Question for people who believe Obama does not want to gut Social Security:

[MannyGoldstein]

Why do you believe he named Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to run a commission charged with shaping the future finances of America's government?

Nobody who feels that Obama is being unjustly attacked seems to be able to directly answer this question.

Congress had refused to create the commission on several occasions because it was obviously an attempt to cut Social Security: "both Social Security and Medicare are currently cash negative and headed for insolvency", said its co-sponsors (which is a huge lie, of course). But Obama decided it was a great idea, and formed the commission headed by Bowles and Simpson.

An investment banker by trade, Business Week described Bowles as "Corporate America's friend in the White House" when he was Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff. In that capacity, Bowles brokered a deal with Newt Gingrich to cut and partially privatize Social Security (fortunately, Congress refused to allow the deal). Bowles currently sits on the boards of General Motors and Morgan Stanley.

Alan Simpson has also been an outspoken critic of Social Security for many years. Most recently, he famously claimed that Social Security is nothing more than a "milk cow with 310 million tits", while Obama stood silent. He’s also variously claimed that Social Security was not originally intended for retirees, that Social Security is losing money already, and many other similar lies.

In all, 10 of the 18 commission members were on record, before being appointed, as stating the Social Security benefits needed to be cut.

Of course, the commission voted 11-8 for a 22% cut in Social Security benefits over time - and further deep tax cuts for America's wealthiest.

So, my question to those who believe that Obama has no plans on grabbing the $2.6 trillion trust fund for the wealthiest: why did he do all of this?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. I guess there's no good answer.

Case closed for now.

[bahrbearian]

2. Crickets.

[MADem]

5. 12 minutes and you declare your point made?

People have lives, ya know!

[Dr Fate]

9. So answer the question then.

I needs my talking points from somewheres.

[MADem]

18. I did...look down a ways. nt

[Dr Fate]

21. Oh, that was you too.

Duh-oh!

[MannyGoldstein]

17. How long should we give it? Nt

[ZombieHorde]

71. At least 24 hours. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

4. Obama is clearly triangulating.

He's playing to the right. He does not, though, have the POWER to change existing law.

Keep this in mind, and it is an important point.

CONGRESS refused to create a commission, because CONGRESS clearly doesn't have the stomach to be seen as taking a hatchet to granny's pension.

And keep this in mind, too:

The President does NOT MAKE LAW.

Congress does.

For those of you who didn't notice that the eligibility age to receive social security crept up over the years, it wasn't Presidents who did that, it was CONGRESS (the folks who make the laws).

"Obama" cannot "grab" anything. He's EXECUTIVE, not LEGISLATIVE. The only thing he can do is veto what he doesn't like. He can bully Congress--like Bush did--but he does not have the power to MAKE law. That's on Congress.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. You don't believe he gave cover to Congress? Nt

[MADem]

23. No. The "Democratic Party" is two or three parties--he can't cover for all of 'em.

The GOP is mostly nuts and a few tired old people who gather the shreds of their dignity about them and sigh frequently. He's playing it like Clinton would, and that didn't work out too badly for him.

At the end of the day, Congress makes law, and he either signs or vetoes. If it's good law and he signs it, he gets credit. If it's bad law and he vetoes, he gets credit. If it's bad law and he signs it, people get mad at him for a minute, but he can use the "Voice of The People" argument and be forgiven.

Bottom line--Congress is going to make this law, not Obama. That's where the energy needs to be directed. Crying about the guy who touches the bill LAST (to sign it into law) is just a counterproductive vanity exercise.

[Dr Fate]

26. Then again, voters letting him know we do not want him to sign surely sends a message.

A message likely ignored, granted.But same goes for many in congress.

I disagree- best to let both congress and Obama know that changes to SS is not the solution the people want.

[MADem]

34. This is JMO and YMMV. I think threatening Obama is a waste of time.

It is energy that needs to be directed with considerable intensity at the people who will be crafting and passing the legislation. Put the heat on the weakest links.

