If the American Jobs Act were just the bill described last night – one that would create millions of jobs and serve many of the country’s needs – that would be fine. But it’s not just that bill. The President was quick to address the idea that the bill would be “fully paid for,” and that he would lay out those items next week. Originally, the plan was to include the pay-fors in last night’s speech. The President was informed that this would not be a great idea and would substantially deflate progressives who generally liked the speech. So those items will come out “a week from Monday,” on September 19, according to the speech. But the President couldn’t help himself, and in one overlooked portion of the speech, he laid out what amounts to the grand bargain:
This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts; by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid; and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. What’s more, the spending cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right away.
Now, I realize there are some in my party who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid, and I understand their concerns. But here’s the truth. Millions of Americans rely on Medicare in their retirement. And millions more will do so in the future. They pay for this benefit during their working years. They earn it. But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it.
I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows. While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary – an outrage he has asked us to fix. We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share. And I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that, if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.
I’ll also offer ideas to reform a corporate tax code that stands as a monument to special interest influence in Washington. By eliminating pages of loopholes and deductions, we can lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our tax code shouldn’t give an advantage to companies that can afford the best-connected lobbyists. It should give an advantage to companies that invest and create jobs here in America.
Every indication is that this would include an increase to the Medicare eligiblity age, a truly stupid policy that would increase overall health spending and just shift costs from the federal government to states and individuals. Medicaid gets a mention in there too, so I would expect another cost-shifting plan like the blended rate, which lowers federal participation in the program and either forces states cut back on the coverage for individuals, or the reimbursements for providers, which may lead them to stop honoring Medicaid. Maybe we also see something on Social Security like chained CPI, although notably, that didn’t get mentioned in the speech. There could be things like changes to military retirement plans in there too. This plan will be delivered to the Catfood Commission II for their consideration.
The point is that we’re back to a grand bargain, with stimulus now and austerity in the future, essentially mortgaging the children’s Medicaid or the grandchildren’s Medicare in exchange for job creation.
Let me just say this, however. The President tried to pass such a plan with John Boehner, and Boehner had to walk away because of the tax increases. There’s no indication that anything has changed on the Republican side on that question. In fact, the biggest story of the day on the deficit had nothing to do with the President, it was Jon Kyl trying to quit the Catfood Commission if further defense cuts were included.
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, one of the six Republicans on the panel, told a conservative group on Thursday that he was already pondering his potential exit.
“When we had our first meeting, the chairman asked, ‘Well, what do we think about defense spending?’” said Mr. Kyl, describing a meeting with the six Republican members. He was talking to a group gathered for a symposium called “Defending Defense,” a joint effort of the Foreign Policy Initiative, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, all conservative groups. “And I said, ‘I’m off the committee if we’re going to talk about further defense spending.’ First we did discretionary spending in the budget act. Second, defense was half of that, even though it isn’t half the budget, obviously. And, third, we can’t afford anymore, and that’s what your defense secretary, past and current, and others, have said. So we’re not going there.”
So Kyl is ready to bolt, taking defense cuts off the table. I guess he doesn’t realize that defense cuts would be the CONSEQUENCE of him bolting, since they are part of the trigger in the event of no agreement. It shows the difficulty, the near-impossibility, of the Catfood Commission reaching agreement, no matter what the President offers.
Two things, however. Under the circumstances, the only way something passes the committee is if one or more Democrats undergo an epic cave and votes for a plan without any taxes or defense cuts, because I just don’t see the other side budging on that. And the President putting out a plan that Republicans can point to makes that more likely. It also gives a talking point that will last for decades: “Even liberal Barack Obama supported raising the Medicare age…” That will haunt Democrats for a long time, and may have immediate consequences.




118 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research (Dean Baker),
The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue
“The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, “resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011.” This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.”
So, is this a shell game? I’d very much appreciate clarification. Thank you.
Obama has done so much damage to the Democratic party already, its probably better that he has little hope of reelection
The guy is evil.
Obama is a fraud.
De-elect the president.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Boxturtle (Thanks, Inago)
The Feds took money out of one pocket and put it in another pocket. I would call that a shell game. Social security was designed to be totally separated from other Federal revenues and spending and act similar to a private pension program. Obama is in the process of turning it into a welfare program just to help his reelection chances. The employer side cut will not produce one job and was included to get Republican support for the employee tax cut. It is absolutely disgusting. I say that as someone who is self-employed and will see a substantial tax cut as a result of this.
