Skip to main content

View Diary: The deficit commission's conservative bias (325 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what is wrong with these guys? (14+ / 0-)

    It's a serious question.  Are Dems like Obama and Reid really that conservative?  Or are they still operating under some delusion about appealing to some imaginary center-right electorate?

    If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

    by jhannon on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:30:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Delusion (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aspe4, opinionated, willibro, JesseCW

      has been foisted on this President by some of his advisors.

      I have to keep believing that, otherwise I'll be joining in wholeheartedly with the "we are doomed, the party's dead because of Obama" chorus that's getting louder around here.

      If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

      by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:33:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The president created the commission (10+ / 0-)

        The president created the criteria for membership. The congressional version of this commission had been voted down by Congress.

        So the President decided to resurrect it. The president set the standards for who was to serve. On what planet, after you've won a big election does it mean the Republicans get to have half the seats?

        Unless of course there was 18th dimensional chess calulation that if you're going to cut Social Security then make the R's take some of thw flak.  Of course then this chess move does mean that your plan from the beginning was to cut Social Security.

        And why would anyone ever trust Democrats to protect ehm ever again  The last commission raised the rates so that now Social Security is a regressive tax.  That was in 1983 under a Republican presidient. The meoney was supposed to accumulate to pay for the future baby boomer retirements. Why would Democrats want to be the ones resposnsible, but no matter the Democrats are the party in power so they will be held responsible.

        Please note the "coincidence" of hte fact that 1983 raised the rates on the middle class and the Reagan tax cuts.  Raise the taxes of everyone else and redistribute them to the rich via tax cuts.  Right now they rich are fighting to keep and extend the favorable resistribution upward by setting up this commission and pushing the renewal of Bush's tax cuts.

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

        by debcoop on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:47:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama is least of our problems (9+ / 0-)

        Keep beating this drum Joan. Despite all the internal squabbling about Obama, he isn't the real problem. The problem is the rethugs want to gut Social Security. They have since day one.

        Cenk had it right yesterday. Whenever one of these republicans are on the air, ask them flat out if they want cut benefits or raise the retirement age (same thing) for this or future generations? Virtually all republicans want to do this.

        This is an incredible wedge issue. If the GOP had an honest, fact based wedge issue like this, they would be beating us over the head with it.

        Joan is absolutely doing the right thing keeping this front and center. The GOP don't want to talk about this because it is truth. They would rather distract us with gay marriage, non-existent immigration problems or the so-called ground zero mosque.

        Forcing the GOP to come right out and tell us what they think about Social Security is the smartest possible politics.

        Someone might not like Cenk's passion, but he is asking the right questions.

        http://www.youtube.com/...

        Everything I write is within a margin of error of precisely 100%.

        by Bailey Savings and Loan on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:51:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just had a horrible thought (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slinkerwink, wsexson, willibro, JesseCW

          and I mentioned it elsewhere here. I can't believe I'm the first one to think of it, either--surely someone else has asked, and it's been lost in the flying shit of the last year.

          What if all these jobs bled dry from our country aren't coming back at all?

          SS depends on payroll taxes. If there are no jobs, where is the tax going to come from?

          If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

          by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:59:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes ... but ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willibro, o the umanity, gardnerjf

          Despite all the internal squabbling about Obama, he isn't the real problem. The problem is the rethugs want to gut Social Security. They have since day one.

          But Obama is a large part of the current problem when he is gratuitiously, completely unnecessarily, giving them the chance to do it.

        •  Not the real problem? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          2020adam

          This is happening because he wants it to happen. Period.

          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell

          by denise b on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:22:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

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

          Obama is the problem - he's a liar and coward that would dell his soul to make Wall Street and the Big Banks happy.

        •  Just don't ask the Democrats that question. (0+ / 0-)

          Whatever you do. The squirming we'll have to put up with is just unbearable to watch sometimes.

          I'm sorry, what was I saying again?

          Oh, right. Those gosh darned Republicans! How dare they force our President to appoint so many of them to his Commission! How dare they force him to appoint that idiot Alan Simpson to run the Commission! How could they even think about forcing the Democrats to appoint "centrists" to the Commission, while they load up their side with hardcore right wingers! What on earth could Obama have done?! Google is own appointees?! Hah! What kind of GOP hack would suggest such an outlandish idea!?

      •  If Obama was an idiot like Bush I might could (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DocGonzo, blueoasis

        believe that.

        The Power of The Obama Photobomb Compels YOU! Resistance Is Futile.

        by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:04:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you don't need to be an idiot (0+ / 0-)

          to be inexperienced.

          If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

          by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:11:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And, oh, beware of trolls (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            o the umanity, SoCalSal

            Before anyone gets upset, I'm not calling anyone in this thread a troll.

            But I have noticed a pattern in other threads, where relatively new KOS users jump into these discussions and start trying to egg on the anti-Obama element.

            There was actually something positive in the administration latest response to the Simpson diarrhea of the mouth, they pointedly said he was a republican and they disagree with him on many issues. The worm is turning.

