Obama to Cave to GOP and Cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

145 billion in Defense cuts and Homeland Security operations. Though I have read elsewhere just 80 for the Pentagon.

Smaller cost of living adjustments for Social Security.

Three tax brackets: 8-12% 14-22% and 23-29% as well as elimination of alternative minimum tax and various tax breaks which is supposed to generate a trillion in revenue.

We would see 500 billion in immediate savings.

 

Clinton was forced to sign the bill breaking up glass-stegall, the straw that broke the camels back leading to this financial crisis. he did that i assert partly because he had been worn down by the lewinsky scandal.

now i love clinton as much as the next dem, but as been noted, his over zealousness coming into office on gun control and health care lead to a largely ineffective presidency by liberal standards.

however, he was president during the greatest economic expansion in probably human history and to his credit (and this isn't a back handed compliment) he didn't screw it up. he and congress left us with a budget surplus, probably his biggest accomplishment.

 

This would be a once-in-a-generation bill if they can pull it off. The entirety of the Senate seems on board, and Obama definitely is. The question is the House - they ALL have to run for re-election next year and both sides lose some winning campaign issues.

But if they can pull it off and rationally address Defense, SS, Medicare, and Taxes in one big bill, it will be one of the biggest achievements of government that we've had in decades.

 

Now see, this sort of comment amuses me no end. Accuse me of deifying Jack Kennedy, Judo has accused me of as much in the past (and I am an enormous fan of his), but Bill Clinton? Not hardly. I admire the man a great deal, however, and think that he accomplished a hell of a lot considering the witch hunt he (and his wife) endured during much of his time in office. And yes, he did preside over an economic boom, as well as managing to balance the budget. He also didn't **** it up. He didn't agree to allow tax breaks for the wealthy, supposedly a temporary measure under Bush, Jr., to continue, unless I missed it. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans. Obama should have taken a firm stand over this issue and I wish he had. Ronald Reagan had 11 tax increases during his two terms in office. When did Obama point this out? When did he actually fight this Congress, instead of compromising? I would argue that while Cliinton's attempt at healthcare failed, he did try. He also signed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, and pushed through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), both of which helped a hell of a lot of people. I would also argue that Clinton's attempt at national healthcare helped to lay the groundwork for Obama's successful effort, even if those results were not all that many of us had hoped for.

I didn't make my earlier comment in order to have yet another arguement about Bill Clinton. My comment was more about Clinton's tremendous political skills, and Obama's tendency to compromise far too often and on far too much. He gives and gives to the radicals that control the Republican Congress, and instead of getting any credit for that, they see it as a sign of weakness and go for more concessions. Perhaps this is some "grand strategy" on Obama's part. Perhaps I simply don't "get it," but I've been wanting him to forcefully push back for a very long time now, have said so here, and wish he would, in this instance, listen to Mr. Clinton.

 

so no comment on bill clinton signing gramm leach bailey?

google clinton, sandy weill from Citigroup

 

The fact that we ...debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.

It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.

Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

 

I agree with all of this, except the implication that it's the leadership now opting to raise the limit that is faltering. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems the only choice now considering the rest of our economic climate and the implications of defaulting at this point. I agree that America has a debt problem, and that failure of leadership is a big part of what landed us here (or worse, dishonest leadership).

 

As Clinton said, the real failure of leadership is to vote on appropriations twice. Unfunded mandates are always wrong. If you want to reduce spending, don't approve it in the first place. Since we find ourselves in this situation, it makes zero sense to try to do it all with spending cuts and none with revenue. Remember that, in this case as it has been in the past, Obama has offered the farm, including enormous cuts to formerly untouchable programs such as SS, Medicare and Medicaid to the great chagrin of his own party, and Republicans have balked simply to avoid including revenue from the richest people in the nation, those who can most afford to sacrifice and those who are being asked the least while others are out of work and really struggling. For the rich this may been one less yacht; for the poor it may mean a choice between food, rent or needed meds.

I don't like the idea of shifting burden to future generations. I like even less shifting the burden entirely to the middle and lower classes with no sacrifice at all from the wealthiest Americans.

America isn't suffering from a failure of leadership on the debt ceiling issue; it is suffering from a failure of Republicans to be in any way reasonable.

Obama offered the most dramatic debt-reduction deal of anyone (three times as much debt reduction as anything proposed by the GOP): one that would cut our deficit by 9 trillion and would include every single thing the GOP could ever want, could ever dream of, with the caveat of letting the Bush tax cuts on the uber-rich to expire as they were always meant to do. Republicans said no to this deal that favored their concerns so heavily just to protect the rich. That is not hyperbole. It is a fact.

I am surprised rhester that you, as a devoted Christian, are not up in arms at one party holding the country hostage in order to protect the rich. That doesn't track in any way with Christian beliefs by any possible understanding of them.

 

edit-
"The fact that we ...debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.

It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.

Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership." Senator Obama 2006

Batman, I am not fond of politics, I deeply respect President Obama's efforts to do a good work, I don't think any politician really has a good view of helping the average person and mostly ALL of them help the rich... they all suck up to large Corporations who are global in scope and care little for the increasing financial pressure felt by the poor in our country.

Debt will crush this empire, and maybe it will be better in another era.

 

They do indeed all help the rich. In this case however the only thing holding up a deal is the GOP insistence on not taking a dime from the rich.

I think you're underestimating the results that will come from not raising the debt limit. Social security checks will stop being issued as will unemployment checks and that's just for a start. I would think those two issues alone though would be important to you in your ministry.

 

I would cut military spending drastically and be sure social programs continued.

 

Interesting letter from the President to the Republicans in Congress...

Dems just sent this letter from the 1980's to all the Republicans in Congress.

 

Here's another president...

In other words, FDR's saying building the middle class should be the priority.

 

Then you are a Democrat, on allocation of funds at the very least. Republicans would disagree 100% with what you just posted.

 

We may have a new party emerge after the economy tanks.

 

It's sort of odd how the more "democratic" body (ie. elections every 2 years) seems more "corrupt" than others.

I guess "corrupt" isn't the right word but they are pandering the day they get elected.

 

Debt Ceiling Negotiation

The whole house republican debt ceiling debacle seems so intellectually dishonest and so far out of line with what constituents want that it's making me wonder if economic failure is the GOP's 2012 plan. The president and all of congress will end up with a pie in their face, while any of the GOP governors will be allowed to fall outside the fray, wash themselves of responsibility, and run to "bring change" to Washington.

Do the democrats have any electable governors of their own at the moment?

 

They should change house election to 4 years.