Mr. O plans to raid Social Security for his bankster friends and other criminals on Wall Street while billionaires and millionaires keep his tax cuts, big oil gets their $ 60 billion is subsidies, and military gets $ 1.2 trillion although Bin Laden is dead and gone.
As a speech, by itself, it was a good job.
But, as noted above, and as Obama himself said, “this approach is the one I have been advocating for months.”
Not just for the “paying for it,” but most of the “it” part too.
How he plans to get something that’s been rejected for months enacted now, hard to say.
Likely, the parts that are agreed, which there are some, will get enacted and the rest ignored.
but, at least he got “fighting,” and for those who like “fighting” rather than accomplishing, it was a great speech.
And I bet they have already selected the democrat who will “cave”. And once they were sure he’d obey, they put him on Catfood. I’d bet on one of Nancy’s picks.
Boxturtle (Best thing that could happen would be a meteor striking the committee meeting room)
The Trojan horse, being a Trojan horse, loves Trojan horses.
He’s trying to attack Social Security and Medicare with every bill he proposes.
After three years of Obama it would actually just be a run of the mill cave.
Obama is a great con job.
“modest tax adjustments” is code for never letting the Clinton Tax rates come back with their $4 trillion solution to the deficit – while lowering the rates for the rich and corporate “offset” by pretend savings in loophole modification (remember the Reagan loophole modifications/lower rates where in a few years all the loopholes were back for the rich – but not for the non-rich, and the rates never got raised until Clinton).
Modest Medicare change is of course age 67 as he tears down the safety net. Modest Social Security change is means test as he turns it into a welfare program that will be dependent on future Congresses generosity, plus a lower future benefit under a pretended more accurate “chained CPI” where your move from eating meat to eating catfood is a decrease in your CPI so you get a lower benefit.
Hard to see why any GOPer as President would be worse, and hard to not see that with a GOPer as president the Dems in Congress would fight and stop this safety net tear down. But it may be too late, as the damage may be done before he leaves since the Dems will not oppose lest they be seen as racist – dis-loyal because of race.
We must undermine Social Security financing by payroll tax cuts in order to simulate the economy? See what’s really going on here? The Democrats are softening us up to the idea that entitlements and a good economy don’t mix.
The GOPers are creaming in their pants. They’ve got the Dems on board their ultimate project – repeal the New Deal.
Isn’t that nice. Asking them… …at the point of a gun.
Single Payer, Mr. Obama, Single Payer.
As I read the last paragraph I thought it’s not a question of “if” one of them cave, it’s which one (or ones). I’m kinda going with two, to give the plan more of that there bi-partisan-y feel.
About a third of americans still call themselves Democrats, Obama must be trying to cut that to 10%. The whole goddamn thing makes me sick.
Now all we need to do is make Rick Perry unpopular enough that Mitt Romney wins the primaries, and we can look forward to a President running to the left of Obama.
Soon, we will be saying “Minimum Wage, Mr. Obama, Minimum Wage.”
Obama, The Dems and The Repugs are after what paltry assets are left. They have destroyed the country. They are working on the rest of the world.
Huh? At the risk of being sorry I asked, could you expand on that?
Thank you very much. That’s what I got from it, but I wanted to make sure I do understand it correctly. Where’s that damned “locked box”? Even if we had it, they’d be trying to pick the lock, wouldn’t they?
kafka, the Democrats were on board with repealing the New Deal back in 1973, with the founding of the Trilateral Commission. The new thing is that a number of Democrats have discovered nearly forty years after the fact that this has in fact been the case, and that they don’t like it. We’re still not at the point, yet, where said Democrats decide to rid themselves of the Democratic Party over such an issue.
Gun? What gun?
Or, better yet, get Huntsman or Gary Johnson, who are probably to the left of 50% of the elected Dems.
As will cutting payroll taxes but making the programs whole from general funds – no more ‘SS doesn’t add to the deficit’ talking point.
You misunderstand “health insurance reform.” The whole point of the exercise was to keep the health insurance industry alive.
obama planned to destroy the democratic party from day 1 and no one believed me when i said it.
maybe now you will.
but guess what it is to late.
obama opened the door for the end of SS and medicare intentionally and by the end of the next republican presidency in 2016 SS will be history.
i expect the democrats to lose the senate too so the republicans will need only 51 members to get anything done.
think 60 votes are needed like obama claimed??
just another scam.
