HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Liberals Nip Obama as He ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:44 AM

Liberals Nip Obama as He Battles Republicans

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-03/liberals-nip-obama-as-he-battles-republicans.html


Liberals Nip Obama as He Battles Republicans
By Jonathan Alter Jan 3, 2013 6:30 PM ET
Bloomberg Opinion


You can already hear the rumbling in the distance -- a train of noisy liberal Democrats barreling straight for the White House. They should arrive just in time for President Barack Obama’s second inauguration.

snip//

Just as Republicans must learn to live with tax increases, Democrats must learn to live with -- and vote for -- changes in entitlements. They should keep in mind that reforms such as a chained consumer price index, which alters the inflation calculation applied to Social Security, and means testing the benefits of wealthy retirees, do not threaten the social safety net.

Neither Franklin Roosevelt on Social Security nor Lyndon Johnson on Medicare was wedded to any of the particulars of those programs -- only the principle of guaranteed support from the government.

The road ahead is paved with compromises that many Democrats won’t like. The president will stick to his refusal to negotiate with Republicans who want to hold an increase in the debt ceiling hostage to spending cuts. But he will have to negotiate over the sequester -- the $1.2 trillion in cuts to defense and domestic programs scheduled to take effect in two months.

Decoupling the debt ceiling from the sequester will be daunting, if not impossible. Even if Obama succeeds, he will have to agree to cuts to entitlements or discretionary programs, a course many liberals oppose. They haven’t forgotten how Obama almost betrayed their interests in the failed “Grand Bargain” talks in July of last year.

If liberals are disappointed in Obama’s fiscal-cliff deal, imagine how they will feel in late February when he starts making tough choices on spending cuts. Liberals need to think harder about what their own long-term deficit reduction plan would be. Raising more revenue is necessary. It’s not sufficient.

38 replies, 2378 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 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply Liberals Nip Obama as He Battles Republicans (Original post)
babylonsister Jan 2013 OP
djean111 Jan 2013 #1
babylonsister Jan 2013 #2
djean111 Jan 2013 #9
Cha Jan 2013 #18
high density Jan 2013 #17
demosincebirth Jan 2013 #26
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #5
No Compromise Jan 2013 #15
peacebird Jan 2013 #3
Sunlei Jan 2013 #10
peacebird Jan 2013 #12
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #30
democrattotheend Jan 2013 #38
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #4
Amonester Jan 2013 #19
Evergreen Emerald Jan 2013 #6
Sunlei Jan 2013 #7
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #33
Sunlei Jan 2013 #34
UCmeNdc Jan 2013 #8
Bonobo Jan 2013 #11
Jakes Progress Jan 2013 #24
JoeyT Jan 2013 #37
socialist_n_TN Jan 2013 #13
John2 Jan 2013 #14
Myrina Jan 2013 #16
Amonester Jan 2013 #20
november3rd Jan 2013 #21
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #22
Jakes Progress Jan 2013 #23
babylonsister Jan 2013 #25
iemitsu Jan 2013 #27
babylonsister Jan 2013 #28
Jakes Progress Jan 2013 #36
Jakes Progress Jan 2013 #35
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #29
Sunlei Jan 2013 #31
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #32

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:51 AM

1. I am so tired of being dictated to as a liberal.

There is no need for chained CPI. None.
And deficit reduction, in my opinion, is just a big old boogeyman to scare us so they can cut the social programs.
Cut the bloated military budget.
Raise the salary cap.
Let medicare negotiate drug prices.
Single payer - or at least lower the Medicare age.

Sounds like some are actually looking forward to liberal outrage. Planning on it, relishing it.
They will get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:54 AM

2. How do you expect any of that to get

accomplished with such a recalcitrant House? We need to keep that in mind and place blame where it is due.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:51 AM

9. I am starting to think the House is recalcitrant because they know they will win.

And the starting point for negotiation, sadly, is usually pretty much what they want anyway, so they are emboldened.
Just once I would like to see Obama start with bold proposals, like single payer, raise the cap, negotiate drugs, raise SS payouts.

THEN see what they counter with. And let the country see what was wanted, at least.

If, of course, doing something besides slashing safety nets is not wanted in the first place. That is what it looks like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:25 PM

18. No, you can't take away the blame from the teabagger House where 67

Voted against Aid to Sandy Victims. They know they will win because they have The Numbers from the teabagger revolution in 2010.

We Got Obamacare from the House barely and now since the SC upheld it.. it's a strong foundation to getting Single Payer down the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:07 PM

17. The best thing then would be to take up the Republican mantra of NO

Just change nothing. The Republicans got us into this mess with wars and tax cuts, now they claim that gutting Social Security and Medicare are the cures. No thanks to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:09 AM

26. They do not think about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:58 AM

5. When did the outrage go away? Its been there since almost day 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:43 PM

15. +10000

 


we need to start making the demands here, we won the election, not the immature three year olds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:55 AM

3. Social Security - remove the cap so that people pay into SS for all money earned, not just the first

$108k.

