On Social Security Cuts
Then we’re going to get entitlement “reform.” Since Obama is promising this to Blue Dogs, this isn’t going to be anything you’re going to like.
So you’re far more likely to see Medicare and Social Security gutted, than you are to see the military budget cut in a third or Medicare-for-all enacted.
(What is Obama?) A man who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Let me state the obvious, which we all know, one more time.
Obama intends to gut social security. Republicans failed, it requires Democrats.
The question about SS in the Villagers minds is not whether it should be cut, but how. That’s not to say it’s hopeless. The last attempt to cut SS failed, after all. But there wasn’t a Democratic president pushing for it that time. Obama has proven very adept at arm-twisting Democrats.
2011 – Bush’s tax cuts are extended. Social Security is slashed. This is done at Obama’s behest, so that Dems get blamed for it.
The blogosphere appears aflame about Obama being willing to cut SS. Oh please. Oh, and Obama still needs to be primaried, but by waiting this long, it’s become much more difficult to do, if not impossible. Everyone who is whining about SS who wasn’t willing to primary him, was complicit in this.
Adults don’t believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or Barack Obama being anything but a right winger whose legacy is institutionalizing Bush, then going even further to the right on many key issues. They don’t believe that Obama responds to anything from the left but pain and threats that are backed up with the sincere willingness and ability to see them through.
Comments are closed.
Thank you Z. I think that was very fair criticism – and I’m sorry for the rant. Clearly I need to get out more 😉
Me too. I’ve been stuck at my desk all day trying to install anti-virus software. Anyway, have a good weekend, Diana.
Z
Me: …it would not surprise me to learn that obama thinks that this is his “end welfare as we know it” moment that clinton decided was needed for his re-election.
DP: This is complete and utter bullshit – I’m sorry but it just is and both Z and anon2525 constant make similar claims about Bill Clinton in almost every single thread.
This sort of criticism of yours is invalid. A specific point can be argued, but a broad generalization is meaningless. You might just as well have written “I disagree.”
There are many valid things you can criticize Clinton about – but this isn’t one of them.
Clinton’s decision to sign that bill to “end welfare as we know” certainly is one of his actions that can be criticized. He cannot justify it either on policy or political grounds. Bob Dole’s campaign was extremely weak, and Clinton was in no significant danger of losing the election if he had not signed the bill.
The arguable point is whether or not Clinton’s decision to end this social safety net for the poor is analogous to obama’s decision to consider cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is bad policy, and yet obama appears to me to think that it would be good politics for his reelection campaign, (just as Clinton thought his decision to sign that bill in 1996 would help him get reelected). Some disagree and think that obama thinks that it will get him defeated but that obama does not care.
… you also probably don’t remember how they mocked Al Gore…
This is a declaration that you cannot possibly know. That you would write it makes me think that you have not read or have read but have not apprehended what I have written.
Z – Thank you. Believe it or not, I actually agree with many of your comments. I’m sorry for ranting. Clearly I need to get out more 😉 And thank you Mr. Welsh – I’m sorry to be so rude. Believe it or not, I’m actually more of a lurker.
anon2525 – First of all – I have read your comments on this thread and many others – I just don’t post so it is fair for you to assume that I haven’t. but I’m not sure what you mean – calling bullshit on the internet is generally understood to be a hyperbolic version of saying that you disagree.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=calling+bullshit
The act of calling bullshit: When one person says something that another person is not in agreement with, that second person may “call bullshit” on whatever the first person said. By doing this, they are expressing their disagreement with what the person said in a humorous and yet serious way.
Broad generalizations are useless and only specific points are valid? My basic understanding of debate is that you base your big picture generalizations on specific points. You can agree on what happened factually but still come to different conclusions and interpretations. Isn’t that what a debate is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
“Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn’t the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior “context” and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.”
Though to be fair – I may have misinterpreted what you meant. And you are right – I should have been more specific but I knew doing it properly would require a really long post. I had already written too much and thought wasn’t worth boring everyone by repeating this stuff as there have already been thousands of articles written about it in the past two decades.
Also, “welfare reform” and Social Security were two separate issues. No one was particularly happy about the welfare reform (nor am I) – but that was in 1996 and aggressively pursued by Gingrich and the Republicans. Clinton had already used his veto twice and using it a third time was considered a political risk as it was only about two months before the election in November (the billed passed in late August). “Welfare reform” was what the Republicans (particularly Gingrich) wanted. It’s what they always want. Clinton tried repeatedly to kill it. This was all in the midst of various fictional scandals that people still claim are true even though they have been debunked – White Water, Travelgate etc. – and of course, the murder of Vince Foster. He didn’t use welfare reform to win the election. Again – it was about using the veto for the third time right before the election. It was not an idea that he was pushing because it would help him win – quite the opposite – it would antagonize his base. It’s shitty policy, but you can’t polish a turd which is why everyone was so pissed off about it. I think “welfare reform” was his attempt to reframe the debate so that when the Republicans used the talking point they always use, he could present his own alternative policy that wasn’t evil (or at least, a lot less evil) – and the Republicans would have to actually make their case based on facts instead of the standard divisive hysteria.
