Obama's Bipartisan Fetish Bait for Social Security Cuts

[Charleston Chew]

Run time: 11:12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AubEFupI75M   Posted on YouTube: March 16, 2011 By YouTube Member: SamSeder Views on YouTube: 230   Posted on DU: March 17, 2011 By DU Member: Charleston Chew Views on DU: 898

 
__________
Sam Seder
Mar 16, 2011

You can always count on Jonathan Chait to play the Beltway bipartisan fetish card:

There's a benefit in bashing Republicans for going after Social Security. But that assumes they do go after Social Security, which, despite all their rhetoric, is far from certain. I'd argue that, politically speaking, obtaining a bipartisan deal on the deficit is likely to be popular. While the specifics of cutting entitlements are extremely unpopular, the general meta-message of bipartisan cooperation is highly popular. And people tend to follow the broad heuristics of whether the parties are getting along rather than the specifics, which is why the health care law, whose policies were mostly very popular, was so unpopular.

Americans do like some bipartisan agreements, but not when it comes to cutting entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. It would be political suicide for President Obama to agree to any type of cuts because of some 'can't we all just get along" idiocy, and his base will not forget it. Americans will not stand for it either.

Let's be clear about something else that Geithner doesn't understand: Republicans who support cutting benefits for the Working Joe will never give Obama any credit for doing the wrong thing either.

The partisan breakdown of the results shows that Republicans, Democrats and independents agree that cutting Social Security is the least acceptable option of the three presented in the poll. It came in third among all respondents who made a choice.

via http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/white-house-debates-what-do-social-secu
__________
__________
Majority Report streams live M-F at 11:30AM-1PM @ http://majority.fm /

PODCAST available at http://majority.fm /

Listen live with iTunes/VLC/WINAMP using this link: http://live.majority.fm:8000/live.m3u

Join the Majority Report as a member at http://majority.fm/become-a-member /

Majority Report Recap: http://majorityreportrecap.tumblr.com /

[emulatorloo]

1. Misleading Vid title. Crooks and liars article is about afight between Obama advisors

I call Seder's video title misleading because it seems to say Obama has some kind of secret plot in operation, when the story is really about a conflict between two teams of advisors.

It seems a bit odd that he named it that way, as it appears he is talking about about Jonathan Chait

Anyway, back to the C&L

One team says no cuts. Those are the ones that Obama is listening too.

Other team says throw a bone to centrist Dems/Republicans with something like raise the retirement age,

I call your title misleading because it seems to say Obama has some kind of secret plot in operation, when the story is really about a conflict between two teams of advisors.

Here is the Hill article C&L refers too:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/149489-social-security-reform-splits-the-white-house

Social Security reform splits White House political, economic teams
By Alexander Bolton - 03/15/11 06:00 AM ET
Social Security reform is splitting President Obama’s economic and political advisers.

Obama is being pulled in opposite directions by those whose priorities are fiscal and those whose No. 1 concern is electoral.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling and Sperling’s deputy, Jason Furman — leading figures in the president’s economic team — are pressing Obama to cut Social Security benefits if necessary, say sources familiar with their positions.

But Obama’s political team, led by David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Jim Messina, are urging the president to understand that backing benefit cuts could prove disastrous to his 2012 reelection hopes, sources say.

The political team is winning the argument so far, but internal debate rages at the White House as Republicans in Congress insist sweeping efforts to restore government finances must include Social Security reform.

<MORE AT LINK>

[JDPriestly]

2. Of course, Obama has some plot against seniors going.

He has never done a single good thing for us seniors.

The report about an argument among Obama's aides sounds false to me. The Obama administration plans to sell out us seniors and is "leaking" (quite conveniently from a public relations point of view) this story about how politically difficult it is, how his political advisors are against it for "political" reasons of course. This story is supposed to persuade Americans that Obama is knowingly paying a political price for supporting something that is good for the country.

The intent of this propaganda is to make those of us who see through yet another of Obama's right-wing ruses seem unpatriotic, like whiners. It is a story meant to place in the class with those who put politics before the good of the country.

Nonsense.

Seder is right. The debt that the general fund owes to seniors and the Social Security fund is just as sacrosanct as the debt owed to the UK, to Japan, to China or for that matter to Saudi Arabia.

Yet another phony Obama double-cross. The propaganda bit is brilliant. I must admit that. But it isn't going to work with seniors who can't fix the plumbing in their houses, can't pay the rent, can't afford a coat or shoes on their feet in winter. It's just not going to float.

Now while greedy gamblers on Wall Street are getting millions in bonuses.

[jtown1123]

4. I read all those articles.

The thing that struck me was that he was going along with no cuts because of the election... not because he thought cutting benefits was economically and morally foolish. He doesn't seem to understand that there is no social security crisis and cutting benefits, aside from being political disaster, is going to ruin the lives of working class Americans. That was most telling and disturbing to me. Hey Obama advisors, how about advising against cuts because it is the WRONG thing to do looking at the human element. Also, economists without a GOP agenda acknowledge there is NO crisis... so why even discuss it? What's to stop him from cutting benefits after the election?

[emulatorloo]

5. Who knows about those articles, it is mostly "an anonymous source"

The articles are also written from a "Horse Race Perspective." But that's the kind of stuff the Hill does.

[Better Believe It]

3. Why would it be "political suicide for President Obama" to support cuts?

It sure wouldn't be economic suicide.

The worst thing that could happen to President Obama is that he could "lose" the 2012 election and thereby "win" a lucrative position as a Wall Street advisor as a reward to service rendered!

Personal fortunes are to be made!