There, I just finished emptying my stomach…Now, where was I? ( a question I ask a lot these days)
I have just one simple statement: Is he NUTS?
Goodness, one would think the U3/U6 was DELIBERATELY jammed up high to ram through SocSec and Medicare slashage! Shock! Horror! No ruling claque would inflict that much pain on….Oh. Wait. (One look at the piggy faces around hObama’s Cabinet table answers that)
Falsy flagy, ennyone? Do we really need to recite the Shock Doctrine again, for those who aren’t getting it back there in the cheap seats?
Are those tits on Oblah’s bull?
Computer geeks would say, Why, that’s a feature, not a bug!
Much less likely.
obama has wanted to gut social security since before he became president, he said it, one of the posters gave the quote on one of my diaries.
this is the reason we need to primary obama, to demonstrate, “no, he does not represent “liberals” at all
You might consider reciting it over and over again until the Democrat rank-and-file understand what’s going on.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/71485
and one more thing…this tax code nonsense will not see taxes go up for the rich.
it will allow the bush cuts to stay forever ,as i predicted obama wanted all along, and will raise the taxes on those earning under 50K by over 1000 dollars a year.
where the hell is the third party candidate we need?
Each act by fraud obumble must be analyzed as to how it will eventually affect those of us not part of the elite. Without the ‘temporary’ reduction of the payroll tax, SS money went into the SS fund where it was replaced by Treasury Notes and transfered to the general fund. SS payments have no effect on the deficit/year or the debt. Therefore, saying that making ‘modest’ adjustments to SS were necessary to reduce the deficit or the debt were nonsense. Once general funds are transfered into SS funds, SS does become part of the deficit/debt problem and there is now justification, however minimal, for adjustments. Again, the whole thing is a ploy to gut SS. As more than one person has pointed out, the reason for letting those above a certain age continue to receive their payments unabated is simply the political fact that they vote in greater numbers than younger people.
He’s done. Caretaker preznint…and he’s taking care of the fatcats.
Next!
clinton did most of his damage to the middle class during his second term when he was never going to run for anything again. his betrayal led directly to hillary’s high negatives causing us to run into Ocoma’s tender arms. tell me why we should trust Ocoma with another 4 years of betrayal??
Jadez, thanks for giving us that heads up.
Who did you support in 2008?
How do you know that a primary opponent won’t just sell out to Obama in the end?
Why bother with the Democratic Party anyway?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945597/-Book-Review:-Selfas-The-Democrats
Uhhh…Monk; Hillary’s negatives had to do with her helping George Bush pimp the warbot koolaid…
and with her “savvy” idea that throwing progressives under the bus while sucking up to the rightwing, was the freeway to the White House.
“I guess he doesn’t realize that defense cuts would be the CONSEQUENCE of him bolting, since they are part of the trigger in the event of no agreement.”
Not quite right.
1) The definition of “defense” for the triggers was so broad that it covers things like the draw downs from the war, VA benefits, and foreign aid.
2) The committees get to decide what specific spending gets cut with the triggers…and the committees are run by the Republicans.
ERGO:
3) the triggers won’t cut actual defense spending by very much at all.
this quote SHOULD read;
“by makiing certan the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations don’t get their bills payed for by the middle class and insisting there is a tax code that insures they pay at least the same as the working class in america”
I missed most of the speech because I had to clip my toenails. Just saw snippets on MSNBC late.
If I understand, in this jobs bill we must cut spending to spend some money on jobs. But, cutting spending will likely cut jobs and if we then spend that money on “new” jobs aren’t we just breaking even????? PLus the tax cuts and tac cut estentions are just maintaining the status quo.
I’m not real bright, although I DO know what status quo means, so you guys and gals will have to help me understand.
You shouldn’t.
Yes, and it will effective kill the program. They will, inn truth, be able to say it’s broke in another few years.
Talk about backdoor strategies.
It would have been so easy to fix this mess the banks caused, but instead our government has used the crisis to destroy democracy.
I must admit, Americans have played along with our endless obsession with the chimera known as “financial security”; our incredible selfishness and our common delusions of grandeur.
Now, only the super rich have “financial security” but they have their ignorant minions of the marginal protecting them, so it will go from the bottom to the top of the middles class, until……
Neo-feudalism
“You cannot petition the Lord with PRAYER!” – Jim Morrison
Also, it’s early yet, for a third-party candidate. Anyone who’s willing is going to look a lot more attractive in a few months, than they will now.