The Clinton “Save Social Security First” campaign to use the surplus for Social Security was in 1998-1999 at the end of his presidency and later advocated by Al Gore whose use of the term “lockbox” was widely ridiculed by everyone. The reason I assumed you didn’t remember is because I was surprised you didn’t mention it as it’s such well known moment in the 2000 presidential debate – and I think very relevant when discussing Clinton,the Democrats and Social Security –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pqmW-D14I
It was even a skit on SNL. –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BAx6Ib81Y4
btw – the Heritage Foundation hated it –
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/10/clintons-newest-social-security-plan-from-bad-to-worse
which is basically confirmation that it was very liberal, very progressive and not evil. If they don’t like it – it’s probably good as they are the poster child for “fascist whore” –
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascist%20whore&defid=580289
fascist whore –
“1. One who compromises the ideals of tolerance or justice either for personal gain or for the acceptance of others.
Did you hear that that lawyer stopped working for the NAACP? He works at the Heritage Foundation and gets paid twice as much. What a fascist whore!”
Unlike Clinton, I think Obama is using the Republicans for cover – to win the election and because he actually thinks it’s good policy – and it’s how he’s handled every major issue so far. He’s actually not progressive at all – he’s essentially a Republican – even using the talking point that Gingrich used to describe the Republicans as the “party of ideas” – and not it a way to reframe the debate or debunk the term. This was rather shocking as Gingrich is notorious for being a total douchebag – thus the slang “Gingrich” –
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gingrich
Gingrich
A person who accuses someone of doing something immoral while doing the same thing him or herself; as in, Newt Gingrich accusing Bill Clinton of immorality while he was boinking his mistress. AKA: GIGANTIC hypocrite.
My boss called me to make sure I wasn’t goofing off – but he was calling from the golf course – what a Gingrich!
hypocrite moralizer phony snake cheat
2. Gingrich 138 thumbs up
Verb/Adjective, the act of abandoning your extremely sick wife on her hospital bed while you fuck the shit out of your mistress, whom you later marry and cheat on with a third woman. Coined after serial adulterer/giant hypocrite Republican Newt Gingrich.
Person 1: Man, did you hear that Larry Gingriched his wife Cindy?
Person 2: Wait, you mean he cheated on her, married the mistress, then cheated on the mistress with a third woman?
Person 1: Yup. And poor Cindy was dying from brain cancer, too!
Douchebag: woman, if you don’t lose some weight and get a face lift, I’m gonna go Gingrich on your ass!
That’s why I couldn’t understand why anyone would claim that Clinton and Gingrich were pals conspiring to gut Social Security.
This is also why people were so pissed off that Obama would use the infamous Harry and Louise ad against Hillary Clinton as it was used by the Republicans (again, led by Gingrich) to tank any possibility of universal healthcare that was strongly advocated by both Hillary and Bill Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_and_Louise
“Harry and Louise” was a $14 to $20 million year-long television advertising campaign funded by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA)—a predecessor of the current America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)—a health insurance industry lobby group, that ran intermittently from September 8, 1993 to September 1994 in opposition to President Bill Clinton’s proposed health care plan in 1993–1994 and Congressional health care reform proposals in 1994.
It was a particularly nasty fight at the time – far worse than the kabuki that resulted in the Democrats passing what was basically what the Heritage Foundation (aka “fascist whores”) wanted in the 90s.
The point I was trying to make is that claiming Obama is corporate shill just like Clinton isn’t fair or accurate at all. For example, Obama was reading Gingrich’s biography recently – that’s bad enough – but he did it in public?!? wtf? That’s like someone you know seeing you read the NY Post in public on the subway – thus the saying “I read it for the sports”. Similar to the claim of reading Playboy for the “articles”. 😉 Obama wanted to make a show of being “bi-partisan”, “post-partisan “and “reasonable” (as usual) – but giving Gingrich credibility as a serious thinker is actually embarrassing and offensive – again, because he is such a notorious douchebag – and it was an obvious dig at Bill Clinton (and Hillary Clinton) both personally – and the legacy/policy of his administration. I also think it’s kind of stupid to trash the legacy and undermine the only two-term Democratic president since FDR who is still very popular. I don’t think it’s a particularly smart way to “win the future”. btw – great slogan with the acronym wtf – nobody is going to think that’s not funny.
I generalized because I thought all of this was common knowledge – and because I feel bad for poor Ian as I am being very rude and hijacking this thread.
Sorry Ian 🙁 I won’t post again. I prefer to lurk – because I’m a bit of a coward and generally I don’t feel I have anything worthwhile to say. I guess I’m really not objective about all this – because it does really still piss me off.
Sorry – one more thing. I am baffled as to why Obama would agree to extend the Bush tax cuts without making it conditional that they pass the debt ceiling without being whiny bitches. Obviously they were going to use it to hold the country hostage until they get their way. That’s what they do. Krugman mentioned this several times. The fact that anyone is actually even talking about downgrading the credit rating of the United States is a big deal. They should have never let it get this far especially as it just gives credibility to a fictional crisis that manufactured by the Republicans (and one that they use over and over) – so now it is actually a problem and Social Security is on the table when it used to be the “third rail” of politics. Even Bush was afraid to really go after it as it is politically risky for anyone.
Sorry again 🙁
For example, Obama was reading Gingrich’s biography recently –
The above was wrong – I meant to say Reagan’s biography – worshipped by all Republicans – but srsly! not in public 😉
The “party of ideas” was a Gingrich talking point about his “Contract with America”- which was the same Reagan/Bush stuff- “welfare reform”, “tougher on crime”, tax cuts and “balance the budget” by of course cutting social programs. Obama agreed with Gingrich that the Republicans were the “party of ideas” for the past 10-15 years because they were the party who were “challenging conventional wisdom” when in fact they were talking about the same things they always talk about. Again, dissing the Clinton administration and his own party using Gingrich talking points to reenforce the Republican narrative
Sorry if that didn’t make sense – I’m falling asleep…
🙁
IMO, obama wanted to create this crisis to pressure congress to jam cuts to social programs thru. To deploy the shock doctrine, you need a crisis and they’ve created one. So, essentially this is all kabuki between obama and the republican party. mcconnell has already come out and said that an increase to the debt limit is going to happen … and I can’t imagine that the republican party’s owners on wall street and corporate amerika are going to allow them to damage their interests. Sure, I guess we are supposed to believe that tea partiers are so “out of control” that they can’t be trusted not to throw the country into default. And I guess we are supposed to believe that the tea partiers in congress believe that throwing the country into default will help them in their reelection chances, or in their post-congressional career, or maybe that they just believe in this shit. But really, are they that powerful, are their members in congress so large that obama/mcconnel-reid/boehner can’t get a debt limit increase through? … something that has almost always …. maybe always … been a routine stand alone measure? I don’t believe it … it’s all bullshit … a manufactured crisis that they are going to use to try … and will probably be successful, unfortunately … to do some radical deconstruction of the social safety net.
Now, moody’s is in on kabuki too threatening to downgrade u.s. gov’t debt if the magical $4T decrease in the debt that obama wants is not done within a year. What a coincidence: that’s precisely the same amount that obama proposes to cut the debt by. moody’s … as do all the rating agencies … basically represents wall street; that’s the way wall street has structured it and it came in real handy for them during the rape and pillage of the u.s. economy during the preposterous housing bubble they blew. Those rating agencies are paid by wall street to rate wall street’s securities and they were rating mortgage backed securities that were backed by risky mortages as AAA securities, which was really the linchpin to all the fraud that went on partly becoz it allowed wall street to dump these highly overrated securities on the public and financial institutions as well as allow wall street to use these securities as collateral to jack up their balance sheets and gain … and deploy … an irresponsible amount of leverage in the markets. And then it all came down … on us. And it’s still coming down on us.
Z
Z : “IMO, obama wanted to create this crisis to pressure congress to jam cuts to social programs thru. To deploy the shock doctrine,”
I completely agree – about Moody’s too. He’s a Republican 😉
Otherwise it just makes no sense. Just like everything else – it’s not 11 dimensional chess – or trying to manipulate the discourse to trap the Republicans. I cannot believe anyone is still trying to make that argument. It’s clearly not some brilliant strategy or real attempt to strengthen SS or prevent it from being gutted – quite the opposite – and that’s been obvious for a long time. And the overt collusion with Moody’s etc in the midst of the massive still ongoing foreclosure fraud after huge bailouts – is mindblowingly evil. Every time he talks about “shared sacrifice”, I feel like my head it going to explode. Actually, that might be partially due to horrible insomnia – thus my petulant ranty posts… 😉
That’s another reason that I think obama wants out: you just can’t keep running the same game over and over and over like he has for another 4 years. It was especially hard to do when the dems had control of both the house and the senate, but fortunately, for him he had a cos, the despicable emanual, that was skilled at directing the kabuki and had tight ties to the house (pelosi basically allowed him to run the joint from oval office). And I think that obama wanted the dems to lose the mid-terms to at least narrow the dem’s strength in congress to make his corporate servile game easier to play. It’s hard for me to believe that he doesn’t understand that doing nothing for your base for 2 years and then calling them a bunch unappreciative retards is not a good strategy for maximizing dem turnout in mid-terms.
No, he wanted to lose the mid-terms to make the kabuki direction an easier task. And now he’s got the reps to “compromise” with and doesn’t have to call in lieberman, or nelson, or baucus, etc. from the dem bullpen to start a fire and provide him a reason to “back down” from what he purportedly wants. Even with a weakened hand in 2012, his games are too stale … and the pain to the public too severe … to last another 4 years w/o him being called out on them in a major way. If he stays for another term, he’s risking the loss of his celebrity appeal and that’s mega-important to a narcissist like obama whose ego craves him being celebrated. Fuck, that’s what drove him to being in the oval office to begin with …
Z
Actually, it was standard and poors that threatened to downgrade u.s. gov’t debt if it didn’t meet that magical $4T reduction.
Z