Medicare- allow people to buy into medicare coverage. This would increase the pool of users, and reduce cost by getting younger healthy folk into the mix. Plus it would let folks like me retire earlier, opening up positions for younger folks to move up.

Rmove loopholes so that corporations actually PAY taxes, and get rid of taxpayer funded subsidies to corporations.

Oh, and institute an excess profit tax of war contractors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:55 AM

10. excellent suggestions :)

I remember 4 years ago President Obama proposed Americans 50ish of age could buy into medicare. Was part of the massive battle republicans caused for President Os healthcare reform.

I wish the President brings that back, it would be wonderfull for Americans. The health insurance companies do everything legal they can, to keep that age out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:11 PM

12. Please call your congresscritters and suggest this! I call Warner, Kaine, and Hurt every week

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:14 AM

30. IIRC, others proposed it, not Obama. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:26 PM

38. Problem with Medicare buy-in

I'm working on a paper on why we should not raise the Medicare age, and I had planned to propose allowing buy-in, but the more I look into it, the more it doesn't seem like a viable solution, at least from the perspective of addressing the Medicare funding shortfall.

If those 55 and over were allowed to buy in and the government did not subsidize it, they estimated that premiums would be over $600 per month, which is a lot less than what my 55+ parents currently pay for insurance but too steep for many people. At that price, buy-in might still end up costing Medicare more than it saves due to adverse selection (i.e. healthier people between 55 and 65 might choose a cheaper option with higher out of pocket costs, leaving Medicare with the sicker people in that age range).

If the buy-ins were subsidized, it would cost Medicare money rather than saving money. Lowering the average age in the risk pool does not change the fact that it is still more expensive to insure more people. The only way buy-in could help save Medicare money is if the premium to buy in were higher than the cost of providing the benefits, which would surely make it unaffordable for most uninsured people.

That does not mean Medicare buy-in is not worth doing in order to put competitive pressure on the private companies offering coverage on the exchanges, but I don't see how it can possibly be a solution to Medicare's funding shortfall.

With regard to Social Security, I support raising the cap but not eliminating it, because that would essentially turn it into a welfare program and destroy the argument that everyone paid for their benefits and is thus entitled to them. Under that logic, you could not remove the cap on income without removing the cap on benefits. I do, however, think the cap needs to be raised in order to make up for the fact that it has not kept up with inflation, and then it should be indexed to inflation. If the floor for the estate tax is now indexed to inflation I don't see why the FICA cap should not be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:57 AM

4. Standard media game ... explain why the right is angry at Obama, and then balance it with why the

left is angry with Obama.

The intended media message ... everyone is angry with Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:52 PM

19. Yep. And they 'forget' to mention the President is there until Jan. 2017.

Everbody angry: get over it.

Or write your anger within a story that could make him shed a tear or two (include keywords like "child" or "children" in it), then email or snailmail it until he 'may' accidently see your anger through the daily thousands new Inbox messages or mail bags.

mmmm.... buy a lotto ticket instead and best of luck....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:00 AM

6. Corporate entitlements appear to be off the table. On the backs of the poor

Why, when discussing entitlements do we only focus on the meager safety nets of medicare, state pensions, social security?

The safety net protects people. Corporate welfare protects the bank accounts of the rich.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-12-18/commentary/35877237_1_corporate-welfare-cuts-tax-rates-budget-savings

We know why no one is talking about this solution: The corporate interests who feed at the public trough control the politicians and the media who have worked themselves into a frenzy over the debt and the fiscal cliff. You’ll never see a group of CEOs, like Honeywell’s David Cote or Jim McNerney of Boeing, come to Washington to lobby to have their subsidies eliminated, but you will see them ask for old and sick people to bear the costs of deficit reduction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:10 AM

7. The difference between (R)&(D) Mr. Bloomberg is- President Obama listens to everyone.

He is the total opposite of your current republicans. Some of those Rs don't even return the Presidents phone calls, never ever meet with the general public, never ever have open press conferences and even send emails among themselves to pray the President (and his family!) dies.


I resent the way Rs have demonised the word liberal with years of attacks against Americans. People have free speech in America and our President listens to all sides.

lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ərəl/Adjective
Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.


Noun
A person of liberal views.


Synonyms
generous - bounteous - lavish - bountiful - free

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:08 AM

33. Remember when Obama listened to Liberals during

the mandatory health insurance for all legislation?