The interest in making a run at him is, or course, going to inversely track Obama’s tanking numbers. When they get into the mid-30′s and sit there, there will be people coming out of the woodwork to challenge him.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. I
Sorry, shouldn’t have used the gun metaphor
What exactly happens if you don’t pay,
the IRS likes to send you letters – lots of them.
the IRS could decide to send you a “Substitute For Return“, which is basically them deciding what you made for this tax year and telling you what you owe to them.
they could send a tax revenue officer after you,
And if this doesn’t work, they could send a special agent after you – and this could lead to criminal charges for tax evasion. This can lead to the IRS seizing your home, car, other assets, freezing your bank accounts or even sending you to prison.
So they can ASK you to pay, and if you give them the wrong answer, you can end up in prison.
May I quote you?
Puh-leeze. Obama TYPIFIES the Democratic Party today.
Thanks ever so much for helping clarify all this.
Lifting the cap on the incomes not currently subject to FICA is just a dream too far, isn’t it? So, we’ll be stuck with this crisis they’re creating, and then they’ll come right at us with their knives and scissors.
the primary opponent will lose cassiodorus, the powers need obama in office and they will not allow a primary candidate wheels to win
but we need primary the republican in office for a number of reasons, number one, hopefully a primary challenge will weaken him enough so he loses to the republican running
a republican elected as a republican will do far less damage then one elected as a democrat
It wasn’t only Obama….Harry Reid was the front man on the 60 votes requirement.
I didn’t see through Obama like you did,but it was clear to me if Harry Reid was re-elected,Progress for ordinary Americans will be another 10-15yrs away…cuz Harry Reid’s last 10 yrs in the Seante leadership has been a colossal disappointment,And so his next term will reflect the previous.
And the same with regards Obama,if this guy is re-elected we will suffer even more.U hear Obama sycophants on radio claiming,re-elect Obama & then he will show a spine & do whats good for ordinary Americans,it’s baloney folks.
Re-elect him(Obama) and be sad forever more.
tan, you know I usually agree but……..it will take som,ebody with a LOT of money or somebody with a LOT of friends with a LOT of money to suport a third party movement. I just don’t see that happening in the middle of a recession. Besides, sometimes third party movements are counter-productive. Many say that happened in 2000 and contributed to putting Bush in the WH. Otheres claim that also contributed to Nixon’s win in ’68.
and it will get worse since now corporations can buy law from either side with abandon, they will buy from both sides
The whole purpose of a “primary opponent” is to make sure that the supporters of said “primary opponent,” who can say all of the liberal pie-in-the-sky they want, stay in the Democratic Party. Primary opponents are about keeping the liberals under the Big Tent; they have nothing to do with actual policy.
Is that what you really want?
fyi – Democrats on the House Ways & Means Committee put out a ‘policy memo’ – outlining “healthcare savings” for the Supers
it lists raising the age — but with a proviso it could only ‘work’ if ACA is retained intact and the so called savings would be mightly slim
no one’s asked, but this is normally done to buttress the POTUS’s plan – ‘cept in this case it has a passive-aggressive flavuh – they refuse to outright endorse it
What never ceases to amaze me is the elephant in the room that noone will address. We’re still spending a couple billion a week on war. Yet conventional wisdom says cut social spending. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing. Trillions to bankers, trillions to war, no money left for the people who paid all their lives into this system.
I want obama out of office, that’s what I really want, I want it made clear liberals are not on board this president or this party, that’s what I want
a third party is fine but undermining this republicans chances of winning a second term is the first thing that needs to get done
that’s what i want
You can see, then, how money serves as an instrument of popular control, and thus why a revolt against the whole of the money system will at some point be necessary.
Or you can be appointed Treasury Secretary. Like much of lfe, connections and birthright mean a hell of a lot.
Why not, then, vote for Mitt Romney in the primary? Rick Perry is more popular with Republicans, but is further to the Right, and has less of a chance of beating Obama.
“We’re on the way to a worldwide financial dictatorship governed by bankers,” said Peter Gauweiler, German Bundestags Representative (CSU), in an interview published Monday in the Welt Online. “We don’t support Greece,” he said. “We support 25 or 30 worldwide investment banks and their insane activities.”
That is what is going on in europe and here. All this talk of throwing the peasants a few billion is just a big joke to them as they steal trillions to prop up their criminal cartel.
