Obama '08?

@MontereyJack,

MJ, To govern means to compromise. The GOP-tea party has built a iron fence around their "no tax increase" meme.

Most Americans will see that as blackmail and an inability to negotiate any compromise. It'll end up hurting seniors, our schools, and medicaid - where most states are already cutting back. That means reduced services for everybody. Those who still believe cutting cost is the only alternative are going to find themselves without support services, and less hours of school for our children. Many local governments are cutting police and fire staffing. When their homes burn down, they have only themselves to blame. Penny wise and pound foolish.

They're going to lose big in the next election cycle; by then, the GOP-tea party would have gotten so many Americans angry at their childishness that only those small regions where they have a strong conservative base will retain their representatives.

It's going to be a very interesting year, 2012.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well, well, well, it seems the republicans are ready to compromise on taxes.

That's a positive sign for our country, that Boehner is willing to discuss taxes in exchange to cut expenses. That's what negotiation is; to compromise to meet some middle road that both sides can live with. That's a huge improvement over the past few months when the GOP's meme was "no increase in taxes."

From the NYT.

Quote:

President Looks for Broader Deal on Deficit Cuts
By CARL HULSE and MARK LANDLER
Published: July 6, 2011

WASHINGTON — Heading into a crucial negotiating session on a budget deal on Thursday, President Obama has raised his sights and wants to strike a far-reaching agreement on cutting the federal deficit as Speaker John A. Boehner has signaled new willingness to bargain on revenues

Mr. Obama, who is to meet at the White House with the bipartisan leadership of Congress in an effort to work out an agreement to raise the federal debt limit, wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade, Democratic officials briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday.

The president’s renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid.

The intensifying negotiations between the president and the speaker have Congressional Democrats growing anxious, worried they will be asked to accept a deal that is too heavily tilted toward Republican efforts and produces too little new revenue relative to the magnitude of the cuts.

Congressional Democrats said they were caught off guard by the weekend White House visit of Mr. Boehner — a meeting the administration still refused to acknowledge on Wednesday — and Senate Democrats raised concerns at a private party luncheon on Wednesday.

House Democrats have their own fears about the negotiations, which they expressed in an hourlong meeting Wednesday night with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

“Depending on what they decide to recommend, they may not have Democrats,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, said in an interview. “I think it is a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it.”

Officials said Mr. Boehner suggested that he was open to the possibility of $1 trillion or more in new revenue that would be generated by addressing tax issues already raised in the talks, like killing breaks for the oil and gas industry, eliminating ethanol subsidies and ending preferential treatment for corporate jets.

I hope they follow through to some satisfactory conclusion; the debt ceiling must be approved to avoid an economic disaster for our country and the world.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Other republicans have said that if tax loop holes are closed the government must make more cuts in soc. sec. and medicare and spending on infrastructure. So the right hand givith while the left taketh away. They are still talking out of both sides of their mouths.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

I wonder why they would have said that. Close loopholes, increase revenues, and the act of raising revenues by itself requires more cuts in other stuff than otherwise. I'm not following the reasoning.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

The NYT article doesn't mention social security, but does mention both Medicare and Medical. There are many ways to cut waste in these programs, so cutting expenses isn't that big a deal if they do it correctly. The biggest problem I see is the way funding for these programs are being cut that isn't based on efficiency or cuts in waste. That's the same problem with cutting funding for education; it's reducing courses, increasing class size, and cutting class time for our children.

There has to be better solutions and priorities.

According to a recent report, Obama is seeking more than two trillion in savings. That's the correct attitude going into the future, because our country cannot keep spending money we don't have. Cutting expenses is necessary in addition to increasing tax revenue. Once the two wars are paid for, our country should be able to handle the slower growth in our deficit. Everything being equal, our economy can continue to grow at the current momentum if everybody tightens their belts, and begin paying for the necessities of caring for our citizens at home. Without strength at home, there is nothing we can do about wars half way across the planet.

0 Replies

According to this mornings article on Obama's negotiation with the GOP, he's willing to include social security. That's a good thing; congress needs to increase the age of retirement, and increase taxes to ensure future benefits for retirees. This is necessary, because people are living longer. We've known this for several decades, but congress has failed to act on this issue - saying that the funding will last until 2041. Not any more; with fewer paying into the fund from the Great Recession (increase in the unemployment rolls), and the baby-boomers beginning to retire, the fund will drain more quickly if nothing is done.