Me neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:32 PM

34. He did listen it was republicans who wanted to keep stealing federal money for their insur. profits.

We now will save 900 billion dollars over the next 10 years from those medicare/medicade republican thieves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:33 AM

8. Propaganda by the MSM, they want President Obama to help the GOP cut Social Security and Medicare

If President Obama stays out of the debate then the GOP will be out on that cutting Social Security, etc. limb all by themselves. Poor Republicans will have to say what they want to cut all alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:56 AM

11. Those FUCKING liberals!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:43 PM

24. I know. How dare they post on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:51 PM

37. +1

Objecting to balancing the budget on the backs of the poor instead of cutting from the military and corporate welfare is so insensible. No Serious Person would ever consider it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:14 PM

13. If folks are REALLY concerned about the deficit/debt..........

shouldn't the House Progressive Caucus' budget be under consideration? Didn't that balance the budget quicker than any of the other plans? THAT should be the starting point in any negotiations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:35 PM

14. I'll put it

 

this way. President Obama has surrounded himself with people like Geither. These are Wall Street people. Not only this, he selects Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary. He believes himself to be in the middle. There is no middle. You either believe in something or you don't. Most of the people calling for certain cuts are loyal to Wall Street and what people call as businesses.

I'm going to give people an education with a different philosophy. The Debt people are talking about is based on currency. That currency is used to acquire goods and services. Goods and services are the real wealth people need to survive. Services comes from the skills of people and Goods are items such as food and shelter. As long as the U.S. has the latter items, the Debt means nothing. Currency means nothing without the latter. That is why the former can be easily written off or forgiven. And if you don't have the military might to protect your interests, vile threats don't mean anything. There are a lot of wealthy dictators, who couldn't follow through on their threats.

It is stupid to compare a mighty country like the U.S. to Greece. Currency, does not establish the might of the U.S. Services and Goods are more a symbol of power. The American people can provide goods for themselves as long as they own the land. As long as there is a need for those goods and services, there will be jobs. It is only when a small group of people try to take ownership of those goods and services and restrict access to others. Those are the Kochs and Murdochs types.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:41 PM

16. The only entitlement cut this liberal can learn

To live with is the cutting of the Military Inudstrial Complex's entitlements.

Why are none of the Dems or talking heads mentioning military cuts? Their budget is bloated to the point of popping ... Lets put it on a strict diet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:12 PM

20. Why? One example: Diane Feinstein (D) + military contracts

and http://www.startpage.com is a lot better than naked g00weegle for this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:36 PM

21. What tax increase?

Republicans got an extension of the Bush tax cuts, permanently.

Yeah, a tiny minority of taxpayers got a slight increase, but they also got a 50% cut on their capital gains rate.

This is why we will need budget cuts.

See Jeffrey Sachs's article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/going-over-the-cliff-is-t_b_2380390.html

We now need massive defense cuts, coupled with tariffs, transaction taxes and carbon taxes.

That's going to be an uphill fight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:46 PM

22. Alter is a beltway ass sniffer.

Ever seeking to instill complacency in the face of acting against our own interests so the guys that pay him do well enough to keep the checks coming and of course he maintains access.

Toady piece of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:42 PM

23. No principle above personality.

The non-liberals on DU support their person rather than the principle. They see nothing wrong with nibbling and nibbling away at what liberals have fought so hard for. It matters not that the money taken from the poor and the elderly and the sick will just go to the already wealthy. Obama backs it, so that is good enough for them.

Does this OP men the OP is a) not a liberal and b) in favor of cutting Social Security and Medicare? It does if you are logical instead of star struck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jakes Progress (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:58 PM

25. You are full of it...

It matters not that the money taken from the poor and the elderly and the sick will just go to the already wealthy. Obama backs it, so that is good enough for them.

The above is what you wrote. So you honestly think Obama is working to take money from all those people? Have YOU been watching faux?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:32 AM

27. Obama is the one saying that we have to be prepared for cuts

in safety net programs. He offered it to republicans and he keeps spitting in our faces.
How can one deny that he has that as a goal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:06 AM

28. Link?

I know it's a possible option, but it doesn't mean he's selling us all down the river. My face is spit free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:49 PM

36. Do you not follow the news at all?

Your face is spit free, because you don't stand in the line of fire coming at those who are actually trying to save progressive programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:47 PM

35. Full of what . . . . information?

Where do you think money cut from social security and medicare will come from? Cutting those benefits for the 1% won't raise the funds that Obama is convinced we need. He has been sold that we need to cut these programs to lower a media and right wing biased view of the deficit. He is either led around by the Wall Street advisors in his cabinet or he believes this stuff because he is essentially a reagan democrat.

So. Yes, I honestly think Obama is working to take money from the elderly, the poor, and the sick. If you think that his overtures to the republicans won't affect these groups, then you lack a basic understanding of our economy. He could listen to people like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman, but he listens to people like timmy geithner and other shills for the rich.

If you think that medicare and social security need to be cut for the good of the people, you are the faux fan, not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:09 AM

29. "Obama Betrays Working Americans as Liberals Try to Stop Him"

Another perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:38 AM

31. If Romney was President, about now he would have those Americans working in his chinese death camps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:05 AM

32. Good point. Remind me again

as to why that has anything to do with what's happening today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread