HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Alarms Go Off as Obama Pl...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:47 AM

Alarms Go Off as Obama Plays Footsie with Raising Medicare Age

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/12-8


Protestors call for an increase of taxes on the wealthy and voice opposition to cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid during a demonstration in the Federal Building Plaza on December 6, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Partly because he's done it before, partly because he specifically left it on the table in a not-yet aired interview with ABC's Barbara Walters this week, but mainly because it's a terrible policy idea, progressives are saying loudly that if President Obama agrees to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 he'll have, as one notable critic put it, "hell to pay."

As secret offers and counter-offers have been exchanged between the White House and the GOP leadership in the House over the last several days, speculation has peaked about whether or not Obama will relinquish his strong negotiating position by giving in to demands that he do something—no matter how ineffective—that would simultaneously please Republicans while proving he's willing to ignore the desires of his political base.

***SNIP

But, when asked about the possibility of including the age increase for Medicare by Barbara Walters in an interview scheduled to air Friday, Obama reportedly answered:

When you look at the evidence, it’s not clear that it actually saves a lot of money. But what I’ve said is let’s look at every avenue, because what is true is we need to strengthen Social Security, we need to strengthen Medicare for future generations, the current path is not sustainable because we’ve got an aging population and health care costs are shooting up so quickly.

163 replies, 7605 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 163 replies Author Time Post
Reply Alarms Go Off as Obama Plays Footsie with Raising Medicare Age (Original post)
xchrom Dec 2012 OP
still_one Dec 2012 #1
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #41
DonViejo Dec 2012 #59
pipoman Dec 2012 #2
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #80
shrdlu Dec 2012 #110
amandabeech Dec 2012 #154
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #3
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #4
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #5
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #15
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #20
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #24
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #49
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #105
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #129
KansDem Dec 2012 #27
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #108
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #29
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #103
Skittles Dec 2012 #140
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #106
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #160
Enrique Dec 2012 #32
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #100
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #44
MineralMan Dec 2012 #96
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #98
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #26
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #28
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #12
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #36
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #48
woo me with science Dec 2012 #74
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #86
Skittles Dec 2012 #104
patrice Dec 2012 #128
Skittles Dec 2012 #134
patrice Dec 2012 #145
woo me with science Dec 2012 #163
patrice Dec 2012 #120
patrice Dec 2012 #121
patrice Dec 2012 #122
Skittles Dec 2012 #137
patrice Dec 2012 #138
Skittles Dec 2012 #142
patrice Dec 2012 #146
patrice Dec 2012 #139
Skittles Dec 2012 #141
patrice Dec 2012 #147
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #60
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #63
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #69
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #72
patrice Dec 2012 #152
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #82
patrice Dec 2012 #123
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #89
patrice Dec 2012 #125
patrice Dec 2012 #115
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #45
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #58
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #84
patrice Dec 2012 #118
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #14
Marr Dec 2012 #81
byeya Dec 2012 #6
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #8
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #25
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #37
jsr Dec 2012 #70
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #101
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #111
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #116
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #135
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #153
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #52
dionysus Dec 2012 #34
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #54
dionysus Dec 2012 #65
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #102
WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #112
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #124
WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #157
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #158
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #7
jsr Dec 2012 #17
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #9
Tom Rinaldo Dec 2012 #10
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #18
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #149
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #151
WillyT Dec 2012 #22
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #66
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #13
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #16
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #19
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #31
patrice Dec 2012 #150
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #11
snooper2 Dec 2012 #21
jsr Dec 2012 #23
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #30
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #35
jsr Dec 2012 #39
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #40
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #43
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #46
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #47
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #50
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #51
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #56
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #61
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #62
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #67
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #33
jsr Dec 2012 #38
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #77
duffyduff Dec 2012 #87
bigtree Dec 2012 #42
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #55
bigtree Dec 2012 #68
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #76
bigtree Dec 2012 #83
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #53
mmonk Dec 2012 #57
former-republican Dec 2012 #64
jsr Dec 2012 #71
former-republican Dec 2012 #73
jsr Dec 2012 #91
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #75
forestpath Dec 2012 #78
Marr Dec 2012 #79
ProSense Dec 2012 #85
MineralMan Dec 2012 #88
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #90
MineralMan Dec 2012 #92
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #93
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #109
Skip Intro Dec 2012 #94
MineralMan Dec 2012 #95
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #144
L0oniX Dec 2012 #97
patrice Dec 2012 #114
L0oniX Dec 2012 #161
rock Dec 2012 #99
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #107
patrice Dec 2012 #113
Orangepeel Dec 2012 #117
former-republican Dec 2012 #126
WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #119
patrice Dec 2012 #127
patrice Dec 2012 #130
djean111 Dec 2012 #143
patrice Dec 2012 #148
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #131
patrice Dec 2012 #136
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #159
tjwash Dec 2012 #132
patrice Dec 2012 #133
indepat Dec 2012 #155
Enrique Dec 2012 #156
snooper2 Dec 2012 #162

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:52 AM

1. Everything I have heard, including Congressional Democrats they will NOT raise the age of Medicare.

Even the answer to Walters does not indicate that

This is media hype. I will wait to see what happens, but at the same time letting my representatives and administration that I would be very much against that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:39 AM

41. Democrats/Liberals/Progressives claim ...

intellectual superiority because we rely on facts; yet we are moved, in the same way as the teaparty right, by the same media (that we distrust).

Well, I guess we're a little better than the teaparty right because the media must use innuendo and non-sourced speculation, on us; rather than the flat out lies, that work on the teaparty right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:04 AM

59. Ezra Klein started the panic last week...

but;

A reduction in Medicare and Medicaid spending would be made possible with a comprehensive package of cost control measures that would affect providers, including pharmaceuticals.


The White House Shows its Hand and the Republicans Fold

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021969595

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:10 AM

2. Uh, seems the choice is...

"the current path is not sustainable because we’ve got an aging population and health care costs are shooting up so quickly."

Either abandon Democratic principals and those most in need or rein in big pharma and other aspects of the medical community. How much would requiring big pharma to match the prices of their products in other countries here in the US save everyone? Hell, I would rather see some form of medical liability tort reform and a requirement on insurance companies to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums, combined with some sort of parity on the cost of services and drugs than to require people to pay the unbelievably high private insurance premiums for coverage between 65 and 67. How many will not be able to afford insurance at all for those 2 years? Further, those able to work and on group plans would have a dramatic effect on the premiums of everyone else in the group...

