Skip to main content

View Diary: And Now, The Good Parts Of Obama's Budget. (470 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The people disagree with you. In large numbers. (36+ / 0-)

    Both Republicans and Democrats.

    Therefore, this budget proposal, and this discussion of Social Security and Medicare, is way out of line. Obama is way out of line. Ryan is way out of line. And so is anyone who continues to push these cuts.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:50:02 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Obamacare still polls poorly... (25+ / 0-)

      That doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.

      I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

      by NoFortunateSon on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:51:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  C'Mon (17+ / 0-)

      As far as "out of line" discussions go, this isn't even close. Even if this budget was brought up for a vote, which it likely will not, its extremely unlikely it would be the same as it was when submitted.

      Just because you are playing "chicken" does not mean you intend on crashing into the other person. I wonder if this community needs to steel their nerves a little more.

      •  Too busy handwringing to buck up (7+ / 0-)

        Democrats have been that way, oh, for about forever.

        But then again, Obama didn't instill much confidence in the Summer of 2011.

        I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

        by NoFortunateSon on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:01:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sequester. (11+ / 0-)


        If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

        by Jim P on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:02:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama did not want the sequester (14+ / 0-)

          He fought against it. But he didn't count on the GOP being so completely insane.

          They would kill babies and eat them for breakfast if they could make it look like his fault.

          "We have only the moral ground we actually inhabit, not the moral ground we claim." - It Really Is That Important

          by Diogenes2008 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:33:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And why didn't he think they'd be insane? (14+ / 0-)

            It's not like it was an about face for them.  It's not like they hadn't made their intentions clear the second Obama took the oath of office in 2009.

          •  They are economic terroists (5+ / 0-)

            I think Obama believes they are insane, but he's afraid to let them do something crazy enough to let the rest of the country know they are insane.

            He should have let them push the country into default.  Every time he avoids the fight, he hides from the public just how dangerous these people are.  We HAVE to have this fight, and it's going to hurt, but if we don't, we are heading for something much, much worse.

            •  It's Been One Long CONTINUOUS Hostage Crisis (5+ / 0-)

              People need to look at the big picture. Each set of events does not happen in a vacuum. This whole thing is part of a continuum of events where there are Sophies choices every step of the way.

              This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

              by Beetwasher on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 11:20:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's hard to look at the big picture (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                eXtina, 3goldens

                when one is hungry for real food and can't come up with the deposit to to get the electricity turned off. FUCK the big picture. The only ones looking at the big picture are the ones who aren't worried about their bills.

                Lets show real solidarity. Every person , including staff and unelected officials must go and buy private insurance. If they get any better deal than what anyone else would get at their age and with the same physical profile, the insurer and the Govt employee are guilty of corruption.  

                Govt Wage Reform: Since a huge amount of the job gains we have are  due to part time jobs or full time jobs with lower pay and no benefits, all govt officials must take an immediate cut in pay by 30%.

                Finally, about the pension program? : You can't really make a good decision on Social Security unless you are fully "vested" as they say.  All funds paid into Govt pension programs by taxpayers will be pulled out and put in to shoring up Medicare . Social Security could use and increase too. You'll find out when they take the  portion that you have contributed towards your pension and put that towards Social Security.

                I reckon decision makers and their aids will  understand what we are looking at when they see benefits of $1100 a month at age 70. Then maybe they will stop trying to defend the indefensible.

                “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

                by Dburn on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 12:38:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Blame the GOP and Get Them Out of Office (4+ / 0-)

                  It's clear to me that if we had a Dem Congress, we'd be looking at a much different budget from the WH.

                  We need to vote in '14 for every single Dem who promises to protect and even expand SS and other services. We need to work our asses off to get those people elected.

                  Budgets come from Congress, and that's how you effect change.

                  This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                  by Beetwasher on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 12:47:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It would be a historic victory (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    3goldens

                    if we held the Senate. The House is gone. The only question in 2014 will be is how much of a majority the GOP will have and will it be enough to impeach and convict Obama.

                    They haven't gotten better since 1998. They are now batshit crazy.Maybe Obama wouldn't be so quick to offer up the monthly food budgets of millions of seniors for a "grand deal" if he knew his own butt was on the line.

                    “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

                    by Dburn on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 02:15:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You Know What Is Absolutely Amazing To Me? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Fogiv, dmd76, Diogenes2008

                      How many people on this site still think Obama is a naive chump who is in way over his head.

                      Or think a politician, strategizing and jockeying for position, in other words, a poltician BEING POLITICAL, is some sort of extra-dimensional chess game.

                      It's amazing to me that politics is like some alien game on this site. We see Obama playing the game of politics, because, that's what politicians do, and we lose our collective shit.

                      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                      by Beetwasher on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:39:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Oh for the love of god, poll watcher. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Diogenes2008

              So because he's unwilling to have people even more people eating in soup kitchens, living on the streets and worse, he's a bad guy?

              Perhaps he doesn't want people starving and dying and the Republicans know that. They could care less who they hurt. That has been obvious for years.

              I don't want my children and grand children hurting. I don't want anyone's children and grand children suffering.

              I don't think the President does either.

              Have you been watching what Republicans are doing in States where they control the legislature? Wisconsin and Michigan come to mind. It's horrifying.

              And this is what the President is trying to limit on a Federal level.

              He is, as you say so correctly, dealing with hostage taking economic terrorists.  

              Perhaps he's trying to find another way to get through this that does not involved blowing up the country. Just a thought.

              Given MSM's refusal to explain Republican hostage taking just how do you suggest that folks "see" what is going on?

              Oh, never mind.  I'm going to go back to reading the budget proposal that won't pass anyway.

              "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

              by Onomastic on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 03:28:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It was still a horrible gambit (4+ / 0-)

            The Republicans have almost no limits to their depravity, and Obama has never fully gotten over that reality.

            Defund government?  Oh, they'll go there - making voters disenchanted with government is a great way to sell the far-right screed that government should be killed in a bathtub - so, we should fund private services, instead.  They don't care terribly much if Republicans poll worse in the short term, because there's enough slanted and hateful voters to keep most of them in office.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:23:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  He proposed it, pushed for it, and signed it. (3+ / 0-)

            True, Republicans wanted some guarantee there'd be cuts if the Grand Bargain didn't happen.

            And true, it was originally Ronald Reagan's idea, in the 1980s, and Obama merely dusted it off.

            To say we'd have it without his active role in it is, frankly, high indifference to reality.

            He could have said "no." He could have created an option to offer NOT based on Ronald Reagan's plan. (And wouldn't it be nice if we could get some FDR plans pulled out?) He could have pushed for Democrats in Congress to reject it.

            He could have not signed it.

            He, apparently, was so obsessed with Inside-DC-Bubblehead Politics, that he willingly gambled our lives. So he could cite "an accomplishment."

            It's reasonable to expect he'll keep gambling with my life (and for "my life" read "the lives of tens of millions) in the next 45 months. Unless he gets the message to just stop fucking around with us.


            If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

            by Jim P on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 01:28:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Obama pushed sequester to make SS cuts look good (4+ / 0-)
            The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bar[g]ain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding -- from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios -- but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA [Budget Control Act of 2011]: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

            Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council under President Barack Obama
            http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...

            Now, the question right now is whether we can reduce the deficit in a way that helps the economy grow, that operates with a scalpel, not with a hatchet, and if not, whether Congress is willing to stick to the painful deal that we made in August for the automatic cuts. Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts.

            My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.

            President Obama
            http://www.theroot.com/...

            "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." Barack Obama

            by quagmiremonkey on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 01:35:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  He fought against it, sure (0+ / 0-)

            But he Insisted on it, even had Jack Lew write it up.  I wonder of you'll claim Obama fought against chained CPI in a year.

        •  Also: "Speaker Boehner would never endanger (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tardis10, quagmiremonkey, 3goldens

          the full faith and credit of the United States."

          if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:19:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's out of line for the White House and Congress (11+ / 0-)

        to hold a Social Security discussion centered around how much, when, and how Social Security should be cut, when nearly 90% of the American people are willing to pay higher taxes to preserve Social Security uncut.

        This is called representative democracy. No amount of dismissive contempt can change that.

        and if Obama wants to play chicken with the livelihoods of the American people, he doesn't deserve his office.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:18:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And by the way, this isn't fear (7+ / 0-)

        this is anger.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:18:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, but Obama has put up stupid things like this (7+ / 0-)

        before and had them pass in part, or at least lead to watering down effectiveness of his larger proposal.

        His public acceptance of "balance" continues to be short-sighted and misleading, I feel: we are currently living with a massive imbalance from decades of Republican-led, supply-side economics that some Democrats have continued to inch along with.

        This proposal only adds to that huge imbalance towards the 1% and away from the 99% in the long run - a proposal that sought balance would disregard the lying PR from Republicans and his own advisors about deficits, etc. and cut military contracts to repurpose them as infrastructure and state work projects/relief, up taxes on the wealthiest at late 60s/early 70s levels, propose a bulk financial transaction tax for Wall Street, remove the payroll cap, etc.

