Bernie Sanders Cracks The CODED THREAT To Entitlements In Obama’s State Of The Union

[Segami]

"..Bernie Sanders gave President Obama good marks for his State Of The Union address, but he also warned about coded language in the speech that hinted at cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

SCHULTZ: Where was he weak tonight?


SEN. SANDERS: Well, I’ll tell you where he was weak. I get nervous when the president talks about working with republicans about reforming entitlement programs. You know what that really means? Let’s be frank, that means cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid


SCHULTZ: Are they come someday?


SEN. SANDERS: If he proposes that, I will be leading the opposition against that. Social Security has not contributed one nickel to the deficit because it’s funded by the payroll tax, has a $2.5 trillion surplus, I will defend to –


SCHULTZ: He didn’t say that tonight?


SEN. SANDERS: He didn’t say it, but its code language out there. When you work with Republicans to reform entitlement programs, that’s the code word.


SCHULTZ: Was he not strong enough on the big three tonight?


SEN. SANDERS: Of course he was not strong enough. He should have gotten up there and said, you know what, in the midst of a terrible recession, I promise you we are not going to cut one nickel of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We are going to move toward deficit reduction, we are going to do it in a way that is fair and responsible. Ask the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes and end these absurd corporate loopholes.

Sen. Sanders gave the president a good grade for his State Of The Union address. President Obama does seem to have a weakness for buying into the Republican desire to change and kill Social Security and Medicare. There is no reason for Social Security to be included in any talks about possible cuts. Discussions on Social Security should begin with means testing and raising the taxable income cap. As more Americans enter the system, there will be a greater strain placed on Social Security in the decades to come. Both programs will remain solvent into the 2030s. There should be no urgency to cut entitlements right now. A plan to maintain the long term solvency of these programs is what will be needed.



cont'

http://www.politicususa.com/en/bernie-sanders-obama-sotu


.

[librechik]

1. also, Paul is dead.

I love Bernie, he may have stepped in it here

[Robb]

2. Yeah, I would've found *any* other way to say that.

I also disagree, but even if I didn't, that's going to wind up in a mailer.

[TheWraith]

3. This is such ridiculous nonsense.

People are STILL imagining that somehow, somewhere, Obama is magically/secretly approving cuts to Medicare and Social Security, despite the fact that EVERY SINGLE TIME this has come up, they have been proven COMPLETELY WRONG.

[hfojvt]

56. maybe because Obama said so straight up in the SOTU

it wasn't even coded.

[TheWraith]

67. No, he didn't.

In fact, he very expressly said any alterations would have to guarantee the continued existence and reliability of Medicare and Social Security for seniors.

No wonder people get pissed at Obama if they start believing things that are the express opposite of what he actually said.

[hfojvt]

76. here's what he said

"So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors."

"rein in the long term costs"

that is a straight up way to say "cuts".

Of course, this article is from anonymous sources

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html



This site says

http://www.socialsecurity-disability.org/blog/obama-plan-for-social-security-reform

"It seems that our President supports cuts to the Social Security program. He's following through on his promises to get control over these “costly” entitlement programs. He also supports raising the retirement age and lowering the rate at which cost of living adjustments are made. "

a "guarantee of security" is a wiggle phrase to claim that deep cuts aren't really deep cuts. He's "reforming" it on the spending side, instead of working to raise the tax cap, like he claimed during the 2008 primary. He's offering to broker another "compromise" which starts with tax increases off the table.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. The President's statement to "rein in long-term costs" applies only to Medicare and Medicaid.

He separated that from Social Security, which only needs to be strengthened. And that can be done with the payroll tax cap elimination. So claiming support for SS cuts from the President is overstating the case.

Medicare and Medicaid are in more trouble. Something does need to be done to keep these programs from attaining their projected costs in the coming years. The ACA is a good start, and if the end result of the exchanges are public options produced by states and/or the federal government to help keep costs down among the private plans, so much the better.

[hfojvt]

104. it's not separated by much - a simple comma

And Obama specifically referred to what he "told the Speaker last summer" and there was nothing at all said last summer about raising the cap. That was off the table, and out of the conversation. Nor did the President bother to mention it on Tuesday when he had the attention of much of the nation.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. and different verbs. n/t

[patrice]

113. Agreed: "rein in" & "strengthen"

[flamingdem]

126. Thank you, good clarification

nt

[TheWraith]

89. Point one, you're citing a spam website.

Two, you're also citing said spam website's posting from SIX MONTHS AGO, on one of the "cuts" that never actually happened.