"Waaah, I won't vote for you if you don't do what I want!!" will work better on a Senator or Rep than it will on the President. They're constantly running for office, their "voter universe" is much smaller (and easier to motivate from a grassroots level), and if enough of their own constituents start griping, they eventually will listen. This issue crosses party lines, too--at least amongst the voters, if not the legislators. AARP (who are conniving bastards) actually "got" that by doing some triangulating of their own. They put up a TV ad telling everyone to call their Congressional reps to complain about possible cuts to SS/Medicare, while their LOBBYISTS are quietly advocating for those cuts and changes. This way, the "dumb voters" will think AARP are the "good guys" who are on their side, and sign up for their lousy fucking card and pay membership fees (to pay those fucking entitlement-reduction-advocate lobbyists).

There is a difference between Obama and pretty much any Republicans, no matter what people say here because they are pissed off at him because he doesn't do everything they'd like. Gays in the military will never happen with a GOP President. Stem cell could well go away again. Roe v. Wade could suddenly become "UNSETTLED" law. It's real easy to gripe about what hasn't happened, but Obama will sign bills--particularly those of the "social justice" and "poverty mitigation" variety-- into law that a Republican wouldn't. To Republicans, catsup is a vegetable, after all.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. OTOH, after Congress had no stomach for taking a hatchet to

granny's pension, Obama appointed a commission which, in effect, told congress "Oh, go ahead - we got your back. You won't take the heat - it's all on the 'powerless' 'non-congressional' commission." Appointed by Obama.

Of 18 members, only TWO were firmly opposed to cuts in SS. BOTH the commission chairs have been on record for years as opposing the very concept of SS. Appointed by Obama.

Why, when he finds the 'bully pulpit' does he use it against Democrats?

[MADem]

41. And Congress did NOT appoint a commission, when they had the opportunity to do so.

By doing that, Obama is denying the GOP the opportunity to suggest that he "refuses to listen" to any other POVs. If they try to say that, he can say "I appointed a commission when you, John Bonehead, didn't have the stones/clout/ability to appoint one yourself."

Look down the road. Not everything is right in your face.

One more time--Obama does not pass laws, Congress does. If they don't pass it, he doesn't sign it. The target should be CONGRESS. Of course, the GOP loves it when Democrats go after the wrong target and they like it better still when they persuade the left to eat their own. While the left is yelling at Obama, they're not making Congress feel like they might have to actually work for a living following the next election. Put the fear of God into the clowns who pass the laws...

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Geeze - after Obama appointed a commission to do Boner's work for him

he doesn't NEED to appoint a commission. All he needs to do is put up the legislation.

Congress was SCARED to touch SS - and now Obama has made it possible for them to go there because they can just say they are following Obama's lead.

Let me use sinple words:

Congress did not appoint a commission. Obama did. If Obama did not, there would be no commission.

Claro?

[MADem]

55. No, not "claro." Congress still has to write the law. Then they have to debate it.

Obama could "appoint a commission" that came to the conclusion that the sky is green. That doesn't make it so. Appointing that commission is a "good faith" move--no one can say he refused to listen to opposing views. That's what "triangulation" is all about.

But hey, you're doing just what the GOP wants you to do. You're ignoring the people making the laws, and focusing your ire on the guy at the end of the line.

Get rid of Obama, and what do you end up with? The same shitty Congress that wrote the crappy law, AND a Republican President!

Heckuvajob, Brownie!

[tekisui]

15. The President absolutely makes law, with Congress.

Congress cannot make a law without his approval and support.

[MADem]

24. No, he signs them into law. He's Executive. Not Legislative.

The President does not "make" law.

[Dr Fate]

35. He is part of the negotiations. It's not unreasonable to say he is working with them on the bill.

Nt

[MADem]

43. I don't disagree with that, but we all know that once debate begins, all bets are off.

The people who take that bill and make it law are Congress. They're the ones who need to be leaned on--heavily, and told that there will be consequences. I mean, really, what do you get when you lean on Obama? If you get rid of him, what do you get? A Republican. That's hardly an improvement.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

38. Congress cannot make law without him, He is part of the

law making process. He then executes the law.

He can't be separated out of the law making process.

[MADem]

46. Yeah, he signs--AKA EXECUTES--it. He is not "legislative."

This law needs to be shaped in the LEGISLATIVE process. By the time it hits the President's desk, it's TOO LATE.

If you lean on Obama and give the Congress a free ride, you'll get a law you hate, and it will serve you right because you're directing your ire at the wrong targets.

[Dr Fate]

22. He can either sign it or not, and he appears to be a part of the negotiations.

so I don't see why we would minimize his role.

[MADem]

28. Sure, he gets in there and babbles, like any party leader would.

But for those who want to "stop" something that hasn't even happened, the place to go is where the thing STARTS, not where it ends up. And where it starts is CONGRESS.

This topic is one that crosses party lines. Voters need to crab to their reps and Senators that if they vote the "wrong" way, there will be blood. Wasting time whining about Obama is just an exercise in vanity vocalizing--Obama touches the bill LAST, to sign it into law. The work needs to be done BEFORE that happens, with the people who will be crafting and debating the bill.

[Dr Fate]

31. Whining about Obama? Vanity vocalizing? sounds like DU's patented centrist bullshit.

He is part of the negotiations and any president with leadership skills should be able to twist some arms "BEFORE THAT HAPPENS"

Both congress and the executive need to listen to the voters on this.

what is up with your effot to minimize his role?

[Dept of Beer]

32. But Obama is powerless. He is only the President of the United States and

the leader of the Democratic Pary.

:sarcasm:

[MADem]

53. "Patented centrist bullshit"--that sounds like the lazy man's approach to

civics....if I don't get EXACTLY what I want, when I want it, without COMPROMISE (which is a hallmark of the democratic process), then I'll just ineffectually insult those who live in the real world and realize that every gain, even small ones, involve battles with people who do not see things your way. Nothing is ever easy.

No one here seems to be getting off their asses and organizing any calls to Congress or the Senate. All I see is whines and pouting about the guy who gets the bill AFTER it has been written, debated and passed.

If that's not ineffectual, I don't know what is. It's also childish.

You need to understand that Obama WILL triangulate this issue because he, like it or not (and I am sure you won't), is and always was one of those CENTRISTS you seem to hate. He never WAS a liberal lion. Why people think that, I have no idea. He will play both ends against the middle. He will be pragmatic. He will make the best deal he can get. He will compromise. He always has. Nothing has changed with him.

He is what he is and what he has always been--so why complain NOW? Like it's some big surprise?

So many people here, back when he was running, projected all this (fictional) far left shit on the guy (perhaps a consequence of his dusky tone?) when he actually stood slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton on many issues. Bottom line? He beats the alternative. If you want stem cell research to be defunded, if you want gays in the military to never happen, if you want choice to become hard-to-find-choice, if you want DOMA strengthened, well, vote for the other guy or stay home. But don't cry when you get the government you asked for by either inaction or frivolity.

And for heaven's sake, stop acting surprised when Obama IS what he IS, and what he's ALWAYS BEEN.

[ClassWarrior]

56. What's ineffectual - and political suicide - is so-called "centrism."

No Center, No Centrists
George Lakoff
Posted: August 14, 2007 03:24 PM

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views...

I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals...

The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values. When you do that, you help activate conservative values in people's brains (thus helping the other side), you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values, which is true! Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values, and who may be trying to deceive them about the values he and his party's base hold?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[MADem]

58. Those that can, do. Those that can't, write diatribes for HUFFPO.

One can say "It's time to bury .........." anything--centrism, gay marriage, single parenthood, you name it. Then you can write a little essay that "proves" your point by preaching to your own particular choir.