        I'm usually glass half-full for Obama's possible intentions and actions, but he's simply gone off the deep end with this one: it's too far out there and shows clear evidence that he has drunk the dirty water of D.C. to the point of tarnishing the Democratic brand for the next election and beyond.

        Someone in his inner circle needs to throw a bucket of cold water on his head and ask him to wake up: the overall deal is deathly to the party and real people, will stifle voter enthusiasm and keep perpetuating the general lie (i.e., it's only partly true, in shades and certain states) that Democrats are essentially no different than Republicans - if he cares about the brand at all, that is.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:20:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not really (8+ / 0-)

          Are you aware of what else is in the budget?

          The budget makes permanent the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) and the expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) which were first passed in the 2009 stimulus package. Those provisions are currently set to expire in 2017.
          The budget would cut farm subsidies by $38 billion over 10 years. It eliminates “direct payments” to farms while maintaining disaster assistance funding. It creates a new conservation program for agricultural land, wetlands, and grasslands, but cuts other conservation programs to pay for that.
          the program increases income-related premiums for Medicare Parts B and D, effectively raising prices for high earners, and raising $50 billion over 10 years.
          Implements the Buffett Rule, requiring that households with incomes over $1 million pay at least 30% of their income (after charitable giving) in taxes.

           Limits the value of tax deductions and other tax benefits for the top 2% of families to 28%,reducing these tax benefits to levels closer to what middle-class families get.

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 11:19:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  From what I've seen (5+ / 0-)

            none of this makes up for the unnecessary hit to SS recipients.  That is, optics for the larger picture is still negative.

            Adding military dollars back is absolutely ridiculous, IMHO.

            The Republicans deserve none of these concessions, but we're likely going to see the Democratic brand take a significant hit by the wide-spread reporting that Obama will go the route of downgrading SS - regardless of details surrounding it.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 11:48:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Be honest, now, wader (6+ / 0-)

              Do you really think that the Republicans in the House are going to vote for Obama's budget? With something like $600 billion in new taxes attached to it?
              Really?

              “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

              by skohayes on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 11:52:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  seriously (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zubalove, skohayes, Diogenes2008, Fogiv

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 12:04:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'm always honest, but that's not my worry (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skohayes, 3goldens, BentLiberal

                My concerns are:

                1.  Democratic brand for 2014

                2.  Starting negotiations at a low point will bring at least some of the more poor elements into an eventual deal

                He had no need to offer these initial low points in the overall deal, I feel - although I'm open for having them (once again) look like hypocrites to the general electorate, I feel that they don't care about that near as much as pulling a concession or two, in the end.

                Considering that we're already at a distinct imbalance with respect to who benefits most deeply from public funds in this country, not only could he have used the opportunity to push harder on the positives (which I realize is not his policy style vs. his rhetorical style, even in his 2nd term), but the folks who worry about their dwindling future of economic prospects can easily see our Democratic President make this type of offer and write off what we say for at least 1-2 cycles - which could be disastrous.

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 12:32:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you worried the Republicans might (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wader

                  attack Democrats on Social Security cuts? I don't think there are many Democrats that would vote for this budget with the chained CPI in it, and they get to stand up and defend SS against Obama (who isn't running again).
                   Meanwhile, Republicans have been talking about entitlement cuts for years, and now they're going to stand up and claim they don't want to cut Social Security, but everything else is on the table (see Paul Ryan's budget)?
                  So they attack Obama, he was attacked for making $800 billion in cuts to Medicare and he still won (plus two Senate seats and eight House seats). He's not running again.
                  He gets to look like he's willing to deal to get them to the table, and they're going to walk away. It's already starting (see Paul Ryan's comments about Obama's budget on the FP).
                  And yes, you are always honest.

                  “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

                  by skohayes on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 04:18:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I understand the bait method that he's utilized, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BentLiberal, skohayes

                    sure.  He's big on feints and rope a dope (i.e., what some people disparagingly label as 11th-level chess or similar).

                    I do feel that going into SS crosses a line that goes beyond the Republican noise, however - that's the difference this time around which can resonate in Democratic voting demographics about the regular beating drums by Republicans, IMHO.

                    Most of the time, I support his specific explorations and attempts to squeeze blood from the rock which is modern Republicanism, despite finding myself in odd arguments with hardened people who liken President Obama to a Manchurian Candidate (or worse), but even I was pushed over the line of even cautious support on this episode . . . so, I sincerely wonder if I'm not the only one.

                    Admittedly, I am eager to hear how he follows up the Republican reaction - my hope is often a glass half-full, but he's drunk it faster that I can refill this time.

                    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                    by wader on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 04:52:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site