No Mr. President, show us you are not merely a shill for private insurance and the medical community. Require the medical community to rein in their charges..give them the tools to do that, and require actuarial premium relief based on the reining in... leave the recipient age alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:08 PM

80. Actually "tort reform"

and capping malpractice suits has been tried & does not reduce health care costs. It's a red herring.

Here:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/26/505562/study-texas-tort-reform-did-not-reduce-health-care-costs/?mobile=nc

STUDY: Texas Tort Reform Did Not Reduce Health Care Costs
By Guest Blogger on Jun 26, 2012 at 1:10 pm
In 2003, Texas voters approved Proposition 12, tort reform which capped medical malpractice payouts and made it more difficult for patients to sue hospitals. Republican politicians, led by Gov. Rick Perry (R), claimed that doctors were providing less services to patients because they feared getting sued. Republicans, joined by a “Yes on 12” campaign funded by the health insurance industry, promised that the amendment would lower health care costs and bring an influx of doctors to the state. Since 2003, Republicans nationwide have touted Texas as a model for tort reform.
Now, a group of researchers studying Texas Medicare spending have found no decrease in doctors’ fees for senior citizens between 2002 and 2009. Medicare payments to doctors rose 1 to 2 percent faster than the rest of the country, Northwestern professor Bernard Black, a researcher on the study, said.
In urban and high population counties, the study’s authors expected to see lower health care costs stemming from a reduction in medical tests doctors previously used to protect themselves from lawsuits. However, the researchers found no decrease in costs and a slight increase in medical tests performed. “This is not a result we expected,” said Bernard Black, a co-author and a professor at Northwestern University’s Law School and Kellogg School of Management.
During his short-lived presidential run, Rick Perry claimed that Prop 12 brought 21,000 doctors to Texas; that claim was ranked “False” by PolitiFact. Other advocates, like the industry-funded Texas Alliance for Patient Access behind the “Yes on 12” campaign, have claimed that tort reform brought 5,000 doctors to Texas. An unpublished study by the same group of researchers rejects that claim, which they say ignores “doctors who left the state or retired, creating vacancies for their jobs; physicians who don’t treat patients but do research or administrative work; and physician growth compared with other states.” When these factors are taken into account, the study found, doctor growth has actually declined slightly since 2003.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:15 PM

110. Closing the courthouse door...

...to poor and middle class citizens is what "tort reform" is all about. Yes, it is a red herring. A rotten one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:02 PM

154. I've met people who are 60-65 and either don't have a job or have a job

that doesn't include healthcare.

Some are just hanging on until they turn 65, when they'll be sicker than they are now.

Increasing the age of Medicare will just either increase the number of very ill new members to that program who will cost more to treat, or it will shift more of the health burden to people at age 65 and 66, many of whom will then not have enough money for even a modest standard of living in retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:51 AM

3. Right on schedule

2nd term hasn't even begun and he's already caving in to those who hate him, and abandoning those who busted their asses for him. When he gets trounced in 2014, be sure to blame the liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:04 AM

4. This same prediction was made over and over throughout Obama's first term.

Made at roughly 6 month intervals.


Any second. Here it comes ...

.
.
.
.

Still hasn't happened.
.
.
.
.

Maybe the 10th time will be the charm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:12 AM

5. You mean the one about extending the Bush tax cuts?

Why didn't he just tell Walters, "There will be no benefit cuts, including a raise in the eligibility age. The way to strengthen the program is not to impoverish more needy seniors, but to extend it to include more young, healthy people whose premiums will pay for more and better care for current seniors and for themselves when they retire. I repeat, there will be no benefit cuts while I am signing the laws"?

Oh, wait. I know why. Because he owes Big Pharma and Big Insurance more than he owes to the people who actually voted for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:46 AM

15. And when the age doesn't go up .... what will you be saying?

The Medicare age is not going up. Obama is not going to raise it.

And understanding the extension of the Bush tax rates was pretty easy. I've explained it many times since it first happened. I even predicted what would happen a number of times over the last 2+ years.

I'll summarize ...

As a candidate back in 2008, Obama made 2 promises about the Bush tax cuts.

1) I won't raise taxes on those under 250k.
2) I will end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% (those above 250k).

In the summer preceding the 2010 election, the Dem congress could have passed a bill to maintain the tax rates only for those under 250k. And by doing so, they would have helped Obama keep promise #1. But they punted. They were afraid to do it. And they got spanked in the 2010 mid-terms.

So during the 2010 lame duck, Obama made a deal that KEPT promise #1 and delayed promise #2 (plus it also got a few other things, extension of UE, etc.). You'll notice I said delayed. They expire on the last day of this year, which is still in his first term. If the expire or a deal is reached which ends them, he will have kept promise #2.

Now ... you think he should have let them all expire in 2010. Here's why that would have been a terrible mistake.

If he did so, he'd have ensured he would be a 1 term President. If he broke promise #1 in 2010, the media would have called it his "read my lips moment". They would have run clips of him breaking his "no new taxes" promise to 98% of all Americans side-by-side with Bush #1 breaking a similar promise.

Those clips would have run side-by-side on and endless loop. If you check the polling at the time, the middle class was not willing to have their tax rates go up as part of getting those on the top 2% to go up. Obama would have handed the media and the GOP a huge gift.

And so, by delaying the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, Obama also actually ensured that he would ultimately get to keep both promises. The rates on the top 2% will go up, either in a deal or they will expire when we go over the cliff.

Interestingly, letting them all expire now will mean that Obama breaks promise #1, temporarily. But by moving the expiration to the end of the 2012 lame duck, Obama ensured that he'd get to make the decision even if he LOST the 2012 election. So now, he can break promise #1, keep #2, and then the congress will really have little choice but to reinstate the cuts for that 98% under 250k. And Obama keeps both promises.

But let's assume that congress again fails to act. Obama will have broken promise #1, but the media can't use it against him. He can't run again. So he doesn't feel the same pressure, that pressure will now shift to the Republicans.

So now, the GOP flails about.