Good on Obama.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Good on Obama.

He had little choice. Republicans have been trying to restructure SS benefits and eligibility for over a decade, while the Democrats steadfastly opposed any changes. Even Obama opposed any changes until the current showdown, which has been created by the House Republicans.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

This is necessary, because people are living longer.

Not really - people live on average 3 years longer now than they did back when it was started. It only looks like more if you specific include infant deaths, which shouldn't be a factor in how you look at aging and when people should stop working.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Meanwhile, Obama continues to prove that he's kind of a dick.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Republicans have been trying to restructure SS benefits and eligibility for over a decade, while the Democrats steadfastly opposed any changes.

The idea of restructuring SS is not an issue I have been following (except for the obvious notion of raising the retirement age) very closely. Could you post of talking points? No need to go into great detail; I can do my own research if you can point me in the right direction. Thank you.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
This is necessary, because people are living longer.

Not really - people live on average 3 years longer now than they did back when it was started. It only looks like more if you specific include infant deaths, which shouldn't be a factor in how you look at aging and when people should stop working.

Cycloptichorn

Until and unless we can find a way to create more living wage jobs we need to be looking for ways to get old people out of the workforce, not be looking for demanding that they stay in. The government is looking here to balance its books on the backs of the young, who will increasingly tend to be over educated with nothing to do.. That folks is how you go about blowing up the society, is how revolutions are facilitated by inane public policy.

0 Replies

realjohn, try googling "privatize social security".. Republicans tried to do it, which would have been a boon for the same financial institutions that bought us the recent Great Recession. Good that the GOP failed on that one. They tried to convert it to private retirement accounts--again a boon for Wall st.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Thanks. I googled "social security reform proposals 2011" and found a bunch of stuff - from both sides. The 1st article I read challenged the "people are living (and therefore are capable of working) longer." True enough if you are a white color worker but not if you are a construction worker who's knees and back still start to give out after 45 years or so of that kind of work.
A plethora of articles on the issue.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Check out the fgailed G.W. Bush proposals to restructure SS during his first term and the Democrat arguments against it.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

What GW Bush tried to do was privatize social security; that recommendation was a disaster in 2008 when the stock market plunged, and the average loss for investors was 40%. Some lost more; their life savings.

How are they supposed to retire? They did their best to save for retirement. Without some kind of social security provided by the government, the majority of Americans would live in abject poverty. Is that what the GOP wants?

Isn't the better option for all to pay into a social security scheme where some security is assured in retirement? All the government has to do to fix the problem is increase the age for benefit and payroll deduction. Very simple, but congress hasn't for several decades responded responsibly when everybody knew life spans were increasing, and our economy unpredictable.

1 Reply

Obama continues to be a huge voter caused disaster.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

He had little choice. Republicans have been trying to restructure SS benefits and eligibility for over a decade, while the Democrats steadfastly opposed any changes.

George, you keep repeating that BS. It has been pointed out on several occasions that it is nothing but BULL ****. Obama proposed cuts in 2009.

You need to get back in reality, buddy.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

How are they supposed to retire? They did their best to save for retirement.

Bullshit, experts have been nearly unanimous over three decades claiming that boomers were not saving enough, that their expectations for retirement had no chance of being resourced. Now the economy is melting down as well, which makes the situation worse, and government pensions expectations overall have been founded by as much fantasy as have the boomers personal pension expectations, but to claim that boomers have "done their best" to prepare funding for retirement is one of your biggest whoppers ever.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I will check it out, George, but those were good ole days (2000-2004) when the stock market was roaring back from the dot.com thing and house prices were booming. Money was growing on trees while workers were being forced to make contributions to a boring government run system. Free the people. Let them put that money into the stock market. Let them invest in lottery tickets.
I mean no disrespect but a lot has happened since then. If candidates want to reform the SS system, I would like to see what they have to say in light of events in the last decade.

1 Reply

Dick Obama needs to retire... his early retirement would boost the worlds economy,
but I think we can all survive until he is retired by the 2012 presidential election.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know