Social Security when he's also ending Bush's wars and repealing tax cuts on the rich?

      •  Wow, Axelrod said "We don't have a mandate"? (20+ / 0-)

        Quick google...

        Axelrod: Talk of mandate 'foolish, generally untrue'

        Axelrod: Talk of mandate foolish except when it comes to tax hikes ...

        Axelrod: Election no mandate but a 'call for cooperation'

        So landslides, mandates and political capital are for Republicans only, right Axe? Especially the ones who fail to get 50% of the vote, and are appointed by right wing justices on the Supreme Court.

        Fucking hopeless.

        •  Axelrod and Obama never wanted a mandate (6+ / 0-)

          They have wanted the "grand bargain" all along.  They wanted to be "forced" to compromise into cutting SS and medicare.   When they won by more than they expected and when progressive Democrats did better than they expected, they were put in the awkward position of having to pretend that they had done worse than they had really done.  A real progressive would have embraced his mandate.  The debt ceiling would have been increased in Nov.  The Bush tax cuts would have been allowed to expire.  SS cuts and Medicare cuts would have been off the table.

          I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

          by Eric Blair on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:36:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sign Social Security petition (3+ / 0-)

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/...

      I think it is still below 2000 signatures. We have until April 20 to get 100,000. Aren't there more than 500,000 people in dailykos? Just 2000 signatures looks like a paper tiger, both to the President AND your members of Congress.

      Censorship is rogue government.

      by scott5js on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:28:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great Stuff (0+ / 0-)

      Can't believe I'm reading it at Daily Kos.

      Now let's all go out and work for Hillary Clinton!  (snark)

      •  If that's our choice, (0+ / 0-)

        then we are well and truly fucked.

        Snark tag or no.

        "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison

        by gharlane on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:37:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I predict the death of the current 2 political (0+ / 0-)

      parties.

      I said this before. Obama is doing to the Democratic party what Dubya did for the Republican party. The seeds of destruction have been sown.

      Time for a realignment.

      When I cannot sing my heart. I can only speak my mind.

      by Unbozo on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:49:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site