Or as you suggest, Obama hates us and is going to increase the Medicare age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:56 AM

20. I am sure there will be a long list of excuses when SS & Medicare get cut, too

"We had to raise the age, otherwise the Blue Dogs wouldn't vote for it". "We had to cut the benefits, otherwise Big Media would say he's killing Medicare". "We couldn't raise the SS cap - the polls say he will be blamed for the deficit". Yada yada.

You skipped my last rhetorical - why didn't he take cuts off the table in the interview?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:04 AM

24. He's letting the GOP flail.

To do anything else would be to basically declare that there will be no deal and that we are going over the cliff no matter what. And he's not going to declare that.

Of course what the administration has said is this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/geithner-fiscal-cliff-over-obama-republicans-john-boehner-2012-12

And then of course you have statements from promiant Dems like this:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/09/1306501/top-senate-democrat-rejects-raising-medicare-eligibility-age/

Again, the age isn't going up.

Now, you could make your own detailed prediction of what you think Obama is going to do and when it will happen, but I won't hold my breath.

Like I said ... the same prediction gets made about every six months. Then it doesn't happen, and then about 6 months later it pops back up.

So my next prediction is that after it doesn't happen this time, and such predictions die down, in 6 months or so we'll have ground hog day and do it all over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:51 AM

49. Ah, that one again

His 9-D chess worked really well in 2010.

To do anything else would be to basically declare that there will be no deal and that we are going over the cliff no matter what. And he's not going to declare that.


First of all there is no fiscal cliff - that is a Repuke talking point that the president has adopted. Second, your statement is silly. He should declare, simply, that there will be no cuts to benefits, and that Congress should come up with a bill that takes that into account. that there are lots of other ways to fix the budget, so use some of those. He would, for a change, send a message to the liberals who worked for him that he's actually going to dig in and protect one of the country's crown jewels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:39 PM

105. He's already said that while he's willling to look for savings and efficiencies in

Medicare and Social Security, he's not interested in cutting benefits as part of any deal.

You are simply quibbling on the amount of bluster he has used to say it.

So again ... you sound quite sure of how Obama will cave ... so please, BE SPECIFIC.

Is your prediction that, by the end of the year, or shortly there after, Obama WILL make a deal which raises the Medicare Age.

Yes, or no. Or, do you not know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #105)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:16 PM

129. Exactly ...

Must ... APPEAR ... STRONG!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:14 AM

27. "...why didn't he take cuts off the table in the interview?"

We only take BushCo war crimes off the table!

Oh, and apparently big banks that finance drug cartels and terrorists...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:01 PM

108. Actually, if you pay attention ...

The Dems are all saying the same basic thing.

"We'll look for savings or other ways to reform and improve Medicare, but not at the expense of benefits."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:16 AM

29. When the age doesn't go up they will do what they've done for the last 4 years...silence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:30 PM

103. No, we will credit the huge coalition formed before the election of Unions and Progressive

organizations who have made it clear that if there are any cuts, 'fixing', 'strengthening' or any other sleight of hand attacks on these programs, there will be 'hell to pay' for Democrats.

This coalition was formed because of what happened during the last Lame Duck Congress and although these various organizations, including SS advocacy groups, intended to vote for Democrats, this time they organized, to let them know why they were getting the people's votes and to make sure they do not forget it.

Right now, they are contacting Congress and the WH every day. And for the first time the WH actually met with Progressives after this election. There is strength in numbers and frankly Progressives should have done this long ago.

What the WH should be saying loudly and clearly is what this Coalition is saying 'we did not create the problem, we will not share the sacrifice'. And he should be making it clear that it is a huge lie to tie SS, Medicare and Medicaid to the Deficit and that it is OFF the table as there is no connection. Then he should list the actual drivers of the debt/deficit and make it clear that Dems will no longer tolerate the Republican policies, fake wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and corruption on Wall STreet which destroyed this country's economy. What is so hard about this? It is the truth. We won, they lost that means the people already rejected their lies and policies.

Bernie Sanders has no problem being clear on Republican lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:32 PM

140. CORRECT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:41 PM

106. Actually ... I think many of them will claim credit ... after all ...

ranting on DU has a significant influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:45 PM

160. Ranting on DU has no merit unless they are part of the huge coalition of Progressive Orgs and

the Unions who have been active on SS being taken OFF the Deficit table where it never belonged, since before the election.

This coalition is a driving force now behind getting Democrats in the House and Senate to refuse to go along with any 'bargain' that includes the Social Safety Program. There are hundreds of organizations now participating in this Coaltion having learned that Progressives can no longer stand on the sidelines hoping their Reps will fight for them.

Demonstrating that there really is strength in numbers, leaders of this huge Coalition met with the President after the election. Too bad this coalition had not formed before 2008 but better late than never.

Today's action in my state is to call Feinstein and Boxer, neither of whom have yet to come out strongly on their expected (they ARE Dems after all) opposition to SS being on any Deficit discussion table. I have been trying all day to reach them but both their lines have been busy. That is a good sign, if frustrating. This coalition will be responsible if SS/Medicare is removed from the Deficit talks. They have been active 24/7, together with the Unions, doing what only the Right Wing lobbyists have done up to now, letting the people they elected know that if there are any cuts, age raises, or any other kind of manipulation of these programs for Wall St, as they said, 'there will be hell to pay'.

This past week they received their first big victory from a Dem Senator formerly in favor of SS being 'on the table'. He listened and he changed his mind.

If we ever get through to Feinstein and Boxer they will be asked where they stand on this issue. As the Coalition leaders have made clear, 'SS/Medicare are the 'red-line' which must never be crossed by Democrats.

Since the formed the coalition, Dems have been talking less about considering 'strengthening' SS and Medicare in the same sentence as the Deficit.

This is Labor finally taking a stand and either the Dems listen or they don't. But if they don't there will be now on the Left a very powerful organization which intends to work on getting candidates in Congress who represent the people who elect them. No more allowing the choices of candidates to be in the hands of any entity that is working for Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:19 AM

32. if they fail to cut Medicare now

they will not stop trying. Same with Social Security. And if they succeed, they will also not stop trying to cut it even further after that. They hated these programs from the start and they never stopped hating them and they never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:25 PM

100. Think about this ... imagine if Obama lost the 2012 election.

All of those who were absolutely sure he was going to kill / slash / gut Social Security and Medicare, would have been wrong.