If the losing strategy is to move to the right, Clinton and Obama would not have won. The guy that moved to the left, Al Gore, LOST--and he should have stayed where he was, staid and in some ways, conservative, in his blue suit and red tie, instead of listening to that nitwit Donna Brazille who decked him out in sage green and pants that made his package look like a kielbasa (and speaking of Donna, she later became great friends with Karl Rove--what's up with THAT, huh?) and had him slobbering all over his wife in a way that was plainly phony.

I don't buy this guy's arguments. The last few elections prove him wrong.

Obama has never been a liberal, and just because he's brown and from Hawaii and has a D after his name, way too many people refused to believe that about him. He's never been pro gay MARRIAGE, yet people are still surprised about that little fact and get mad about it, like he's duped them or something. He's ALWAYS been a "centrist," and he's always been a pragmatist. He will play both ends against the middle to advance as much of HIS agenda as he can. You don't become President without having a pretty massive ego. He's not the President of the left, he's President of all the people and he's going to give everybody a little something to like to ensure his legacy, like it or not. This is not surprising, though--he's not a liberal and he never was. If you voted for him thinking that he was, despite the fact that the words coming out of his mouth during the campaign plainly belied that notion, well, shame on you.

[ClassWarrior]

59. So of what are YOU a distinguished professor?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

61. Well, Peyps? How many Ph.D.s do you have that qualify you to "write diatribes" for DU?

NGU.

[MADem]

63. Gee, I only have one. Sorry.

What, you need a Ph.D. around here to volunteer an OPINON? You know what opinions are like, everyone's got one. Do you demand a Ph.D. hall pass from everyone? Or only people with whom you petulantly disagree?

Surely, you must mean Piled Higher and Deeper if that's your standard for everyone, because I doubt most people here meet your silly requirement.

Come up with actual arguments instead of wasting time/getting shirty with people when you don't like their POV. It's what mature people do.

Ciao, now....

[ClassWarrior]

64. "What, you need a Ph.D. around here to volunteer an OPINON?" Obviously not.

But we weren't talking about what one needs around here to post an opinion. We were talking about an essay by a distinguished professor who has been studying the human brain and political thought for more than two decades and is respected worldwide.

Can't win an argument? Change the subject.

NGU.

[MADem]

65. And I gave you several examples where his "thesis" did not bear fruit.

I did not change the subject at all--you, however, ignored the trajectory of the discussion because you couldn't refute the points I made.

Ciao now...

[ClassWarrior]

66. Ahhh yes, the distinguished theory that wearing sage green is "moving to the left."

:rofl:

Gore's notorious wardrobe advisor was Naomi Wolf, by the way.

NGU.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

77. What lock box? Is that a Liberal theory or a law that centrists worked & fought to actually pass?

Yup- sounds liberal.

Have any of Obama's centrists worked to follow it through to success?

[ClassWarrior]

84. Wow, afraid you're wrong, so you're resorting to personal attacks?

:shrug:

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

73. I agree that centrism is a lazy man's approach. n/t

n/t

[Kermitt Gribble]

85. He can have closed door meetings

making deals on the future of Social Security and Medicare with John Boehner, just like he did with the Bush tax cuts before that and with Big Pharma and the health care deal before that.

[Tx4obama]

7. So, are you saying Obama knew what the commission was going to say before they said anything?

Do you have a quote from Obama that says he agrees with all the people on that commission?

Is Obama responsible for what OTHER people say?

In my opinion, Obama is only responsible for what he says and what he does.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. So why were these individuals picked?

Thanks

[Tx4obama]

12. Write a letter to President Obama and ask him.

But I can bet you that Obama didn't know what their conclusions would be at the time that he picked them.
If he knew what they were going to say at the end, there would have not been a reason to have the commission in the first place.
So, I can't see why anyone is blaming Obama for what the 18/19 people said, he didn't put their words into their mouths.

Obama has the right to either listen to them or ignore them - so what's the big deal?

As far as I can tell he hasn't done everything they recommended. So, where is the outrage coming from?

[MannyGoldstein]

16. But what do *you* think the answer is?

Do you think it was a coincidence?

[bhikkhu]

20. I don't know much of Bowles myself - bit I'd guess

With a long and vocal history of opinions, and with a long involvement in Democratic politics, I think it would have been difficult to leave Bowles off without seeming to want to steer the commission.

If you look at things like the Warren Commission, or the 911 commission, or the commission on the Challenger shuttle disaster, its pretty clear that picking the right people is the difference between a thousand pages of nothing, and actually getting a good result. Which would be a consensus of differing points of view on a set of ideas forward, and something of a learning moment for all involved.

I think its easy to justify Bowles on the commission, though its also easy to see in hindsight that it seems a wasted of time and a wasted opportunity - nothing of any real value came of it, and the ideas were little more than rehashed ideology, and not much consensus.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. So these two were picked because they were the most opinionated

and it was coincidence that they both had the opinion - that Social Security should be gutted?

Is that your position?

[bhikkhu]

62. My position is that sometimes commissions are chosen that way

and there are cases where it works out well. There are certainly cases where people with strong opinions are left out, and a commission becomes a pointless exercise in rubber-stamping the preconceived objectives of the chooser.

Again, ideally you get a result with a consensus of differing points of view on a set of ideas forward, and those involved hammer out something useful and new. That doesn't seem to have happened at all in this case.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

25. Yes, it would be impossible to know the position of Alan Simpson regarding social security

before making him the co-chair of the commission. Are you seriously arguing that it was all just bad luck that Obama packed the debt commission with anti-social security activists? Were they just the first 18/19* people to walk into his office that day?

*Preemptively editing to note that I am aware that Obama only picked some of the members. But he sure made some odd selections if he doesn't want to cut social security.

[Dr Fate]

29. agreed. any " how could he have known" argument is not going to sell to voters.

he picked them, and he is a shrewd, intelligent guy- so surely he knew more about their views and backgrounds...

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Hypothetical: You want to look at the effectiveness of the death penalty.

So, you appoint a commission. It has, say, 18 members plus 1 in case of a tie vote. Of those 18 members, 4 are DA's, 4 are prison wardens, 4 are relatives of murder victims, 4 are conservative legal scholars, 1 is a defense attorney and 1 is a prisoner rights advocate. The tie breaker is a well respected criminal court judge.

You want to make any guess about how the commission will vote on the question of the effectiveness of the death penalty? Of course, you don't KNOW how they will vote, but just make a guess.

[BobbyBoring]

82. Same reason that

Gates stayed on, Geithner got his job, etc. It's who he was told to pick by the PTB~

[Kermitt Gribble]

86. "Obama is only responsible for what he says and what he does"

And what he did was create a commission made up of people who want to destroy Social Security. How can you defend that?

[bhikkhu]

10. A commission is useless if you only choose people who agree with one another

You don't always have to avoid, fear and belittle the opinions of those you disagree with. Some would say that would be a sign of a weak mind, whether in business or government. You want a variety of independent thinkers, and a variety of points of view on a commission if you want it to come up with any useful ideas.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. See #12, above. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

40. this is a good answer, but I'm not convinced an answer is

really the goal of this Post.

"The United States of America"? I clearly remember Pres. Obama saying repeatedly during the primary that we need to come together and work to try and solve problems rather than posture and grandstand.

Maybe people just weren't hearing that.

:shrug:

[Kermitt Gribble]

87. How about at least choosing people who use facts to come to a conclusion?

"both Social Security and Medicare are currently cash negative and headed for insolvency"

"milk cow with 310 million tits"

These people have a history of distorting the facts about Social Security, and Obama knew that when he chose them.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

13. They won't answer. They never answer the direct questions.

Obama made the debt commission, appointed many of it's members, and yet the whole thing was stacked with anti-public spending zealots. I don't know how you can reconcile his commission as the creation of a believer in social security. And this is his MO - leak anonymous rumors to major papers of impending unpopular decisions, then deny them. Repeat until the public is too tired and confused to care anymore.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Seems that way

Sad.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. there are several answers here, they are ignored- an answer isn't

what OP is actually interested in apparently.

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

27. Food for thought.

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/07/07/reasons_not_to_panic_on_obama_and_social_security/index.html

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/91541/why-the-house-will-kill-the-grand-bargain

[boppers]

30. "why did he do all of this?" Because it's expected to run out of money.

It's also a huge part of the national debt, as currently structured.

I'm wondering how a commission can vote 11-8 if there were only 18 of them.... ;) (There were 19)

[Dr Fate]

33. "Centrists" and their GOP allies spent a good bit of our money his shit ass wars.

People can Minimize that all they want, but voters won't forget that part. Moderates, independents and swing voters seem to realize that the money can be found for our glorious freedom wars but not for their futures.

[boppers]

37. " our money his shit ass wars."?

I don't follow.

[Dr Fate]

42. You dont have to follow.

It's the average moderate or independent voter-even many conservatives- who no longer want to spend money on his shit ass wars, and knows that the money is out there- for wars they do not support.

Those voters do follow what I'm saying, b/ c they are saying it and thinking it too.

[bemildred]

49. The FICA tax was raised in the early 1980s to create an SSI "Trust Fund"

in order to cover the boomers when we retired. That money was not in fact saved anywhere, it was spent on whatever the Congress chose to spend in on. That debt is what will "run out" in the future before SSI becomes or can become "insolvent", as tax receipts eventually become less than payments. Prior to that "reform" SSI was run on a pay as you go basis, FICA tax was not separate, and there was no pretense that the SSI books had to balance. It is in fact only on such a pretense that one can even say that SSI could become insolvent in the first place, by pretending that it is not an obligation backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, which it is, but instead some sort of savings account, which it is not.

[MADem]

60. Al Gore was right.

But no one wanted to hear about his "lock box."

[MannyGoldstein]

36. It only runs out of money if the economy gets much worse

and stays that way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x931203">Social Security: the little secret that's fooling even most DUers.

But at least we both agree that he picked those individuals purposely to cut benefits - that's some common ground.

There were 18 commissioners. 11 voted to cut Social Security benefits by 22%.

[boppers]

52. I counted 19....

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/members

I think I've seen that post, in which you also advocate the possibility of cutting Social Security benefits by 25% over 27 years, which goes further than the commission recommended...
"Social Security is still able to pay more than 75% of promised benefits after 27 years."

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Reed was not a voting member

I don't understand the rest of your post.

[golfguru]

45. Answer is simple, Obama wants to get re-elected

and for that he needs the 40% independents to break for him over his opponent. They are independent for a reason, they are neither left wing or right wing.

[Dr Fate]

47. Clear eyed centrist strategy worked for the midterms.

so I'm sure you cannot be wrong under any circumstances.

[golfguru]

81. HCR, Stimulus II etc were not centrist strategy

The centrists opposed both by a clear majority by every poll I have come across.

[uponit7771]

51. Obama doesn't have a mind of his own!?!?!! The questions is assinine at best

[DCBob]

57. easy... to get opinions/suggestions from the other side.

not much would come from the commission if all the members thought ss and medicare were peachy keen.

[SanchoPanza]

68. Shaping the future finances of America's government? Hardly.

The commission was empowered to make recommendations. Recommendations which would not be introduced to Congress in the form of legislation unless the President or a member of Congress actually introduced them. Recommendations which, it is also worth noting, have gone precisely nowhere since the final report was issued seven months ago.

Who the commission's co-chairs are is an irrelevant issue. The President could have named anyone ranging in outlook from Jamie Galbraith to Grover Norquist to run the thing. The final report would have remained largely unchanged, because it needed at least 14 votes to be considered formally adopted and published. Simpson and Bowles couldn't get that, and the plain truth of the matter is that there is no report anywhere that could have received the necessary votes. What "passed" out of the commission was a majority report, agreed to by 11 members, that could not be submitted to Congress as legislation under the requirements of the executive order that created the commission in the first place.

But the President, on his own, could still take those recommendations and submit them himself on behalf of the majority. Did he do this? No.

When the final report was issued in December, Obama said this:

"The commission’s majority report includes a number of specific proposals that I, along with my economic team, will study closely in the coming weeks as we develop our budget and our priorities for the coming year."

When the President put forward his budget in March, four months later, how many provisions of the commission's final report did it include? Zero. How many of the recommendations did the President submit to Congress since then individually or collectively? Zero.

Which raises the far more relevant question: Why impanel a commission if it won't be able to generate a genuine report on its own, and on behalf of whom you have no intention of submitting separately?

The likeliest answer to this question, and yours, is that politics is 95% theater.

[polichick]

72. You really can't get around his personnel choices - whether for the debt comm. or his cabinet...

Those decisions say everything about who he really is.

[okieinpain]

74. why did howard dean say last night that he agreed with

president obama's approach.

[great white snark]

75. You've claimed "gutting" since march of 2010. I hope your life still has purpose if nothing happens.

He's got high apple pie in the sky hopes....

[Dr Fate]

76. If some form of "guitting" does happen, what is the excuse we have lined up?

Sure- if "guting" does not happens you will be right.

If it does, will you oppose the effort, or will you craft a carefully worded excuse to justify it?

Your answer from the 2 choices would be: "Carefully crafted excuse" right?

The good news is your life will have purpose either way- if you are right, you can cay "I told ya so"-then use it as "proof" that centrists detractors are "always making incorrect predictions."

If you are wrong, then you can busily craft excuses then repeat, repeat, repeat.

Chins up! It's a win-win for you either way!

[great white snark]

78. No exuses-if there is gutting none of the gutters get my vote. That includes Obama.

I hope I'm clearer than the Dem spokespeople.

[Dr Fate]

79. Thanks for the straight response.

Glad to have my bluff called in such a way, frankly. Very refreshing.

I thought you might say "That depends on what your defintion of "gutting" is or some other cop out.

If there is gutting, of any kind, any way or form, you will not make excuses for it. Awesome. Me neither.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. My life will be vastly better if there is *no* gutting

But the evidence is pretty clear that this is the desired outcome by Obama et al. I hope that they fail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1443557

[bornskeptic]

83. Why do you continue to spread disinformation about the Bowles-Simpson proposal.

22% is the approximate amount by which every retiree's benefits would be reduced under current law when the trust fund is depleted, which is expected to happen in about 2035. Under Bowles-Simpson only people with lifetime average earnings would ever see their benefits cut by that much, and then not until a number of years later. Anybody who really cares can check this here:
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

The relevant tables are on page 55. The "payable" column gives benefits under current law, while the "scheduled" and "plan" columns should be self-explanatory. While I don't think the Bowles-Simpson plan is anywhere near the best we can do, it would be a huge improvement over doing nothing, which many here seem to advocate, and it does make the system far more progressive than it is now. People in the bottom income quintile would receive higher benefits throughout their retirement.

[johnaries]

88. Ahem.

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.) We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (Applause.)

Obama, SOTU Address (emphasis added)

MR. CARNEY: Let me just be clear, as I think I tried to be in the statement I gave to all of you. This story is really not new at all. The President has -- in fact, it essentially was written back when the President delivered his State of the Union address and he talked about his openness to doing things to strengthen Social Security, things that would not slash benefits.

But he also made very clear that we do not believe -- and a lot of independent economists back up our contention -- that Social Security is an issue in the near- and medium-term deficit. So when you talk about deficit reduction, dealing with the issues that have been before us in these negotiations for these many weeks, Social Security is not a factor.

White House Press Conference, July 7, 2011 (emphasis added)

Also, even though you totally misrepresented the recommendations of members of the Fiscal Commission (the Commission itself did not reach agreement), you'll notice that Obama has not taken any action on their recommendations regarding Social Security.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.