Three, what he referred to about long term costs had absolutely nothing to do with Social Security. It's really very plain English. "Rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid," i.e. measures to prevent the cost of medical care from rising. Keeping healthcare costs in check. I'm not sure how to say it any simpler than that. Is that suddenly a bad, horrible thing? Should we be encouraging the cost of medical care to skyrocket? Because to read into that "We're going to cut Medicare," you have to REALLY, REALLY want to hear that.

[hfojvt]

103. well google brings up what google brings up

The President is always free to clarify things by offering specific plans, but of course he does not operate that way. Easier to claim deniability later on maybe.

As for SIX MONTHS AGO, that is quite relevant because Obama just said "As I told the speaker last summer". That is, he was re-affirming his support for what he said six months ago.

No matter how simple you want to say it, it is simply not clear that "reining in the long term costs" does not mean cuts to medicare.

It is very easy to make it plainer than that. He could have said what Sanders said. "Of course he was not strong enough. He should have gotten up there and said, you know what, in the midst of a terrible recession, I promise you we are not going to cut one nickel of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."

That's what I really, really wanted to hear.

[patrice]

114. In his recap of the ACA debate last year, Bernie Sanders himself said that Medicare NEEDS reforms,

now if you think Bernie Sanders was talking about cuts to services you would seem not to know who Bernie Sanders is and/or what a complex set of systems CMS is.

Have your read HR 676 yet? It's very enlightening about WHAT exactly Medicare is - AND - Bernie Sanders also predicted last Summer that something like HR 676 would rise.

BTW, Physicians for a National Health Program support HR 676.

[patrice]

112. Couldn't "long term costs" more likely refer to administrative costs which are MORE long-term than

market driven payments to providers and vendors?

This appears to be the assumption contained in the Finance section of HR 676 Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.

[fasttense]

91. He also said, "That's why our health care law relies on a reformed private market,

not a government program."

If he had given us a public option in the healthcare law, there would be no reason to reform costs for Medicare and Medicaid. The insurance companies would be forced to compete with a government program that only has a 3% overhead, no golden parachutes for CEOs, and greed is not the primary motive for the insurance.

[slay]

78. Your post or the analysis by the great Bernie Sanders?

Bernie was great as usual - sorry you don't like him.

[arcane1]

4. I for one do NOT want Obama "working with republicans about reforming entitlement programs"

We KNOW what the repukes mean when they say "reform"

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. You are damned straight.

"Reform", "strengthen" -- it all means one thing: fuck with. Kinda like that sleight of hand bullshit where the much touted SS cost of living increase was in fact offset by an increase in seniors' Medicare cost.

I spit on their bullshit "reform" --

[patrice]

116. So, you're all okay with Risk Managers deciding what kind of care is available from "health" "care"

resources that receive CMS payments?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

122. The only "reform" I am OK with is a move to single payer.

End of story.

[patrice]

124. How do you think that could happen? Process-wise, what would happen that would

result in Single Payer?

Please tell us something about H*O*W, in terms of the processes involved, that might happen.

[patrice]

125. Have your read HR 676 Expanded & Improved Medicare for All yet?

[FarLeftFist]

27. Exactly. How about working with Sanders on reform instead.

Personally I don't think Obama is even going to touch them.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. He already did.

Social Security. My Mom is one it, so I know this one intimately.

No cost of living increase for two years, even though one is required. Now there will be an "increase" but one that is offset by extra Medicare costs.

He's already fucking touched it.

[nanabugg]

61. Well, then go ahead and let the GOP do it by themselves by voting for the GOP candidate. (sarc)

Sometimes I wonder who is on our side? Do we, Dems, even have a side?

[arcane1]

62. What does that even mean?

Did you bother to read my post? I don't want him helping the repubs, so that means I should vote for them??

[SammyWinstonJack]

92. I wonder whose side Obama is on?

His entitlement reforms are bullshit!

His health insurance reform is bullshit!

No public option is bullshit!

And his bi-partisanship with repugs - more bullshit!

[patrice]

117. Agree with part of this & I will add: Repukes fight reform because it can be directed at

things such as preferred vendor contracts (and that includes staffing vendors), administrative costs in general, including some fancy expense accounts supported at least indirectly by CMS, and salaries for persons who do little or nothing for, and in some cases even impede, direct care, which persons are quite likely to be Republican contributors, so of course Republicans are against reform.

Reform could also include something the nurses in my family hope to see: Inclusion of valid, accountable, alternative forms of therapy, an area that could provide some serious pharma costs relief, not to mention its auxiliary costs such as the necessity of periodically hospitalizing people who are taking many different kinds of medications, simply to deal with the side effects of all of those medications (as my and many other families can probably tell you all about).

[gratuitous]

5. Uh oh, Bernie

Time to go under the bus for noticing stuff.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. OBAMA BAD, BAD, BAD!! HE GON' PUT BERNIE "UNDER THE BUS!"

[gratuitous]

24. I didn't say Obama was going to do it

But it suits some people to think that's what's been said. More high fives for the Defenders of the Faith! Well done.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. That's a tired ass line that gets uttered around here. The Obama Bad meme is prominent

but thankfully isn't the majority opinion.

[gratuitous]

53. But even tireder and assier

Is the conflation of any criticism into something else that is unwarranted, unfair, and more properly belongs to someone else. Cf. the current nonsense that "Obama never said the Iraq war made us safer and more respected!" No, Obama said the veterans coming home from the Iraq war made us safer and more respected. I don't quite get what the difference is, but okay, he didn't specifically say the Iraq war made the country safer and more respected; the veterans coming home from that blunder did. In some unvoiced manner that had nothing to do with prosecuting the Iraq war.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. Nah, people don't stifle criticism. They stifle IDIOCY!!!

[patrice]

118. Could be that he was saying TTE "Despite the outcome of the Iraq situation, our military has

demonstrated ((even with one of the most fucked-up war plans fucking ever)) that they have so comported themselves with strength and commitment that the world cannot help but be aware of their excellence."

I DISAGREE WITH some significant aspects of such an assessment, but I am a veteran and there are lots of military, some still active and in harms way, in my family, so I understand a little bit about their culture, which IS DIFFERENT from mine/ours in intrinsic ways.

[FredStembottom]

107. 1) Mis-state what the poster said.

2) Mock the mis-statement in an embarrassing and childish manner.

3) Conflate the whole thing with a massive plot that doesn't exist and that no one is proposing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

108. Childish? Embarrassing? That's rich. Kettle, meet black!!

[FarLeftFist]

29. How about we put off the whole "under the bus" stuff until he is actually put there?

[gratuitous]

35. Oh, but of course!

After all, it's the established pattern and practice. "Don't worry about that until it actually happens." "Oh, you pony-loving hippies! Always on about stuff that hasn't happened." Then, when it does, the full condescension can be deployed, "Well, why didn't say something sooner? It's too late now." "Well of course such-and-such happened! It's nobody's fault but your own that you didn't pick up on what was said leading up to this."

Even the Republicans aren't stupid enough to mess with current beneficiaries, but monkeying with future benefits just seems too irresistible for opportunists on one side and the cravens on the other. None of them is depending on Social Security to keep them out of poverty.

[stevenleser]

82. With that kind of melodrama, you missed your true calling.

You ought to be in the theatre costaring in Shakespearean tragedies.

[tabatha]

6. I thought Obama said "strengthen" not "reform".

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. He has used "strengthen" in the past --

and that is a code word, in fact one used by a few GOPers.

[RobinA]

105. "Strengthen"

in the absence of actual examples of strengtheners can always be read as code for, as a previous poster mentioned, "f*ck with." It always means strengthen in a monetary sense, not strength in the sense of being better for more people.

[Art_from_Ark]

123. Working with Republicans to "strengthen" Social Security et al

is an exercise in futility, if the intention is to actually make these systems stronger.

[Life Long Dem]

34. Here is what he said.

As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address

[SomethingFishy]

7. I wondered about this comment:

Obama: " I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program."

Now call me crazy but that does not sound like a man that really supported any public health care option. It does not sound like a man who had to compromise because of Republicans, it sounds like a man who thinks that a government run health care program is a bad thing.

Yes I'm still voting for the man, but it's getting tiring having to sort out who he actually is.

[zipplewrath]

12. Yeah I heard that too

Reminded me of the "The era of big government is over" statement by Clinton.

And the example he chose does sound strange for a guy that supposedly worked hard to have a public option.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. well that is where he is coming from - people have to be realistic and honest like Bernie -

Obama is not a right-wing reactionary like the nuts who are running against him. - not at all, not the least bit at all. He is not nearly as far to the right as Bill Clinton was. Not at all. Not the least bit at all. But he is definitely not the European type socialist that Gingrich keeps claiming he is either - nor is he a New Deal/Great Society Democrat either- not at all..Not the least bit at all. He is a thousand times better than the alternative. But it helps to be grounded in the world of reality or else we will all end up deeply disappointed.

[redqueen]

47. Love this post.

Love.

[BadgerKid]

16. "Rely" is the key word

I read this as his being pro-competition in health insurance and education and is giving business an "in".

It's a damn shame since Big Business(TM) puts their profit before people. (Can't figure out why Republicans wouldn't want to keep him around.)

[anAustralianobserver]

63. ! So when you turn 65 suddenly a government program can do better?

No wonder people doubt whether he ever supported a viable public option.

I don't doubt it myself, but doesn't he need to explain/state:


- how and when he changed his mind that a viable public option is ultimately necessary?

- assuming he has changed his mind - why he is trying to gloss over this?

- whether he now thinks Medicare is becoming obsolete?

- whether in the future he would ever consider a public option, Medicare buy-in, or reduction in Medicare eligibility age?

[eridani]

73. He just explained why Democrats got creamed in 2010

They REFUSED to defend GOVERNMENT Medicare as a superior alternative to Medicare Advantage. Therefore they allowed the Repukes to get by with the lie that PPACA cut Medicare, when it only cut subsidies to privatized Medicare.

His refusal to promote government provision of public goods is a messaging disaster.

[tabatha]

81. He was trying to tell the people who call him a socialist

that the health care law is not a govt program.

I got that the minute he said it.

[stevenleser]

83. I know, this was a straightforward guided missile aimed at Repug talking points.

If what got passed is all private, and Repugs are trying to paint it as Socialist, why not tout the fact that it is private and refute their argument? This is an election year after all.

[anAustralianobserver]

87. Yes, but wasn't there news made here that he now thinks that a government plan option

Last edited Thu Jan 26, 2012, 06:47 AM - Edit history (1)

for most people will never be necessary? And if he now believes that a public plan option is not necessary for under 65s, how can he consistently argue that Medicare should be permanent?

If I'm not misreading it, he is admitting here that he has changed his mind. He no longer thinks that a government plan should ultimately be available to everyone. He now thinks that government regulation of private plans can be better for most people. ?

[limpyhobbler]

101. Yes and I do recall that during the health care debate, when under pressure from the left to keep

fighting for a public option, one excuse that was used in order to get the left to shut up, was that we could come back and try again for a public option later, in the near future. Of course the GOP takeover of the House in 2010 changed that, but I'm getting the impression from President Obama that no matter what the composition of the Congress, the hope for a public option is dead.

[anAustralianobserver]

119. That's what I thought. I guess people like Adam Green will draw attention to this.

Another thing I'm curious about is the Dem party leadership's position on state-by-state public option plan introductions. I thought the new federal law will allow states to opt out of the mandate and introduce their own public plans?

[SomethingFishy]

110. I see.. so he said this to prove to Republicans

That he's not a socialist.

So what is he telling me? That I'm being "mandated" to pay inflated prices and a sickening level of "deductible" to an insurance company who's aim is to provide me with the least amount of care possible for the most money they can get from me so he can prove to Republicans that he's not a fucking socialist?

Now that is some brilliant strategy. Fuck me over so he can prove he's not a socialist. Great.

[stevenleser]

120. No. He's not talking to Republicans. He is not saying what you are suggesting at all.

Read what I said again.

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. "reformed private market" Who does he thinks he's kidding here"

And he dissed Medicare by that statement.

Also puts his desire to reform Medicare and Medicaid into perspective.

What regulations that don't work is he talking about?

That sounds republican too me.

[fascisthunter]

97. He's definitely not liberal nor progressive

[proverbialwisdom]

8. Senator Sanders is fiercely protective of the social safety net and his comments are welcomed.

Don't take them out of context. On this issue, I trust no one more.

[ProSense]

11. There

was an earlier post about the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare's response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002219121

My response, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002219121#post1

Cutting costs should be clearly defined as reducing waste in the system and other savings unrelated to benefits.

It's good to have Bernie Sanders being very vocal about his opposition. Still, it's unlikely that the President has cuts to benefits in mind because he has always stressed that he will protect benefits and that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit. Whenever he has talked about cuts, it's to abuse, fraud and waste.

I aslo agree with the NCPSSM:

Our President/CEO, Max Richtman responded:

“We share President Obama’s belief that we must rebuild our economy in a way that rewards Americans’ hard work and re-instills fairness into an economic system that too often rewards the rich and punishes everyone else. Ironically, these core American values of hard work, fairness and compassion are also the tenets of the programs most often targeted by Washington for cuts—Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. If offering more reforms leads to benefit cuts for seniors in these vital programs then seniors program will once again become a bargaining chip traded in exchange for tax breaks millionaires don’t need in the first place.

The President’s support for providing a middle class tax cut to help spur the economy is the right policy, but reducing Social Security payroll taxes is the wrong way to do it. Extending the payroll tax cut further endangers Social Security’s financial integrity and could undermine our efforts to defend the program from benefit cuts or privatization. If seniors are required to pay for the payroll tax holiday — which most would not benefit from – through Medicare cuts as some lawmakers have suggested, that would also be contrary to the President’s stated goals of fairness.

We urge President Obama to safeguard the middle-class by drawing a clear line in the sand, promising the American people that this so-called ‘holiday’ will end this year. Restoring Social Security’s successful self-funding model is the only way to preserve its independence for future generations.” Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

Good health-care related point from the NCPSSM:

Just a reminder: according to the Social Security Trustees the Social Security Trust fund currently has a surplus of $2.6 trillion. This surplus is projected to grow until 2022. At that time the balance in the trust funds are projected to be $3.7 trillion. The skyrocketing costs of healthcare system wide have posed a greater threat to Medicare; however, healthcare reform added years of solvency to the program. While there’s more work to be done conservatives are now working to undo the progress already made by repealing the Affordable Care Act and reversing the savings already seen in Medicare.

[zipplewrath]

15. His appointees to the Simpson Boyles committee give one pause

Everyone is worried because of who he appointed, and things they said. Alternately, he never acted upon their "nonrecommendation". He offered vague "reforms" as part of the debt ceiling debate, but since the GOP wouldn't even really discuss tax increases, he never had to explain what reforms he was willing to agree. I'm dubious that this year he's willing to do much at all that would even smell of cuts.

I have the same reservations as Sen. Sanders. Alternately, for all the predictions, Obama has yet to really act on any of the "big 3".

[ProSense]

17. Actually,

" His appointees to the Simpson Boyles committee give one pause"

...that doesn't phase me. The committee failed.

I doubt Obama is going to touch Social Security benefits, and that's based on his past statements. Yeah, some of them are vague, but others are very specific.

[zipplewrath]

21. So was his insistence on a public option

He was also going to veto NDAA.

He is very good at nuanced language intended to make people feel good about him.

He'll cut whatever deal he feels gives him the best outcome, and he HAS said that, and done that before.

And he's callled people sanctimonious for disagreeing with his deals.

[ProSense]

23. Hey

So was his insistence on a public option

He was also going to veto NDAA.

He is very good at nuanced language intended to make people feel good about him.

He'll cut whatever deal he feels gives him the best outcome, and he HAS said that, and done that before.

And he's callled people sanctimonious for disagreeing with his deals.

...want me to list the stuff he has done, which includes making progress on health care

A Step Forward on Health Care
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=20BD0B94-8A65-45D9-938A-B87BBECAC4C2

What he knows how to do well is get stuff done: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=209077

[zipplewrath]

41. No

I want you to list the things he said he do, and didn't.
Even more so I want you to list the things he said he wouldn't do, and did.
Then we can talk about the things he led people to believe he said with his highly nuanced language that you admire so, and then did the exact opposite.

You can start with how he made fun of mandates on the campaign trail.
Then you can move on to his insistence on the public option in two different speeches to congress.

Just as it is a bit unfair to accuse him of being ready to do things that he has not said he will do, it is important to remember that one cannot count on him deciding to do things he has said he won't do. He'll cut whatever deal he believes accomplishes the most.

[ProSense]

48. Why

"I want you to list the things he said he do, and didn't."

...you seem to have that list committed to memory.

Even more so I want you to list the things he said he wouldn't do, and did.
Then we can talk about the things he led people to believe he said with his highly nuanced language that you admire so, and then did the exact opposite.

...I guess, if you're going to follow politicians and politics, it would be best to learn why nuance is necessary, why reality sometimes gets in the way and why it's important to move on and keep fighting.

Examples: When Weiner pulled his single payer bill, he was attacked. When Kucinich voted for health care, he was attacked. When Sanders said there were not enough votes for single payer, he was attacked.

The health care bill is now funding a path to single payer/government-run health care for Vermont and other states.

That doesn't mean giving up the push to strengthen the law. In fact, the push should included moving up the waiver date.

Just as it is a bit unfair to accuse him of being ready to do things that he has not said he will do, it is important to remember that one cannot count on him deciding to do things he has said he won't do. He'll cut whatever deal he believes accomplishes the most.

It's important to remember that that campaign promises are also influenced by the reality of the moment, also meaning there are other players.

[zipplewrath]

51. Because it supports the point

Suggesting you know what Obama will and won't do based upon his public statements is as wrong as anyone who suggests they know what he will do when he hasn't asserted it yet. As your post amply explains, you have given him more reasons than he needs to do what he said he won't, and to NOT do what he said he would. What he says is relatively meaningless, other than as a starting point for the negotiations.

[ProSense]

55. Great

Because it supports the point

Suggesting you know what Obama will and won't do based upon his public statements is as wrong as anyone who suggests they know what he will do when he hasn't asserted it yet. As your post amply explains, you have given him more reasons than he needs to do what he said he won't, and to NOT do what he said he would. What he says is relatively meaningless, other than as a starting point for the negotiations.

...everyone is wrong. Here's the deal, he's going to win some, lose some and compromise on some. He gets to decide. Not everyone is going to agree with his decisions, but he does get to decide. Sometimes pressure can be brought to bear to influence his decisions, and that has been the case on a couple of recent issues.

[FarLeftFist]

31. He couldn't veto NDAA it was veto-proof.

Also, we talk about the NDAA and everyone's right to a fair trial yet you are already convinced he's guilty before any "crime" has been done. That seems a bit hypocritical.

[zipplewrath]

39. I checked the constitution

No one can prevent him from vetoing anything. They can merely override his veto.

But the discussion was basically about how much one can rely upon his statements about what he will, and will not do. His statements can be very nuanced, and even when they are not, he reserves the right to significantly "change his mind".

[Major Hogwash]

54. Evidently you don't know what compromise is.

Last edited Thu Jan 26, 2012, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

President Obama told Congress he would veto the version they had -- so they changed it -- so he signed it.

See, that's how the frickin' federal government is supposed to work!!!

[zipplewrath]

115. What's the difference between compromise and capitulation?

He said he wouldn't sign it. Then he changed his mind. Then he said he didn't agree with it.

I'm not sure what to call that.

[cstanleytech]

66. I think theymeant veto proof as in a veto would have done more harm than good

because the bill itself had enough votes to pass again and it wouldnt have accomplished much except to give the republicans ammo to use against the president in an election year.
Hopefully it can all be readdressed next year assuming Obama gets a 2nd term and if we can get rid of the republicans in washington who have been actively working against the american people since Obama was sworn in.

[stevenleser]

84. All of that is right and there is still more that would have made the veto worse...

everytime a President has a veto overridden, it makes the next time easier. The President's veto becomes less and less powerful and less and less of an obstacle each time. Governor Ventura illustrates what happens when an executive has vetoes overridden. He had 3 of 45 overridden his first year in office and by his last year, he had 6 of 9 overridden.

[limpyhobbler]

102. With 283 votes in the House, NDAA was not veto proof.

290 would be veto proof. There were 14 not voting, so depending how those 14 divided, that would have determined the outcome as far as overriding a veto, assuming nobody else switched sides or was absent.

It was certainly no sure thing that it was veto-proof.

just FYI.

[suffragette]

127. Actually, Obama has directly linked Social Security to the deficit

You stated:
Still, it's unlikely that the President has cuts to benefits in mind because he has always stressed that he will protect benefits and that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit.

Yet here (I have bolded the sentences for ease of viewing):

June 27, 2010
Remarks by President Obama at G-20 Press Conference in Toronto, Canada

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-g-20-press-conference-toronto-canada
And we have set up this fiscal commission who will provide reports starting in November -- and one of the encouraging things, although there was resistance, ironically, on the part of some of the Republicans who originally had been co-sponsors of legislation to create the fiscal commission and they, in fact, ended up voting against it -- what’s been encouraging, based on what I’m hearing both from Democrats and Republicans, is that there’s been a serious conversation there. People are looking at a whole spectrum of issues to get at what is basically a structural deficit that preceded this financial crisis.

Even if -- the financial crisis made it much worse, but even if we had not gone through this financial crisis, we’d still have to be dealing with these long-term deficit problems. They have to do with Medicaid; they have to do with Medicare; they have to do with Social Security. They have to do with a series of structural problems that are not unique to America. Some of it has to do with an aging population. And we’ve got to look at a tax system that is messy and unfair in a whole range of ways.

[TBF]

14. This has been an issue since Mr. Obama's first SOTU

Here is the journal I wrote awhile ago about the DLC attack on social security: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9709855 (some of my links may no longer work but these sources can be traced).

In the first State of the Union address I got chills when President Obama stated that we need to "have a conversation" about Social Security:

"To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans."

Found a new source for this quote because it is critical - http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/02/25/president-obamas-address-to-a-joint-session-of-congress?page=7

The 1% (Wall Street) want Social Security - specifically they want it privatized so they make the transaction fees. It's a bad idea but you'll find them hawking it on both sides of the aisle.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. "It's a bad idea but you'll find them hawking it on both sides of the aisle."

I have never been more disgusted than when I first heard DEMOCRATS using that language. "Reform", "strengthen" -- bullshit words for "We want to privatize SS because our Overlords want their filthy mitts on it and we always give'm what they want."

[TBF]

49. This one is driven by money - no doubt about it. nt

[dionysus]

18. i see we're back to the "he's gonna kill SS!1!!" line... been a few months...

[great white snark]

20. But it's so effective.

And easy.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Damn that Bernie Sanders!

He's an evil Obama basher!!1!!11!!1 (one)!!11!

[dionysus]

29. nope. he isn't. the people using his statement as another excuse to hop on the Breathless Anger

Train of Conspiracy (tm) sure are.


try harder.

[bvar22]

32. and he is a Right Wing Troll

....and a "Paulite" because he agrees with Ron Paul on the War on Terror, the NCAA, Civil Liberties, and failed Marijuana Wars.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[dionysus]

52. that *is* an impressive strawman you just burned down...

[Scurrilous]

33. Cat Food.

It's back on the table!!1!

[dionysus]

40. mixed with water and peas no doubt!1!1

[99Forever]

22. Bernie Sanders is an honest voice.

One of the very few Washington DC that you can actually trust when he says something. No slippery verbiage or skirting his real meanings. No head fakes or promises that aren't actually promises at all. No bait and switch.

[gkhouston]

38. +1. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

25. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[bvar22]

28. Thank You, Senator Sanders, for keeping it REAL.

I get nervous every time our President promises to Work with Republicans.

During Campaign 2008, Candidate Obama promised that he would INCREASE revenue to Social Security/Medicare
by "Raising the CAP" on FICA contributions.
Whatever happened to THAT?

BTW: I refuse to use the Frank Luntz-seque Republican framing of calling "FICA Contributions" the "Payroll Tax".




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. You have every reason to be worried.

Such "work" got us an extension of the Bush tax cuts and an increase in Medicare costs disguised as a cost of living increase to SS (or vice a versa).

As to raising the cap on FICA -- apparently that was a figment of our imagination, much like a public option.

[bvar22]

45. I wish President Obama would "work" with the Progressive Caucus,

...but all they get is shaming lectures and ridicule from the White House admonishing them to
"Stop Complaining" and "Put on your Boots" and help him work with Republicans.

Thats the problem I have with "Centrists".
They agree with Republicans too damn much.



[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[A Simple Game]

64. And while he is ridiculing the Progressive Caucus,

he is sucking up to the smaller but more vocal Tea Party Caucus.

[SammyWinstonJack]

98. So he promised something that would actually strengthen Social Security but once elected, he does

the opposite with his payroll tax holiday. Good job Mr President!

[Matariki]

37. Yeah, that part of the SOTU had me worried too.

Either it was coded language for future plans, or it was coded language simply to help the "wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes" medicine go down.

[deacon]

46. It was not about "cracking a code" he said he was concerned about what would come of it and if

certain things were proposed he would oppose those things. Stop with the drama queen stuff.

[krawhitham]

50. What a load of bullshit

A lot of money can be saved by cutting fat and reorigination without a single cut to benefits

But this is DU and we always think the worst of Obama until he proves different

[Bodhi BloodWave]

57. And even then there will be a section that refuses to let it go

and starts their "I know he will make evil bad caving cuts, he will prove me right, i just KNOW it, i KNOW it do you hear me" spiel

[leeroysphitz]

58. If Senator Sanders says he smells a rat then there is a rat. n/t

[dionysus]

60. except he didn't say anything like that.. but you go ahead and be suspicious if it cheers you

[cstanleytech]

65. Some of you do realize though that not "all" reform is bad?

I mean sure we should make sure there are no cuts to basic services, access to medications and doctors but with a program the size it is does anyone here really believe that there isnt some wasteful spending going on throughout most if not all areas of the government? Its the government after all and if they can waste as much money on "defense" like they have been its not out of the realm of possibility that they are doing the same in other areas.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

70. Want reform? Not one more nickel should be borrowed from the SS trust fund for so-called "defense."

Start with that.

That is a perfect example of wasteful spending. The MIC has already made enough money.

[cstanleytech]

75. Agreed and I am glad to see you agree we should do some reform as well.

Hopefully more people will realize that we could do with some reform all over and not react with the usual no thought involved knee jerk "No" thats been so typical from both sides when it comes to their sacred cows they cherish.

[just1voice]

109. "Sacred cows" like Social Security?

Imagine if you paid for a house over 30 years with years of payments then after you own it someone comes along and tries to take it from you calling it your "sacred cow"?

That language is misleading and insulting and designed to defraud. Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are not "sacred cows", they are programs the citizens of the United States have paid into for their future and society's future overall. It's call "civilization" not a "sacred cow".

[cstanleytech]

121. No, sacred cows like Defense spending.

[sabrina 1]

85. Not nearly as much waste as there is in the Private HC Industry. How about we talk

about that? How about reducing the profit line, which is still around 20%. Why do we need these middlemen when the Government is capable of running these programs with a 3% overhead? Even with waste, it's still cheaper and more still goes to the actual HC costs and to the elderly and the poor.

HC should NEVER be controlled by profit-making private Corporations. In every other civilized nation HC is a human right. But with the DLC wing of the Party fully on board with the privatization of everything, we have only half a party actually working for the people.

Time to remove these right of center from the Dem Party. There is a party better suited for them. The Heritage Foundation and its ideas are not Progressive ideas and never were.

[cstanleytech]

90. Agree there as well.

[Raine]

68. THANKFULLY at least one office holder can read between the lines

and recognizes carefully coded words when they hear it ... THANK YOU Bernie!!!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. The Republican obstructionists did not appoint the members of the Cat-Food Commission.

[cthulu2016]

71. It wasn't coded at all

I watched the speech, saw the president promise to piss off his party and cut entitlements if republicans would increase taxes.

I took it as just political hi-jinks since republicans won't raise taxes.

But it was pretty overt, not coded.

He promised to do *something* to entitlements that Democrats would not like.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Don't worry. Obama will veto any cuts to entitlements. Just like he vetoed the NDAA.

Welll...sorta...maybe...never mind.

[OnyxCollie]

80. Remember when he filibustered the FISA amendments?

Neither do I.

Uh oh, it's off to reeducation I go.

[fascisthunter]

95. Nope.... can't say that I have eoither

Me thinks cuts to programs will not be effecting any of them.

[OnyxCollie]

100. And that's too bad.

'cause this pretzel logic has twisted me into a Mobius strip, and the President still looks like a corporate sell-out.

[JoePhilly]

74. This is IT .... Obama is NOW going to kill SS!!!!!!

After 3 plus YEARS of monthly DU claims that Obama was absolutely, positively, going to kill SS ... FINALLY, he's going to do it in an election years.

Yea ... that's what he is doing!!!

::rofl;

[CakeGrrl]

77. And he didn't challenge...WHY?

If the President is so intent on destroying America's social fabric, why is Sanders just shouting from the sidelines?

[burrowowl]

79. Right on Bernie!

[loyalsister]

86. There will various analyses

Plenty of valid if hysterical interpretations. My problem is it was a great opportunity for Sanders to build up, and argue in favor of the ideas he agreed with. He's a politician he knows how to deflect and brought the conversation back around to the ideas he agrees with. The is a time and place for his "ugly truth" interpretations. Doing it so publicly is not helpful during an election year.

[SidDithers]

93. And what Obama really said was...

Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.

Sid

[fascisthunter]

94. Here's another Rec

Thankfully somebody has our back. Obamabots? Not so much... just saying.

[T S Justly]

99. K&R (nt)

[patrice]

111. K&R