He'd be out of office and their predictions would have been proved false.

So now that he's been reelected, the predictors of doom, have been given another 4 years to use their secret decoder rings to predict his evil intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:43 AM

44. Shhh ...

La, la, la ... I'm not listening to reason ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:48 PM

96. They'll find something else to say he's going to do.

There's always something.

I heard that some say that it's been reported that people close to the Administration are confiding that Obama is breeding lions to feed old people to. Maybe that's next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:17 PM

98. That's my bet as well.

The predictions of the evil thing Obama is about to do are almost always a bit non-specific. So when they don't actually happen, you might as well try to nail jello to the wall.

So then after the fact, the "bad thing" can be selected. And if there isn't a really bad thing, the bad thing will be the "approach" used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:11 AM

26. +1000 It is the wrong direction, period

It isn't a matter of HOW FAR he is willing to capitulate in that direction. It is the WRONG direction. We should be EXPANDING health coverage, not REDUCING it. Simple as that.

If Obama doesn't get that concept after everything we have been through, I'm through with the guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:16 AM

28. Ah...the half truth postings are back...., these get ignored by non fudr crowed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:30 AM

12. And right on schedule, the same bullshit FUD is being spread again

by this article and others. The same old hysterical predictions will again start popping up every few months by those determined to attack Obama for things that have not even happened (especially those in the media).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:30 AM

36. All Obama has to do is say "We will not raise the eligibility age. That is not negotiable."

Simple. The fact that he is equivocating about it means he is not committed to that principle. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:50 AM

48. We have had this discussion before ...

Though you clearly disagree ... The plain fact is, when negotiating it is far more important to "appear reasonable/accommodating/willing to be flexible" to the watching public; than to "appear strong", to your partisans ...especially in government. And that is what these ambiguous statements are design to do ... Statements that say, BTW, nothing about what is being said at the negotiating table.

It was that "appearing to be reasonable/accommodating/willing to be flexible", that got President Obama re-elected and it is that "appearing to be reasonable/accommodating/willing to be flexible", that is showing in the positive opinion polling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:51 AM

74. It is impossible to overemphasize the wrongness of what you just said.

One of the most destructive aspects of this whole debt debacle, ever since it started, has been the unconscionable decision by our Democratic President and corporate Democrats in Congress to validate the right-wing narrative and framing of what is wrong with our economy and what needs to happen to fix it.

Our Democrats had from Day One of this Presidency to correct the lies about austerity and change the narrative. They chose instead to play along.

What used to be understood as REPUBLICAN lies and talking points about the economy and the deficit were transformed into a devastating NATIONAL, BIPARTISAN narrative that we now have to fight against every single day.

Every single time Democrats reinforce this narrative, it is damaging to the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:22 PM

86. How is what you wrote ...

related to what I wrote? I'm talking about negotiating tactics; you are talking ...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:33 PM

104. I HEAR YOU WOO ME

I'm not doing the LA LA LA thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #104)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:15 PM

128. Yeah, but you are doing the woo woo thing, as in non-rational, biased & baseless speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:27 PM

134. actually, that sounds more like you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #134)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:35 PM

145. Anyone who respects rationalism admits the possibility of error, UNLIKE the anti-Obama woo woo going

on on this board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #104)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:26 PM

163. You never do. :)

You are a clear-sighted warrior for the truth, and it's one of the reasons I respect you so much.

That, and I'm ascared of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:03 PM

120. The only ones reinforcing are YOU. And the reason you are reinforcing it is because

You don't have enough information to form the conclusions you are forming about what is going on and yet you claim that you do know so well that you propagandize pulling the rug out from under our lead negotiator as he negotiates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:05 PM

121. You're the ones taking an extremely limited & VERY selective set of information & PROPAGANDIZING

it in absolute terms that do not admit/recognize the bias in your own data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:07 PM

122. It's impossible to overemphasize the wrongness of your methodology = REALLY suspicious

for a "scientist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #122)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:29 PM

137. why are you replying three times to the same post?

learn how to edit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #137)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:31 PM

138. Who made you the police of this board? Are you a fascist? Do all of us have to do things your way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #138)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:33 PM

142. take your meds, darling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #142)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:39 PM

146. Ridicule, the first resort of the impotent. & I'm not even sure that it can be said that I drink,

let alone do drugs, prescription or otherwise.

But, look how nice I am; I combined those two semantic units into one post for you. Feel better now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #137)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:31 PM

139. Are you capable of guessing why? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #139)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:33 PM

141. I do not have to GUESS why

I freaking KNOW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #141)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:40 PM

147. So, "enlighten" us if you will please&thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:06 AM

60. I don't know how to make it clearer that every time this claim has been

made over the last four years, nothing has come of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:19 AM

63. Because people rose up in anger at the attempts to sell us out

When that same pattern keeps coming up, we have to seriously ask whose side Obama is on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:26 AM

69. See, Obama can do no good.

If he does the wrong thing, well that's that.
If he doesn't do the wrong thing, then it's only because he was forced.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:36 AM

72. His natural position is center-right -- not far from Bush

His rhetoric is slightly left of center. He is very good at oratorical flourishes that make it sound as if he is more progressive than that, but he isn't.

It isn't a question of god or bad. Those are your words. It is a question of what his worldview makes him willing to give away, and we already have a good idea about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:58 PM

152. Completely ir-respective of context or process, why is that? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:16 PM

82. Exactly correct: the Common Dreams Pseudo-Progressives have as high an opinion of themselves

as they have a low opinion of Obama.

Not surprisingly, these hubristic dingbats are utterly wrong all the time, and completely incapable of mustering even a minor electoral showing at the local level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:09 PM

123. They're all buzzzzzzzed on themselves & what they MISTAKE for power = FASCISM. & that's

"mistake" more or less intentionally since this stuff all adds up to click-trail$$$$.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:26 PM

89. +1,000,000,001 ...

even when he does exactly what he said he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:10 PM

125. And if it weren't this issue, it'd be another, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ABOUT SOLIDARITY. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:53 PM

115. Please NEVER negotiate anything. You'd be a disaster. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:45 AM

45. Exactly! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:02 AM

58. FUDrs are coming back in force, don't know why...Obama can't be re-eleccted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:21 PM

84. They're beside themselves with rage that they didn't get their "I Told You So" moment

They also had to look on as all their blather about Obama's Democratic base abandoning him evaporated like all their other nonsensical predictions - indeed, some parts of of the core progressive base voted in larger numbers for Obama this time around than last! It's a decidedly inconvenient truth for pseudo-progressives who've spent the last 2 years assuring us that Obama would be a one-term President because the progressive base would refuse to vote for him.

Indeed, it's sometimes hard to tell who was more wrong about the American electorate: the Karl Rove conservative bubble types, or the Common Dreams pseudo-progressive dimbulbs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:59 PM

118. That's precisely what's going on & they'll NEVER admit that they don't KNOW enough to arrive at

the conclusions that they propagandize.

Some of it is because we're talking to the "color blind" - about things that they cannot perceive - and the rest of it is their managers/tenders/exploiters, a.k.a. FASCISTS and I don't give a crap what motive any of them would claim, that is ***IF*** you could get their ilk to be honest enough to tell you the truth . . . as I was saying, I don't care what motive they claim, what they are doing is SELF DEFEATING and the fact that they don't own up to that is exceedingly suspicious to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:33 AM

14. Right on Schedule. The "we can't trust Obama" naysayers show up.

Goose, meet Gander.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:13 PM

81. He's not caving. This is the "Debt Ceiling/Grand Bargain" sequel.

Our entire political establishment, including the Democratic Party leadership with the White House, spent more than a year maneuvering itself into a position where they could make cuts to Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid and call it a "Grand Bargain". They were all set to do it, too-- but the Tea Party morons couldn't take "yes" for an answer and the deal was postponed.

So here we are again, with both sides trying to accomplish the same thing. This is all just theater; an elaborate dance for the sake of political cover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:15 AM

6. Lower - that's L-O-W-E-R, the age of Medicare eligibility.

 

Allow Medicare to bargain for the price of drugs and medical procedures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:19 AM

8. He doesn't have the stomach for taking on Big Insurance and Big Pharma

and he's a right-of-center corporatist. Seriously, who does he think is going to vote for him if he goes through with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:06 AM

25. "Who does he think is going to vote for him if .... "

Obama can't run again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:32 AM

37. He is running, right now

for a lucrative job as eminent ex-President. Pays very well.

Providing, of course, you don't offend the important people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:29 AM

70. Bingo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:27 PM

101. So then, why has he not screwed us now?

According to your logic, he hates us and just wants big bucks later.

So, he might as well screw us right now.

Why has he not?

What is your prediction for how long it takes him to screw us? ... and again, please be specific as to what he'll do and when.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #101)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:35 PM

111. Have you not been paying attention?

No public option.

Gitmo still open.

Still locked into a losing war in Afghanistan.

Count of Wall Streeters prosecuted for 2008: still zero.

Stiff giving away public school systems to for profit con artists.

Still turning prisons over to big private corporations.

Still fighting the absurd "war on drugs"

The case for Obama is always lesser of evils, and he had a lot of room next to Bush and Cheney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:56 PM

116. Hummm ...

No public option ... was never pass.

Gitmo still open ... Dems caved, Obama tried to close it.

Still locked into a losing war in Afghanistan ... said he'd INCREASE troops as candidate in 2008, its not a cave if its exactly what you said you would do.

Count of Wall Streeters prosecuted for 2008: still zero. Zero, really? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/01/1069646/--BIG-WALL-STREET-FISH-Indicted-Convicted-Celebrate

Stiff giving away public school systems to for profit con artists. States are doing that, not Obama.

Still turning prisons over to big private corporations. States are doing that, not Obama.

Still fighting the absurd "war on drugs" ... and when did he promise to end that exactly?

The case for Obama is always lesser of evils, and he had a lot of room next to Bush and Cheney ... is that English?

Make a prediction about what's going to happen now please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #116)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:28 PM

135. The point is he is center-right

He never promised to do some of the things on my list. You are absolutely correct. And he has happily stood by letting those hard right-wing policies continue.

Regarding the singular prosecution, that was a separate insider trading thing that had absolutely nothing to do with all these casino games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #135)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:58 PM

153. I gave you one instance because you said there were ZERO.

I felt no need to go find you MORE instances. You could do that own your own.

Also ... I am wondering when you will start the Progressive Prez 2016 group here on DU. Clearly, Obama is not your guy. But he will be President for the next 4 years ... and so ... I wonder if you will spend your time complaining that he did not close GITMO, or ... will you spend your time trying to use the DU community to find and promote the truly progressive President you want.

When will that group start?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:57 AM

52. Vote for Dems in 2014, genius

unless he doesn't care about that, which is quite possible. It was HE who got trounced in 2010, even though he wasn't running. And if the Dems get pasted again in 2014, in will in large part be a reflection on him. OTOH if he actually presides like a Dem and the party makes gains in the mid-terms, that will also be a reflection on his performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:29 AM

34. vote for him for what, genius?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:58 AM

54. Uh, the results of the mid-terms will be a referendum on him, idiot

It was HE who got trounced in 2010, even though he wasn't running. And if the Dems get pasted again in 2014, in will in large part be a reflection on him. OTOH if he actually presides like a Dem and the party makes gains in the mid-terms, that will also be a reflection on his performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #54)


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:30 PM

102. Dems got trounced in 2010 because the Dems in Congress punted on passing

a bill that would have made the tax cuts for those under 250k permanent. If they had taken up that fight, they would not have lost so many seats.

As for your logic ... in 2012, the election in which Obama was actually running, we added 10 House seats and picked up 2 Senate seats, even as all predicted a GOP Senate.

2012 was a referendum on Obama, not 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:36 PM

112. Dems got trounced in 2010 because only 30% of the population voted.

Fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #112)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:09 PM

124. Really? I thought it was about 40% ... my sources below ...

You did not provide a source, but your number sounded low to me.

This source suggests 41%: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

This one suggests around 37%: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

The 2nd one shows historical numbers ... and the mid-term rates look similar.

Where does your "fact" come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #124)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:08 PM

157. Apologies. I typed in haste.

I was talking about home. Turnout was about 30% here in MA, which was one of the main reasons Scott Brown won. When he ran again in 2012, turnout was much higher - approximately 300,000 more people turned out to vote - and he got smoked.