            Everything I write is within a margin of error of precisely 100%.

            by Bailey Savings and Loan on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:18:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep (4+ / 0-)

              but that worm isn't turned until this commission takes raising the retirement age and benefit cuts off the table.

              If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

              by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:28:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Zombie lies about Soc Sec (4+ / 0-)

                Zombie lies are the only reason Social Security is even being talked about in this commission.

                But when you get right down to it, they aren't talking about Social Security because it is weak, or because it is a drag on the economy, it is neither. The real reason they are talking about it is because it is incredibly healthy, hello, 2.5 trillion surplus, and they can't wait to get their grubby little hands on that money. How are they going to keep up with the Jones' new Gulfstream jet without getting ahold of this cash?

                They hate the very idea of Social Security because it works exactly like it is supposed to, with very little admin overhead, and it gives back virtually all of it's money to the poor and middle class of this great country.

                They don't attack it because it is weak. They attack it because it is strong. They attack it because it doesn't really benefit rich people.

                Flim-Flam Grifter 101: convince the rube the money is already gone.

                They attack Social Security because that is where the money is. They want to take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich.

                Everything I write is within a margin of error of precisely 100%.

                by Bailey Savings and Loan on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 09:08:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Alice Rifkin said that benefit cuts won't pass (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soccergrandmom

                the commission for lack of support. Rifkin is one of the Democrats on the commission. TheHill.com reports that moderate changes to SS are likely. That likely means increasing the cap and possibly lowering the payout formula for high earners.

                So cutting benefits, including raising age eligibiity,  could already be resolved, i.e., "off the table."

                Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

                by SoCalSal on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:02:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  got a link for that? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                  If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

                  by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 01:03:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here is something better. (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm making too many mistakes today, coming down with flu and have fever. It's Alice Rivlin, not Rifkin (my previous post).
                    I did not find the article quoting Rivlin saying SS cuts are unlikely to pass the commission, didn't bookmark I guess. I found something better -- Rivkin's blog about Social Security.

                    Apologies for the lengthy blockquote but I'm not up to selection and summary. This is the conclusion of the blog and the entire blog is worth reading.

                    The problem is that increases in longevity and health have been concentrated among people with higher earnings and more education. Many jobs take a heavy toll on the human body, or require being on one’s feet for long hours at a stretch. The fact that so many people opt for early retirement at lower benefits suggests that many have lost their jobs or simply can’t work longer.

                    Increasing the age of full retirement in the future (to, say, 68, or 69) without changing the early retirement rules would mean even lower monthly checks for those retiring at 62 or even 65. Some would stay in the labor force longer, but those unable to do so would just have less money to live on. Those whose checks were reduced most would likely be those who had low earnings over their working lives and accumulated few assets. Raising the early retirement age (i.e., saying no one could collect even reduced benefits before, say, age 64), would mitigate these reductions in monthly checks—and would likely keep more workers at their jobs longer--but it would be even harder on people in their early 60s with physically demanding jobs and no other options.

                    A package of Social Security reforms that includes raising the age of full retirement or the early retirement age or both should include measures to assist those who physically can’t do their current jobs and create new kinds of jobs for older workers. The cost of these measures would reduce the savings from increasing the retirement age. Hence, the benefits of increasing the retirement age could be more difficult to achieve and even further in the future than proponents suggest. Alternative benefit reductions, especially those reducing future increases at the top end of the income distribution, should also be considered, along with measures to augment revenues, such as accelerating the increases in the limit on earnings subject to the payroll tax.

                    Opponents of including Social Security in a deficit reduction plan, sometimes point out that Social Security has been running surpluses for decades. Investing those surpluses in Treasury bonds meant the government was borrowing from Social Security to fund other spending. Now that the time has come to redeem those bonds, they say, Social Security should not be "punished" by having to share in the reduction of future deficits. But putting Social Security on a sound fiscal footing is not "punishing" the system or its beneficiaries. The bonds held by Social Security are obligations of the United States and will be paid. But current and future workers need to know that Social Security will be there for them, and the way to reassure them is to act now to adjust the future benefits, revenues or both. Immediate action is best for Social Security. That such action will also modestly reduce long run deficits and show the world that our political system is not totally gridlocked is just icing on the cake.

                    Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

                    by SoCalSal on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:18:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sounds like in the last paragraph (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      o the umanity

                      she's saying there's no reason for the deficit commission to even be talking about Social Security except that it will reassure people (?), show the world that our Congress is capable of it, and "modestly reduce long run deficits".

                      In other words, we should take money from Social Security to reduce the general deficit in order to "reassure" people. Does this sound like a good reason to reduce SS benefits?

                      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell

                      by denise b on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:31:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  thank you (0+ / 0-)

                        you beat me to it :-)

                        If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

                        by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:35:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So would you rather believe (0+ / 0-)

                          inferences in a tpm.com article with third party citations, those "unnamed sources" with statements that could be interpreted any number of ways.... or would you rather read for yourself what Rivlin believes?

                          I like to go to the source whenever possible, and make up my own mind.

                          Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

                          by SoCalSal on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:55:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  was it an unnamed source (0+ / 0-)

                            claiming benefit cuts won't pass? Unnamed sources don't really warrant anyone going out of their way to mention them.

                            Not to mention, that's a pretty straightforward statement, which can't be interpreted but maybe one way...

                            If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

                            by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:02:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it was a direct quote of Rivlin. eom (0+ / 0-)

                            Unnamed sources don't really warrant anyone going out of their way to mention them.

                            tmp.com has and is broadly contributing to the internet furor with articles based only on statements by "unnamed sources."

                            Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

                            by SoCalSal on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:32:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but maybe you saw it in The Hill? (0+ / 0-)

                            You're just not sure...

                            contributing to the internet furor with articles based only on statements by "unnamed sources"

                            Nice conclusion, unnamed sources are indeed a problem. Perhaps it's better to not spread them around until you're absolutely sure?

                            If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

                            by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:40:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know that's not what I wrote. eom (0+ / 0-)

                            Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

                            by SoCalSal on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:00:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Read the whole article... (0+ / 0-)

                        Rivlin sets out her reasons for including SS early on in the article. Don't take my word for it, don't take anyone's word when you can read for yourself what Rivlin thinks.

                        Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

                        by SoCalSal on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:51:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I want to see where she says (0+ / 0-)

                          benefit cuts won't pass. Let me know if you ever find that cite, thanks...

                          If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

                          by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:54:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  do you know how to do an advanced google search? (0+ / 0-)

                            The context of the quote was the lack of agreement among commission members. Might have been on theHill.com but I didn't find it.

                            Tell you what -- bloggers claim that Rivlin wants SS benefit cuts. How about you find for me a direct quote of Rivlin stating she favors benefit cuts except for the wealthy. In other words, not where she is describing the various options that are considered, but where she actually states that she personally favors privatization, raising age, etc. Because I've looked for that and haven't found it, and concluded that tmp.com and others are lying or mischaracterizing her statements.

                            Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

                            by SoCalSal on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:29:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  errr (0+ / 0-)

                            this wasn't mypost or my claim:

                            Alice Rifkin said that benefit cuts won't pass

                            Well, unless you're taking it back on the basis of you spelled her name wrong (and you're getting/have the flu), then of course, no searching would be necessary.

                            I'm guessing it's not worth searching anyway, since you go on to allude to "unnamed sources"...

                            If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

                            by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:34:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  in other words (0+ / 0-)

                            now it's tmp.com who got it wrong? Or was it in The Hill?

                            And? Or?

                            I've ....concluded that tmp.com and others are lying or mischaracterizing her statements.

                            Yeah...

                            If Health Insurance Reform can wait until 2015, then so can any changes to Social Security.

                            by o the umanity on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:37:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  maybe I'm not explaining myself and maybe (0+ / 0-)

                            you have a reading comprehension problem, I think it's the latter. I said tpm.com uses "unnamed sources" I did not say that The Hill uses unnamed sources.

                            Moreover, I gave you a link to Rivkin's own writing for you to verify for yourself. If you aren't too lazy or close minded, that is.

                            Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

                            by SoCalSal on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:07:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  wow.. I recall the GOP claiming Obama wasn't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SoCalSal

            experienced enough to be President...

            Talk about the irony.

            The Power of The Obama Photobomb Compels YOU! Resistance Is Futile.

            by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 09:46:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Does Judd Gregg EVER vote w Democrats? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, o the umanity

      Judd Gregg is a P.O.S.

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:48:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Almost our SecComm. (4+ / 0-)

        Obama thought it was a great idea.  Coddled and courted him.

        But Gregg said no.

        Freedom without equality is a fraud. Equality without freedom is despotism. Michael Bakunin

        by goinsouth on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:00:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gregg would have done less damage there than (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, SoCalSal

          he did by staying in the Senate.

          At least that Asshole is leaving the Senate next year.

          Good riddance!

          "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

          by Lefty Coaster on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:07:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And tThen Given Power Anyway (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          goinsouth, o the umanity

          Not only did Gregg fake out Obama, refusing his country when called to service, but Gregg used the fakeout as a chance to badmouth Obama.

          Then Obama gives him the power of this commission anyway. And Gregg uses it to make Obama look like Obama is the president who sabotages Social Security.

          That is insanity. Except if Obama wants to cut Social Security, but feebly attempt to make it look like it's the Republicans fault - which will fail. In which case it's insanity both ways.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:51:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Conservative isn't the word I'd choose; (0+ / 0-)

      I mentally substitute 'right wing' or the gentler 'right leaning' whenever I see the word 'conservative' these days.

      It doesn't apply any more.  That rumbling sound you hear  is Edmund Burke spinning in his grave.

      The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

      by magnetics on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 09:53:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site