Hank Paulson in 2007 told sarkozy not to worry about subprime and worse case the German taxpayer would bail out the banks That was in 2007, a US politician knew the german would pay for it. As he knew the americans would too. How did he know, because we don’t have democracies with have a gang of elites running it all.
David I really think you need to widen the angle of your stories and go beyond the main talking points. The bigger picture needs to be kept front and center. Failure to do so means we are arguing within their fabricated talking points
They’ve been doing that since the founding of the Democratic Party.
You are a real piece of work, sir. “point of a gun”? Really? From your mouth to God’s ears.
I agree. I have been saying we should all meet at the Chick-fil-a to discuss a blueprinbt for the revolt. They have the best chicken salad sandwiches and cole slaw AND free refills on iced tea. We must remember the Indians ruled North America for hundreds of yeas with NO money. Just beads, wampum, and beaver pelts.
Exactly right. We are in the endgame and need to understand that the endgame is not about business as usual.
Look up “metaphor”
See #46.
If you’re serious you should start with Food Not Bombs.
Being the most responsible person in the room, IMO, I’d probably vote for Romney but, being a Texas, I’d never vote for Perry. We DO NOT want Perry to even get close to the White House.
I will campaign for whoever runs against obama, I don’t care if it’s ,michelle or ron or the ghool, they get my support
“Not real bright” works very well in the current environment.
The “ghoul” is Perry, right???
Lots of people say I should run for congress.
I’m not real sure if that’s a compliment, “in the current environment.”
Does anyone have recommendation on the best cat food to buy for those out of work or retirees?
97,98,99, and 2000 -
what did Clinton do that threw the middleclass under the Bus? G-S did not do anything other than allow the merger of of Travelers ins and Citi – giving Rubin his 110 million directorship (please note that Krugman agrees with this view). The GOP Congress was stopped at just about every turn. Better regulation and regulatory bills – although the GOP Congress refused to add derivatives to the exchanges and their regulation since Greenspan said it was not needed.
As for Hillary, we gave the vote to blacks – males – 50 years before women got the vote – so liberals latched on to a state senator speech to an outside group saying he was against the Iraq war as justification for progressives rejecting Hillary – not for anything Bill did. Liberals ignored her personal liberal history as the “just another business loving Dem” idea was tossed around – DLC and all that , as if Obama was not just DLC but actually rightwing.
i know noone who was ever going to trust another clinton again and this was in early 2001 and a direct result of blow job billys derugulation efforts. i know criticizing the great bill clinton is tough because then you have to confront the issue of how much of the top dem leadership has been coopted by the monied intersts that owh the republican party
I suggest you stick up your “metaphor.” As you yourself admit in your #46, you “should not have used” the gun metaphor. SO, WHY THE FUCK DID YOU? I think we all know the answer, we’ve seen so many righties use it, but only as to things YOU don’t like, never as to those things that WE don’t like. Like the stupid fucking wars and equally stupid tax cuts for the rich and corporate subsidies. All at the point of a gun, right, because it’s the government imposing it on us. Keep insisting on a revolution, and you will eventually get one.
The “welfare bill” and NAFTA threw everyone under the bus.
If they think you’d fit in there, then it’s not lol.
I have two cats, cat food is quite expensive. Even at the dented can store down the road, it’s 30 cents for a small can. I suggest day old bread, it’ll go furhter.
clinton only signed off on the derugulation of glass siegal which allowed the looting of the real estate market. he also signed off on the derivitave deragulation that caused both enron and the derivative market exploited by the big banks that made money as the finacial crisis exploded. he was lauded by the hertage foundation for doing more good work for deragulation than any other prez
The GOP Congress was stopped at just about every turn. Better regulation and regulatory bills – although the GOP Congress refused to add derivatives
Show me where congress was stopped by clinton outside of the shut down contaversy. what did he veto.?? you are either misinformed or a troll
Friskies is best value AND taste. Tuna and egg, super supper, and chicken.
That’s what I thought. Thanks.
Friskies “seafood delight” ON he day old bread is quite tasty AND filling.
Allow me to apologize to you specifically. I seem to have gotten you rather excited.
My comment wasn’t about things I don’t like. It was about Obamas funny phrasing. Let’s remove the scary guys from the phrase and get to one we can agree on:
and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks Americans to pay their fair share.
That’s better, if you don’t make much, your fair share would be small and if you make a lot, your fair share would be large.
The phrase is still funny. Asking people to do something under threat of imprisonment, isn’t really asking. That was my point.
It shouldn’t be just a good idea. It should be the law.
M objection wasn’t to your criticizing Bubba for handing the republicans a nail-studded baseball bat with which to beat him; it was to your contention that that was what cost Hillary the nomination and “drove us into Obama’s arms.”
I think that’s an incredible re-writing of the reality of Hillary’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, by:
A: Insisting on staying on board the warbot wagon until it was obviously ruining her chances at the nomination…
and B: that moving to the right to try to wash off the “librul” stain on her, would be a smart thing to do…after the 8 years of monumental fuckups by Bush and the republicans.
Naomi lays it out concisely what the plans are.
Your apology, if sincere, is accepted. I’ve seen your comments for years, and it’s clear you are far to the right of most here. That’s fine, plenty of ground for honest debate. But after years of witnessing deliberate and organized linguistic mindfuckery by the right wing and its minions (Gingrich, Luntz, Rove, etc.), I’m at the point where I call out anybody who uses these dog whistles and code words that are intended to, and effective at, stimulating base and unworthy emotional responses rather than rational and balanced ones. If you have a base and unworthy opinion, just say it straight out, and take the consequences.
my understanding of clintons 8 yrs was that while they were beating on him in public in the media he signed off on every fucking deregulation bill or job stripping bill that came his way. i have a degree in poli sci and none of lib friends was going to trust hillary because of her being seen as the same type of trojan horse bill had been and Ocoma is now. the distrust of hill was in place before her senate career
yes, popeye99, that is the ONLY answer…..for “We the People”….unfortunately, the laws are made by millionaires for millionaires….we are only fodder for their coffers….so, even though single payer is the right, fair, and only truly American answer….it will never happen….gotta feed that medical/pharma machine, you know!
I not sure who you are addressing. You responded to a different person than me. I agree with your comments though.
‘guy; thanks for the reply. We’re not in TOO much disagreement. Leaving the familiar old political sugar-tit of tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee (and has it ever been more obvious that that’s what it is, with Obama’s pissing away such a golden opportunity to make real change?) in numbers large enough to actually put some kind of independent in the White House, is scary for most americans. But I think that this election is going to be a lot different than any we’ve had for a long, long, time. Never, in my lifetime, have both the “outs” and the “ins” been so demonstrably nothing but the protectors of the status quo, and in about 6-8 more months, the chickens from the years of this policy are going to be landing, in force.
I just see no way that Barack Obama can be elected, and to that end, I hope he’s not nominated. Likewise, as Driftglass put it, relative to the Great Republican Debate last night:
“This is what it looks like when you take a shit in zero gravity.”
The republicans will, no doubt be worse, but if we “stay the course” with the horsefucking that Barack Obama has given us, then any power and influence of the progressive wing of the democratic party will just disappear. If we cave on this, then all of the political snots (most of them democrats) who are cynically asking of us “Where you gonna go?” will, for the umpteenth time, be re-assured that they can take out votes and our enthusiastic support, for the election contest, and then crap on us.
I aint going for it anymore. I’m willing to accept a republican preznint, with all that implies. Not least because I believe that Obama’s sustaining so many of their worst policies and creating some new ones, as well, will guarantee that things will be worse…and I think that having lost the opportunity to turn things around through Obama’s cowardice and stupidity, that the shit NEEDS to hit the fan, even worse that it was hitting it when Bush left office. Contining those policies will make that so.
Put it like this: after decades of watching the voters usually fall for conservative bullshit about what ails us; for one damn time, we elected a president who SEEMED to understand that he could win by speaking the truth about the fatcats and of whom we had reasonable expectations that he would use all of the tools we gave him to mount a real salvage operation.
That he and any putative agenda he supposedly had, have collapsed like a dead jellyfish on a beach, for me, makes it impossible to support him. All my life I’ve fought the good lefty fight. It hasn’t worked; at least, not well enough put us on the path of intelligent humanism with the decisiveness that we so desperately need.
This time, if the democrats are lunatic enough to present Barack Obama to the voters as our “leader”, I will work hard to thwart that lunacy.
I would add: I have a pretty good notion that when it becomes plain what a political millstone Obama has become, and the damage he will do to the democratic party if he runs again, the powers that be, in the party will perceive clearly that he has to be privatized. I think they will impart that to him, in no uncertain words. I think they have that much instinct for survival. I sure hope so. It will at least give us a chance to keep enough congressional power to monkeywrench the worst of the republican agenad, and, incidentally, make a third party run unnecessary.
Oh, she had plenty of distrust before she got the Senate seat. No argument there, but when she voted for the clusterfuck in Iraq (at a time when 21 OTHER democratic senators had the smarts and the courage to vote against it) I think she crossed a political rubicon…and her sticking with that vote nearly to the bitter end, and also running hard to the right, had far more to do with the fact that, for example, the National Organization for Women turned their backs on her, and endorsed Obama, than did Bill’s testosterone stupidity.
What nobody’s commented upon is that the rhetoric of “strengthening” Medicare by slashing it that Obama employs is *exactly* the same as that used by Bush during his drive to privatize Social Security. Indeed the bi-partisan commission (sound familiar?) he empowered with investigating ways to privatize the program was called the “Commission to Strengthen Social Security”.
We have to face facts here. We have two parties which now speak an increasingly similar language about cutting and privatizing the bedrock institutions that fostered the American middle class. Class warfare is being launched by the entire political system on behalf of the financial aristocracy, and it’s time we got past inane anachronistic debates about Hillary versus Obama. Guess what? The entire party leadership is in favor of cutting Medicare and Social Security.
Thanks.
Since you call out anybody, you may want to go back through the comments again, I think there are some dog whistles and code words you failed to call out. Run these through your rational and balanced filter.
raid Social Security
attack Social Security and Medicare
tears down the safety net
undermine Social Security
end of SS and medicare
SocSec and Medicare slashage
gut social security
kill the program
Amen, tan. Hillary ran a poor campaign, as evidenced by the self-inflicted wounds from the make-believe “Bosnian Sniper” story to having Mark Penn act as her chief strategist. It can be argued that the Penn hiring alone doomed her to failure.
Agree with your general views here. Classic revolutionary theory holds that things have to get really bad before the people will react decisively for change. But I don’t share your hopes vis a vis the general Democratic Party. I think they have made the final decision to go corporatist, and will not turn back. We need a third party that will specifically represent the people, rather than the corporations.
Oh, I think the elites in power in the Democratic Party just love Obama. He’s the President they’ve always wanted.
The horse left that barn some time ago.
The joy of our era is in realizing what a bad situation we’re in, and that so few people have realized this, and most of them as a sort of dawning realization occurring far, far after the damage has been done.
That’s just about exactly right, IMO.
I think all the examples you cite are entirely accurate characterizations of what is being attempted.
Hey DLC/OFA Police and Church of Obama ushers: The Church of Obama website is about a hundred miles down, on the right. Don’t miss the service.
Much as I appreciate the sentiment therein expressed about the Democratic Party, it needs to be said here that the Democratic Party was always the vehicle of the wealthy, and that the “final decision” was made some time in the 19th century when corporations became the preferred vehicle of established wealth.
:-) I thought you might.
Good thing no one used a scary gun in their raid/attack to slash, gut and kill.
David Cay Johnston has stated it well:
Since the 1980′s, the super rich have “bought” congressional representatives to write laws which favor the interests of the wealthy. In addition, they hire people such as Jonathan Blattmachr who find numerous ways to navigate huge sums of money around government levies. These people can make a man who appears as a “Midas before his bankers look like a pauper to the taxman”. Charitable trusts can be set up along with business write offs and numerous other advantages which have been written over the years to favor the rich. Remember, many of the tax “laws” are marketed as benefiting “everyone”. This simply is not the case.
For the average American, the bulk of their wages is declared on the W-2′s, etc. They also can’t afford expensive lawyers or tax accountants to “hide” income. So, now we have a country where it is OBVIOUS that the bulk of wealth is flowing upward. ANY politician who states that everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes, when you have a system designed to favor the very wealthy, is either ignorant or a liar. If the wealthy do not understand or feel they should pay their share, we will continue to push payment for everything we value onto the working and middle classes.
Don’t disagree, but the acceleration and blatancy in recent years has been breathtaking.
The question was 2nd term bills – the first term’s welfare bill was veto’d until a safety net was added, and Nafta was economist best practices at the time (MIT’s trade that does not protect competitive advantage loses jobs proof was not until 2004) PLUS the first official side agreements on environment and labor rights – ever – in US trade – AND IT ADDED US JOBS through 2001. Bush=no enforcement and tax law IRS Code 482 stopped being enforced, so the manufacturing jobs added during Bill Clinton rapidly disappeared.
Very different from suggesting the govt uses a gun to get anything you don’t like, while you gleefully celebrate that gun when it is used to get things you do like. If you can’t see the difference, then there’s little point in debating finer issues with you.
running hard to the right,??
Ok – I am open to any example where she ran hard to the right in 08
none – you have none – I did not think so.
signed off on every deregulation? – yet media merger and bank merger are the only deregs during the Clinton years – interesting
Guess it is hard to admit you made the wrong vote in 08 – even after 3 years of Obama. Even after the Obama 08 lies are pointed out. Even after you notice you only have the Iraq war vote to stand on – but hey, maybe that is enough – whatever floats your vote.
Fair enough. When the word police have decided that gun = unacceptable, and slash, gut and kill = acceptable, there’s no room for debate.
You just don’t get it. It’s not the words per se that are evil, it’s the misleading ways some people use them. Maybe you just can’t get it. Sorry for you.
“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”
This quote by Nathan M Rothschild is from the (early)1800′s
I am just saying that buying the law has gone on for hundreds of years.
What “added jobs” in the 1990s was the real estate boom and the Internet — and the “welfare bill” was indefensible any way you count it. Carry on with a neoliberal defense of a decade in which the investor class took nearly all of the gains.
Well, if they’d come out with austerity planning in 1973, the elites would have a major revolt on their hands. Instead it took a recession, twelve years of Reagan/Bush, eight years of Clinton and eight years of another Bush to prepare us for this moment.
The critical “movement” document in this regard is Samuel P. Huntington’s (1975) essay in a collection titled The Crisis Of Democracy, written for the Trilateral Commission, in which it is argued that American democracy responds to too much in the way of popular demand, and thus a revolution of lowered expectations must be carried out.
It’s hilarious watching the republicans scramble to find an excuse as to why they’re against tax cuts. Another $450bn on the deficit is notning compared to what we’ll gain.
POLL: Was President Obama’s jobs speech the right blue print for creating jobs?
Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/p/2365719
Well she agrees with you!
I, however take exception based on the following points.
How about when she said in regards to her war vote:
Hillary Clinton votes YES on a procedural motion to end debate on legislation sponsored by Senator Feingold calling for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The motion is defeated, as has been predicted. The media reports that during the day Clinton gives several different answers about whether she will actually support the measure if it comes
to a vote. The Associated Press quotes her as saying she will not speculate on “what I’m going to be voting on in the future.” Later in the day she says she will support the legislation.
In an interview with the New York Times, Hillary predicts a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq; she states that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and support the Iraqi military. The implication is that there will be permanent bases and American boots on the ground in Iraq far beyond the 2008 elections if Hillary becomes president.
September 2006: She votes NO on Senate Amendment 4882 sponsored by Diane Feinstein that would ban the sale of cluster munitions for the use in heavily populated civilian areas.
She has called abortion “a tragic choice,” sponsored a bill to make flag-burning a crime, and pushed for a crackdown on violent video games.
She supports DOMA, which Bill Clinton signed. (Jul 2007)
She rated 60% by the ACLU.
1976 at Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut.
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You’re-Out. (Sep 1996)
Supports structured inner-city schools, with uniforms. (May 1996)
Opposes merit pay for individual teachers. (Apr 2000)
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000)
Teen abstinence is the right thing to do. (Oct 2005)
For teens, not about birth control, but about self-control. (Jul 2007)
Meet with Cuban leaders only after evidence of change. (Feb 2008)
2001 speech to AIPAC pledges money for Israeli military.
Obligation to support Israel with more than foreign aid. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Triangulation replaces partisanship with a dynamic center. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Called Saul Alinsky “great seducer” of young minds.
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006)
Cut off US aid if Palestine declares a state unilaterally. (Oct 2000)
Accepted connection between Saddam & Al Qaeda. (Nov 2002)
Welfare reform was critical step despite flaws. (Nov 2003)
Positions from http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
Okay, I see where you’re going, Obama, but eligibility at age 67 is just not high enough. Raise it to 69.7 years and we can screw the average African American male out of his Medicare and Social Security benefits 100%! They’ll be chipping in for everyone else’s benefits and getting nothing back, and we won’t have to raise the payroll tax cap on rich guys! Pretty sweet, eh? Eleven-dimension chess, indeed.