Without having the exact numbers on hand, the fact remains that low turnout in midterm elections is a constant reason why goddam lunatics constantly get elected to the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #157)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:14 PM

158. I definitely agree on the lunatic point ...

Which is part of why I think the Dems, had they not punted on extending the middle class cuts, could have muted the RW lunatic impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:18 AM

7. Maybe he's just talking. If he were serious, it could kill the Democratic Party.

So I'm hoping he's just talking.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:52 AM

17. Obama had better not fuck with Medicare and Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:22 AM

9. Is it even remotely possible for DU posters not to panic with every single Presidential utterance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:29 AM

10. "Panic" as you call it, serves a useful purpose

Look, Obama just got reelected, it's not going to hurt him at the polls, got it? The purpose served by so called "panic" is two fold. In the event that Obama is giving any thought to raising the Medicare age, it is far more useflu for him to have an inkling of what hell there would be to pay BEFOR, not after, he made that final call. That simply is true until the decision is made, whether the odds are 5% or 95% that he is leaning toward that choice. Second, and this might be easier for you to get behind, it strengthens his bargaining hand with Republicans if it is unmistakingly clear that Obama can't sell that deal to either the public or his base. The way that becomes unmistakenly clear befor any deals get cut is if we "panic" now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:53 AM

18. Come on. Do you really think he doesn't know how the vast majority of the Democratic Party and....

....all US citizens feel about the idea of raising the Medicare age? The President and the vast majority of Americans aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. Please give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:43 PM

149. He knows two states just passed laws

legalizing marijuana, but word is he and Eric are ready to oppose the will of the people in both states anyway.
That's why I prefer strong spoken Democrats like my own Senator Jeff Merkley who is using this moment to advocate the lowering of eligibility ages rather than attempting to play games and woo Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #149)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:55 PM

151. Congress needs to pass legislation legalizing pot, and submit that bill to the President....

...for his signature. Federal laws are still the law of the land, no matter what you, me, or the President might privately think. He and Holder are bound by law to uphold Federal law. Period.

You do realize that the GOP goose-steppers are waiting for the President to commit any impeachable act, don't you?

The ball is in Congress' court, not the President's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:57 AM

22. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!! - K & R !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:23 AM

66. Exactly right. And there is the possibility he is intentionally playing "good cop, bad cop"

"John, you know I'd really like to shut down Medicare just like you and Paul, but look at that angry mob out there. They won't stand for it. You've got to help me out here."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:32 AM

13. Apparently not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:46 AM

16. Is it possible for the president to firmly stake out a Dem position?

I mean, instead of hinting that he is going to give in again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:55 AM

19. Thanks for proving that parsing is a real art form. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:18 AM

31. ****NO****, these post will get louder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:47 PM

150. & every last one of them is a fuck-you to Solidarity -AND- that could very well be the REAL motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:30 AM

11. I hope you don't mean Obama is playing footsie with Boehner.

That is a disturbing thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:57 AM

21. I guessed three possible sources for this story before I clicked this...

And I was right!


Happy dance, Happy dance LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:59 AM

23. It's fucking sad that Democrats have to BEG a Democratic president to protect Social Security

and Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:17 AM

30. Mr. President is not going to be down with that. People wadding their panties for not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:30 AM

35. You can use an effeminizing pejorative to describe legitimate concern but two things:

1. The language of Obama's quote is the same language used by Dick Durbin and David Plouffe.

2. You are just a voice trying to silence discussion, but your assurances have no weight. People like you attempt to silence discussion but if a problem does occur, you quickly drop out of sight.

So...dunno what you think you're doing that's productive.



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:35 AM

39. Plus, Obama has a history of preemptive surrender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:37 AM

40. Your allegations have no merit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:42 AM

43. What allegations?

I didn't make any allegations, just relayed facts of the situation.

If you can point out what you think are allegations, I'd be happy to clarify.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:46 AM

46. These allegations.

trying to silence discussion
assurances have no weight
quickly drop out of sight


I am a voice contributing to this fucking conversation.
I am not assuring anyone of anything.
I'm not going anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:47 AM

47. No substance, you're just talkin' panties.



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:54 AM

50. Do you smoke cigars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:56 AM

51. You're on a roll for not making sense. Howsabout a substantive response? nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:00 AM

56. Mr. President is not so stupid as to piss off folks, contribute further to debt, and agree with

making no substantive contribution to debt reduction with this stupid fucking move. And I will not play this stupid fucking game of keeping this stupid shit kicked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:08 AM

61. Thank you. So here's the problem with your position: Both President Obama's senior advisor and...

...the Democratic senate whip use the same language he is reported to have in this article. His senior advisor was actually much tougher on medicare.

What you're missing is that when the President, his senior adviser and people like Dick Durbin are all going on the record, publicly, and making statements indicating they're open to things like raising the Medicare age...where do your assertions that our concerns are baseless fit in?



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:10 AM

62. I have more confidence in the man than you apparently. Language was a float.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:23 AM

67. If you have confidence in the man, why aren't you taking him at his word?

In situations where you take the time to respond, you simply look like someone who's suffering from cognitive dissonance. Your attempt to explain away his language as a trial balloon is equally reaching: A president, his sr. advisor, et al. don't float trial balloons on TV, they do it to reporters on background.

This is where your model falls down. At some point, if you have confidence in the man, you have to take him at his word.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:23 AM

33. "we need to strengthen Social Security". Bullshit.

The projections showing that Social Security will only pay 80% of benefits starting in 20 years assumes that the economy will never come close to recovering, ever again. (Funny how that assumptions not used for any other purpose, no?)

If the economy only partially recovers, 100% of benefits can be paid as far out as anyone's projected, without depleting the Trust Fund.

Simpson and Bowles are calling for cutting Social Security benefits by 20% starting soon, in order to make sure that we don't need to cut them later if the economy never recovers. This is simply theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:32 AM

38. Up is down. Same typical Orwellian bullshit

from corporate headquarters.

Deja vu.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:04 PM

77. "Strengthen" is 3rd-way/Heritage/Repuke speak for cut benefits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:24 PM

87. Yep

It's neo-liberal rhetoric. It has no place in the Democratic Party.

Same is true with public education privatization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:40 AM

42. this quote says nothing of the kind

. . . do you realize just how many false presumptions you can attach to a statement like this?

There is ZERO proof that the president is 'playing footsie' with raising the Medicare age. I keep clicking on these posts and dutifully looking for that evidence, though . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:00 AM

55. Really?

But what I’ve said is let’s look at every avenue


This is not leaving cuts on the table?

Can we at least keep this discussion reality-based?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:25 AM

68. not the type of beneficiary cuts that these breathless articles worry about

it's a wonder that the president doesn't get credit for an entire term of defending and enhancing these very programs. instead, he's cast as someone willing to trade them away for a song. This article only reflects the worst of possibilities, with absolutely nothing to support that; not anything from ANY budget proposal put forward or supported by President Obama.

Like I said, I keep clicking on these posts, looking for that smoking gun; something other than rumors from compromised or biased sources.

I did read a response to a similar quote by the President in which he outlined the problems with an aging population. "SEE, there . . . he's talking about starting up those 'death panels! I just knew it!"

See how that works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:03 PM

76. ah, so you're OK with cuts, as long as they're not huge.

You're greasing up for those cuts. well, some of us don't want ANY, and will be pissed when they're made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:20 PM

83. you are playing some kind of con here. It's sad.

I'm not 'greasing' anything. I though we were talking about reality. What has the President proposed. Not the rumors. What has he actually included in his budget proposals?

Moreover, what is the state of the debate over these programs. there isn't some iron wall against reforming the delivery system. For instance, if you want to argue from the Romney camp's perspective, I guess you can call the Medicare requirements to providers that the president supported and signed into law, 'cuts to Medicare.'

That's the kind of slippery slope you're heading down here, Doctor_J, when you project the worst of your imagination on my observation that the state of debate from most Democratic quarters is a defense against beneficiary cuts. You can distort that to your hearts' desire. It only serves to further cheapen the discussion on this sordid thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:58 AM

53. Question for the "OH NO!" crowd ...

If President Obama was ACTUALLY saying at the negotiation table that he would move on the raising of the age, don't you think he would leak that information to blunt the attacks he's enduring from his caucus? As in, "I got him to move on this, but I can move him more."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:02 AM

57. It will depend on whether he gives in to the "serious" people or the people who elected him.

We'll see who has more influence among his advisors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:19 AM

64. I'm hoping he doesn't go through with something like that

 

It would seem that what the President is complaining about more is rising cost in health care not medicare.

I'm a simple man that gets up and goes to work everyday.
I didn't attend college as most of you.

Wouldn't the President be on track more if he used his efforts and power in office to attack the rising cost in health care?
He said plainly when running in the primary the Medicare part d plan of prescriptions drugs was a travesty
on seniors in this country. That it would be one of the first things he would change as President.


He would make sure the government could look at bids and negotiate prices for medicare.

But in the Affordable care Act he pretty much sided with pharmaceutical companies like Bush did.

Why does he say one thing when running but when in office do another?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:36 AM

71. The Obamacare architect is officially working for the pharmaceutical industry

Medicare drug prices will never be lowered. Ain't gonna happen.

Just as many predicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:47 AM

73. But from what I understand that is one of the largest costs to the Medicare program

 

The majority of seniors are on some type of daily prescription drug.
If negotiated the savings could be 100's of millions short term and billions long term.

We have drugs Medicare is paying $100 to $200 for a prescription of 5 or ten tablets.

It's crazy , I can look and find those same drugs for less than half the cost what the government pays.


This is the way I look at it

It would be like me complain to my co workers "DAMN " I'm sick of paying so much in fuel to drive to work.
Then someone asking me how much do you spend?
I say $200 A WEEK

Then someone saying but you only live 1 mile away , that's impossible.
And me responding , yea but I drive the other way first , jump on the freeway and drive down 10 exits and double back every day.

Obama complains about health care costs in Medicare but decides to drive the same way to work as I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:33 PM

91. The negotiation ban goes against the free market, free enterprise and all that jazz

Why are they afraid of price negotiations? I think everyone knows the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:01 PM

75. Simple, really

He said plainly when running in the primary the Medicare part d plan of prescriptions drugs was a travesty on seniors in this country. That it would be one of the first things he would change as President.

...

Why does he say one thing when running but when in office do another?


He needs us to vote. Then after we've voted, he works for the people who gave lots of money.

I am well-educated and due to a combination of hard work, good luck, and help of friends I will never want for anything, including health care. I should according to the Fox "News" idiots vote (R). But I believe in Medicare, Medicaid, SS, public Schools, clean air & water, and living wage. that is why I vote (D), but as is becoming obvious they don't represent very well either.

Anyway, I hope things get better...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:05 PM

78. President Obama's statement is a masterpiece of evasive doubletalk.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:06 PM

79. Quick-- someone tell Campaign Obama to give this guy a call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:21 PM

85. First of all,

it isn't in the President's proposal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021969595

Secondly, the President is pushing for the House to pass the Senate bill: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021948493

Finally, Democrats in Congress vehemently oppose the Republican proposal.

Nancy Pelosi: "don’t even think about raising Medicare age"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021971920

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:25 PM

88. 'Obama reportedly answered: '

Reportedly, eh? "Some say." "It's been said." "We hear."

All Fox-style weasel words. Let's see what he actually says on Friday, and what the context is. Apparently, he doesn't think that upping the Medicare age is something that will save much money. I'm not sure where you get that he's ready to cave on that issue. Not sure at all.

Report what is said, not what will "reportedly" be said. Also report the context. Then, you'll be on solid ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:30 PM

90. Shhh ...

Report what is said, not what will "reportedly" be said. Also report the context. Then, you'll be on solid ground.


That takes all the fun out of it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:34 PM

92. I'm no fun, anyhow.

Or so I'm told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:40 PM

93. LOL ...

You also don't run around with your hair on fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:07 PM

109. You need to ask Santa for a Super Secret Obama Outrage Decoder ring.

You need that to be able to really understand what he's actually trying to say.

Here's a picture of one ....



And when you ask Santa for it ... please remember to indicate "right" or "left" hand.

If you get the one for the right hand, it says Obama is going to ..

