What was Obama referring to when he spoke of "trimming benefits" at his press conference today?

[Cali_Democrat]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-news-conference-text-deficit-talks-with-republicans.html

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

What "benefits" was he talking about? What does he want us to take on?

[high density]

1. There's the quote that everybody was demanding a few days ago

I assume he's talking about this idea to raise the Medicare eligibility age up to 67.

[Tx4obama]

4. No that is NOT the quote

The quote everyone wants to see is one where Obama says he has proposed to cut SS or Medicare or Medicaid benefits.

Obama has NOT said that.

In the quote up above in the OP the words 'benefits' can refer to TAX CUTS that benefit the rich. Or subsidies that benefit the Big Oil and/or Big Corporations.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. That is one hell of a reach.

nt

[high density]

8. "trimming benefits and increasing revenues"

Reversing tax cuts seems to be under "increasing revenues." But that's just me, I guess. I think it's evident at this point that Obama could sign the bill that cuts this stuff and people would still deny that he's doing it.

[Tx4obama]

11. Eliminating subsidies to big corps would be trimming benefits.

It wouldn't fall under the increasing revenues category.

[CreekDog]

16. you know if you're right, you have no respect for Obama whatsoever

because you're saying he used the term benefits to mean subsidies and he used the word "benefits" but secretly didn't mean Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment, etc.

everyone understands those programs as "benefits" of some sort.

to say that Obama was on our side because when he said "trim" "benefits" he didn't mean anything we consider benefits (and like) and he used the word benefits...well that's where it falls off the rail.

look, you and a number of other posters, when you defend Obama, you actually make him out to be pretty underhanded.

if what you're saying is true, Obama purposely used a misleading word --intending to do something else all along. the idea that you use this as a premise to defend him

--exactly how is that complimentary to him?

he needs better friends. :eyes:

[Tx4obama]

21. Oh bull.

First of all the majority of time when folks talk about Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment the word 'entitlements' is used.

Secondly, no one really knows what he meant when he said the word 'benefits' - there could have been dozens of things he was referring to when he used that word.

Your personal attack towards me was uncalled for.

[CreekDog]

29. you made the argument...contorted as it was, only to find out it actually makes Obama look bad

unfortunately, much of the most vigorous defenses of Obama actually paint him worse than his critics (on the left) think he is, because the most vigorous defenders say things like:

1) he didn't do x, y or z because he didn't have the power to do it
2) he didn't speak in favor of x, y, or z because he didn't have the votes to pass it --so what would be the point
3) if he doesn't have the votes for something, he's not going to go out on a limb for it because he'll probably lose

4) you can't take his words at face value because he's speaking in some sort of strategic political code, designed to win for our side

there's more, but i'll let you cogitate on these for now.

i actually think more of Obama than all these things, but his most vocal advocates make the above arguments time and time again.

his critics on the other hand, many don't trust him, sure, but a lot of them think:

1) he didn't do x, y, or z because he was afraid of losing the battle (but does actually want to pass progressive x, y or z)
2) he didn't speak in favor of x, y, or z because he didn't have the votes and thought he'd lose support elsewhere if he took a strong position

BUT they also think:

3) if he takes a strong stand, Obama really can persuade people to a more progressive position, so he should do this more often
4) if he takes a strong stand (but loses sometimes), i'll respect his courage (and we think so will others who don't respect him now --even on the right)
5) and that almost all the positions he's a bit soft on are ones that are winners with the public

[LaurenG]

46. Bookmarking this. Thanks CD nt

[MNBrewer]

30. That's funny

In a couple of ways.

1. it's pathetically funny.
2. it's odd that you would try to weasel those words that way
3. people usually refer to Unemployment as a "benefit" <http://www.uimn.org/>

Stop trying to take words out of the President's mouth.

[CreekDog]

35. and how does that "defense" of Obama actually make him look?

incredibly bad!

like you can't take his words at face value. or if the plain meaning of what he said seems clear (but centrist/conservative) that the *actual* meaning is *always* *always* different.

telling people over and over again that what they think they hear Obama saying is not what he means --that doesn't encourage them to trust him.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[high density]

19. So trimming those subsidies would be a hard, unpleasant thing to do?

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

I don't agree that corporate subsidies are "benefits" in any way. They're waste.

[Tx4obama]

23. He used to word 'people' which could be REPUBLICANS

and for the REPUBLICANS trimming subsides WOULD BE a hard unpleasant thing to do.

Unless there are more details no one really knows what Obama was referring to.

[Zenlitened]

33. There are more details available in the official WH transcript of today's news conf:

Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

Please read it, because some of your statements in this thread are frankly embarrassing to the President, if anyone should think your kind of "support" is reflective of the man himself.

[CreekDog]

36. he didn't say "subisidies"...he said "benefits"

he didn't say eliminate loopholes and subsidies

he said "trim" benefits.

why would you "trim" something that's bad?

and maybe you would "trim" something that's good but expensive --now that is the plain meaning of what he said.

i don't like it --but at least my reading of what he said doesn't make him out to be purposely misleading. yours does.

stop!

this kind of argument is absolutely repellent.

[Tx4obama]

39. We are all free here to post our opinions.

You have a right to state your opinion like everyone else does but that does not give you the right to tell me to silence mine.

[CreekDog]

41. it's clear i'm not trying to silence you --but that your defense of Obama actually hurts him

and paints him in a very unflattering light.

aside from being completely maddening.

it's not quite as bad as saying that John Quincy Adams was in fact, a founding father at age 9, but it sure isn't much better.

if you wanted to defend him, you say this:

"look, he knows if he doesn't make a deal and the gov't defaults, unemployment goes up 1% overnight and he can't bear to see that happen"

i really, really don't like that answer, but it's a heck of a lot more honest and defensible than saying his words don't mean what everyone thinks they mean.

so don't for a moment think i'm silencing you --i just won't give you the comfort of thinking that you're helping him when you're actually harming him.

[CreekDog]

40. jeez, you're making it sound like he choose his words very poorly

because you're saying in almost every case, he chose words that don't mean what they plainly appear to mean.

or that he chose words that seem to have a different meaning on purpose, for some political calculation.

why do you do this?

why is this considered defending Obama?

why? why would someone think this helps him?

jeez.

[Frustratedlady]

10. My impression is that he was referring to raising or eliminating the

top wages SS payments would be made. I don't know what the ceiling is now, but why not eliminate it altogether?

Am I wrong? It's been so many years since I drew a paycheck, I haven't kept track. I never met the top anyway, being a woman.

[MNBrewer]

27. Ummm

:eyes:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Tansy_Gold]

2. well, not to make it too obvious

but I think he's talking about cutting the benefits to those who receive them from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Survivors' Benefits, Disability Benefits. You know, all those slackers -- old people, sick people, disabled people, poor widows and orphans -- who are just sucking away at the public tit and driving the deficit up. Even though Social Security has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with the deficit but our multidimensional chess champion hasn't seemed to grasp that concept yet.

The man only knows one word -- CAPITULATE!!!!



TG, TT

[Tx4obama]

3. Trimming 'benefits' probably means TAX CUTS that benefit the rich. n/t

[Zenlitened]

13. It almost certainly does NOT mean that.

The statement about "trimming benefits" was part of an answer to a reporter's question about the $4 trillion size of the deal Pres. Obama favors.

In that answer he listed many issues favored by progressives, including Social security and Medicare but also Head Start, student loans, medical research, and infrastructure.

Tax cuts was not part of the context of that Q and A at all. See the official White House transcript:

Q Do you think he’ll come back to the $4 trillion deal?

THE PRESIDENT: I think Speaker Boehner has been very sincere about trying to do something big. I think he’d like to do something big. His politics within his caucus are very difficult -- you’re right. And this is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections or obtain short-term political gain, when we actually are in a position to try to do something hard we haven’t always laid the groundwork for. And I think that it’s going to take some work on his side, but, look, it’s also going to take some work on our side, in order to get this thing done.

I mean, the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements; would prefer, frankly, not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. And I’m sympathetic to their concerns, because they’re looking after folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable, and there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependant on some of these programs.

And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and we look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term.

And if you’re a progressive that cares about investments in Head Start and student loan programs and medical research and infrastructure, we’re not going to be able to make progress on those areas if we haven’t gotten our fiscal house in order.

So the argument I’m making to my party is, the values we care about -- making sure that everybody in this country has a shot at the American Dream and everybody is out there with the opportunity to succeed if they work hard and live a responsible life, and that government has a role to play in providing some of that opportunity through things like student loans and making sure that our roads and highways and airports are functioning, and making sure that we’re investing in research and development for the high-tech jobs of the future -- if you care about those things, then you’ve got to be interested in figuring out how do we pay for that in a responsible way.

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

[boston bean]

14. LOL, good one! nt

[MNBrewer]

32. Exactly what unicorn-filled wonderland do you live in?

[msongs]

5. cancelling congressional retirement packages and health care? yeah right nt

[Bluenorthwest]

6. It means taking from the least among us.

Because he's a big Christian, you see. The hypocrisy is beyond compare.

[jefferson_dem]

17. Speaking of hypocrisy...

For one who constantly rails against bigotry, you sure do spend time spewing base-level Christophobia.

[wolfgirl]

9. I think he is talking about

a way to "trim" benefits from those who really don't need them-a means test if you like to decrease benefits for those who are already well blessed with $$

[Tx4obama]

12. Bottom line is that since Obama gave no details - no one knows what he was referring to. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

18. This is why I asked the question. I was hoping people could shed some more light on the subject

:hi:

[Tx4obama]

24. The only person that can shed any light is Obama.

And Obama is not talking 'details' yet.

[MNBrewer]

34. Despite the fact that he must know that the rumor of SS and Medicare cuts is out there

He could have taken this opportunity to disavow that rumor. However, he didn't... he spoke in purposely cryptic tones, which I believe mean that the SS and Medicare cuts ARE on the table.

[Mimosa]

43. ^That's how most heard and interpreted it, MNBrewer ^

Why doesn't the president make himself clear?

[jefferson_dem]

15. Old news...

C'mon...

Who here was not aware that the proposed debt reduction plan (including the one supposedly floated by Obama) included "savings" that could be construed as "benefits"? Why act all surprised when it's acknowledged again?

[Zenlitened]

26. I'm not understanding your point here at all.

How could "savings" be construed as "benefits"?

In any event, the context of Pres. Obama's comment shows clearly that he was referring to programs or policies favored by progressives.

He did not say he was in favor of or would approve cutting SocSec benefit, neither did he deny it. But in no way did he attempt to muddle up the meaning of budget savings and the benefits of progressive governance.

Here is the context of his statement, from the official White House transcript:

Q Do you think he’ll come back to the $4 trillion deal?

THE PRESIDENT: I think Speaker Boehner has been very sincere about trying to do something big. I think he’d like to do something big. His politics within his caucus are very difficult -- you’re right. And this is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections or obtain short-term political gain, when we actually are in a position to try to do something hard we haven’t always laid the groundwork for. And I think that it’s going to take some work on his side, but, look, it’s also going to take some work on our side, in order to get this thing done.

I mean, the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements; would prefer, frankly, not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. And I’m sympathetic to their concerns, because they’re looking after folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable, and there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependant on some of these programs.

And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and we look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term.

And if you’re a progressive that cares about investments in Head Start and student loan programs and medical research and infrastructure, we’re not going to be able to make progress on those areas if we haven’t gotten our fiscal house in order.

So the argument I’m making to my party is, the values we care about -- making sure that everybody in this country has a shot at the American Dream and everybody is out there with the opportunity to succeed if they work hard and live a responsible life, and that government has a role to play in providing some of that opportunity through things like student loans and making sure that our roads and highways and airports are functioning, and making sure that we’re investing in research and development for the high-tech jobs of the future -- if you care about those things, then you’ve got to be interested in figuring out how do we pay for that in a responsible way.

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

[Unvanguard]

20. Most of the cuts will be to spending. That's not in dispute. n/t

[Zenlitened]

22. The statement about "trimming benefits" was part of an answer...

...to a reporter's question about the $4 trillion size of the deal Pres. Obama favors.

In that answer he listed many issues favored by progressives, including Social security and Medicare but also Head Start, student loans, medical research, and infrastructure.

Q Do you think he’ll come back to the $4 trillion deal?

THE PRESIDENT: I think Speaker Boehner has been very sincere about trying to do something big. I think he’d like to do something big. His politics within his caucus are very difficult -- you’re right. And this is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections or obtain short-term political gain, when we actually are in a position to try to do something hard we haven’t always laid the groundwork for. And I think that it’s going to take some work on his side, but, look, it’s also going to take some work on our side, in order to get this thing done.

I mean, the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements; would prefer, frankly, not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. And I’m sympathetic to their concerns, because they’re looking after folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable, and there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependant on some of these programs.

And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and we look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term.

And if you’re a progressive that cares about investments in Head Start and student loan programs and medical research and infrastructure, we’re not going to be able to make progress on those areas if we haven’t gotten our fiscal house in order.

So the argument I’m making to my party is, the values we care about -- making sure that everybody in this country has a shot at the American Dream and everybody is out there with the opportunity to succeed if they work hard and live a responsible life, and that government has a role to play in providing some of that opportunity through things like student loans and making sure that our roads and highways and airports are functioning, and making sure that we’re investing in research and development for the high-tech jobs of the future -- if you care about those things, then you’ve got to be interested in figuring out how do we pay for that in a responsible way.

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

[tcaudilllg]

25. He means cutting social security.

And if you don't believe me, you need to take off your blinders. I only wish that I had crendentials enough that you would trust me... but I guess you'll have to wait until Michael Moore calls for his head to know for sure.

[Tx4obama]

28. Did Obama call you up and tell you that?

[CreekDog]

44. what difference would that make?

whatever he said, by your reasoning, wouldn't mean what it sounded like, but instead something different.

i prefer to believe, as i do, that he generally means what he says. i don't believe he's playing a word game here as you imply. though i don't like his position on this, i'm much more sympathetic to him if i know he's giving it to me straight.

but if he's wordsmithing in a way that i cannot fathom what his words mean, or i have to discount the obvious meaning of them --then that would suggest there's no point in listening to him at all, because it's obfuscation.

again, i don't actually believe that.

[Zenlitened]

31. Well, I honestly don't think I can be accused of having blinders on...

... regarding our President, some of his policy choices, or his political tactics since assuming office.

:D


edit plural, "tactics"

[Vattel]

42. It seems pretty clear he was talking about entitlements.

If you look at the context, it is quite clear he was talking about entitlements including Medicare. There'a no other way to read it.

[Cali_Democrat]

45. The more I think about it

That's how I'm reading it as well.