Steal your guns.
Raise taxes on job creators
Turn the US into Greece or the Soviet Union (depends on day of the week)

... and so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:44 PM

94. "hell to pay" - ? In what way? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:46 PM

95. Some DUers will write strong words in a post. That's how.

That'll show him...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #95)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:35 PM

144. Really? Most DUers I know are currently members of several Progressive Organizations and are

working daily, by phone, letter, email and even in person, talking individually and/or as part of these incredible organizations (who are mainly responsible for the many great Progressive Democratic victories in both the House and the Senate) to elected officials about stopping any cuts and any discussion of these programs as part of the Deficit talks since they had zero to do with the deficit.

They have now met with the WH, delivering the message of all Democratic voters, that SS, Medicare and Medicaid must be taken OFF the table in these discussion.

This past week they/we convinced one Dem Senator to change his position on this issue. He listened and will join the voters who elected Dems to work on removing the Social Safety Net programs from the Defiicit discussions.

You should never assume you know anything about what DUers are doing, have done and continue to do regarding how active and involved they are in their party's politics. You don't seem to know anyone very well here so it would be safer not to make assumptions. Whoever the 'few' you are talking about, I do not know them. DUers have been more active in getting Dems elected and then holding them to their promises throughout the Bush years, than most other forums like this.

You might consider joining some of the incredibly successful organizations who are right now extremely active in stopping the Republicans and any Blue Dogs who might join them, from cutting SS, Medicare and that includes 'fixing' 'strengthening' 'raising the age' etc etc with some real success. Especially since we have joined the Unions who have the same goals.

I am very happy with the new Democrat in my current district who won what had been a Republican seat for 25 years. What seemed impossible just a year ago become a reality with the help of Progressives who worked hard to help her win that seat. She will never agree to put 'SS' on any table that involves Deficit discussions.

I am so grateful also for all the help we got from several Progressive Organizations who worked with us here to get her elected. It would not have happened without them, their fund-raising for her and their GOTV efforts on her behalf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:52 PM

97. The gorilla in the room is the pentagon and the MIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:50 PM

114. THAT's what he's working on, but there's some people around here too short/narrow sighted,

intentionally or otherwise, to get it.

I'm beginning to think fuck 'em and their issues, maybe I should clean house on what I'm supporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #114)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:46 PM

161. The GOP didn't mind jacking up the debt and now they want to rip off the elderly and needy.

All this before Obama and he's supposed to cave? If I were him I would use the bully pulpit and broadcast this info to the nation. Who really created the debt?

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.


Apparently all the spending for war is more important than actually protecting the elderly and poor. So just what is the pentagon defending and protecting us from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:24 PM

99. Cut the military budget in two

And see how long that will do the Shitpublicans (and then cut it in two again).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:48 PM

107. It's like the election never happened

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:47 PM

113. "When you look at the evidence, it’s not clear that it actually saves a lot of money."

Please note how many posters in this thread are completely ignoring the actual words from PO in favor of someone's interpretation of interpretations of things that they actually don't have enough/valid empirical information about.

Ask yourselves why DU-ers would lie about this issue.

My personal answer to that question has to do with attempts at power-grabs that amount to fascism for certain hidden agendas at the expense of this and most other issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:58 PM

117. Durbin: Obama not open to raising age for Medicare

WASHINGTON—A top Senate Democrat said he was told that President Barack Obama is no longer open to an increase in the Medicare eligibility age as part of a broader deficit-reduction agreement with Republicans.

Sen. Richard Durbin, the assistant majority leader who has close ties to Mr. Obama, said to reporters Thursday that he was told "it was no longer on the table" from the White House's perspective. "It's no longer one of the items beings considered by the White House," Mr. Durbin said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578177362220322502.html?mod=WSJ_hpsMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #117)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:12 PM

126. With Pelosi also saying the same thing

 

I think this should make most people "including me"
pretty confident that the President is sticking to his word on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:13 PM

127. I want the anti-Obama bigots in this thread to explain the last paragraph of OP to us, please&thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:20 PM

130. "not clear that it - INCREASING MEDICARE AGE - saves a lot of money" Republicans want A LOT of

money saved and increasing Medicare Age doesn't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #130)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:34 PM

143. I'll wait to see what actually happens, since neither the cheerleaders not the naysayers actually

KNOW what will happen.
That being said, the GOP seems out to squeeze every little nickel from the poor and middle class, seems out to destroy Medicare and Social Security - so what may seem small potatoes to you would bring immense satisfaction to the GOP. They want to weaken Medicare and get rid of it, they don't mind baby steps instead of one very fell swoop. You are using logic in the face of venality and greed.
Plus I have been very condescendingly been told elsewhere that campaign rhetoric is not to be counted on. So I will wait and see.
Either I will be relieved, or I will be braced to hear all the unicorn and pony stuff, and how Obama just had to give in to avoid a mythical cliff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #143)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:43 PM

148. That's what I'm doing, plus a few other tasks of responsible citizenship. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #131)


Response to patrice (Reply #136)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:19 PM

159. Exactly. They are our very own "teabaggers". I'm hoping the economy improves to the point where...

they can get jobs they're actually good at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:23 PM

132. TL/DR - long winded line of "there are some who say" and "he hasn't said he wouldn't" BS

Move along...just the same old DU O-bash train that is never late.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:26 PM

133. "let's look at every avenue" EVERY as in ALL, not just Medicare, ALL includes things like Pentagon &

MIC and, given what the PPACA/Obamacare setup, avenues to reforming Medicare that CAN reduce costs without touching services and maybe even increasing services if there's enough solidarity out here for that. But not if the anti-Obama PROPAGANDISTS in this thread and here at DU have their way with things.

And those two areas are only the tip of "EVERY" . . . . other savings that could reinforce Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:03 PM

155. Not only would raising the Medicare age be deadly, the deadly idea of it

encompasses, like ERISA, everything rotten invented since Adam and would, in effect, be America's own version of the final solution for older people. But this is such a small price too many politicians are willing to pay to protect the trillions of dollars of extra wealth the most affluent have accumulated since the Gipper foisted Reaganomics upon the Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:06 PM

156. it is now off the table

according to Dick Durbin, who said he got that message from Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:05 PM

162. seems like an appropriate time to kick this thread

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread