Why are republicans targeting SSDI benefits and not SS benefits too?

[merrily]

112. Hmm. Perhaps you are thinking of traditional Democrats, rather than New Democrats.

The Democratic Party has always had its conservative wing, but, officially, we've only had two New Democrat Presidents. (I use "New Democrat Presidents" only because that is how they have chosen to use the term, as in the "New Democrat Senate Caucus" being the official name of that caucus.)

Bill Clinton: he and members of his White House not only ended "welfare as we know it," but bragged/crowed about so doing. NAFTA. Lobbied Democrats in Congress for repeal of Glass Steagall, etc.

During the Obama administration, not realizing he could be heard, Clinton offered to help Ryan get Democratic votes for "reform." http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/bill-clinton-to-paul-ryan-on-medicare-election-give-me-a-call/

Barack Obama was not only the first Democratic President to refer to other social programs as "entitlements," but he and his White House, many of whom also "served" under Clinton, put a fair amount of effort into cutting them.

Obama went back and forth about Social Security while campaigning in 2008, saying things on both sides of the issue. However, as time for his inauguration approached, he was talking about what later came to be called a "grand bargain."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html

The first budget he sent to Capitol Hill provided for cuts to home heating fuel subsidies for the needy. (Goolsbee tried to defend that on the Daily Show by citing decreases in the price of oil. Stewart pointed out that the decreases were in the price of crude; the costs of home heating fuel had risen. Goolsbee practically shrieked, "You people are so well-informed." (Note: Not: "Really? I didn't know that.&quot

But for people at the Daily Show having done their homework, Goolsbee would have gotten with snowing viewers.

Obama's White House floated chained CPI, which, when asked by reporters, Pelosi said was not a cut to OASDI, though it has the same economic effect as a cut.

Before the final vote passing Obamacare (by reconciliation, btw-little-mentioned fact), he appointed what came to be known as the "Cat Food" Commission. (Paul Ryan's appointment that commission was the first many had heard of one Paul Ryan.)

While in talks with Republicans, according to John Conyers, it was "Obama, not Boehner, not Cantor," who put cuts to Social Security and Medicare on the table.

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

After people did not act on the recommendations of that commission, the White House appointed the possibly unconstitutional "Super Committee," charged with reaching a "grand bargain" that Congress would have no power to veto. His White House also proposed the sequester, to fail safe in case the grand bargain was not reached.

By then, among other things: (1) media was finally mentioning the OWS movement and the term "99" was gaining common currency (no pun intended); and (2) Obama was in full re-election mode, as were most members of the House and a fair number of Senators . Neither of those things were conducive to Democrats continuing to emphasize "entitlement reform."

It is no coincidence that economic inequality has been increasing faster than ever before in the years after official formation of the DLC, which brought New Democrat policies to the fore within the Party, or that the current economic recovery has helped Wall Street a lot more than it has helped Main Street.




Do differences exist? Yes. And the claim or implication that most Democrats like me are saying there is no difference at all is false, plain and simple. But, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. It's a mystery to me why people who have no economic interest in New Democrat policies seem so eager to show up traditional Democrats who are demanding that New Democrats need to step up the differences between them and Republicans.

Right now, it is still not politically safe for Democratic politicians to say certain things. And every candidate has to get the votes of his or her base if he or she wants election or re-election. And that reality is in great part due to presence within the party of traditional Democrats, who are getting more and more disgusted with New Democrat policies.
But, look around and listen. New Democrat policies are getting defended left and right by people who either are actually, or are pretending to be, simply "rank and file" Democrats.

The strongest differences are on so-called cultural issues--and even some of those are not as strong as they once were. Let's not forget: the Missouri moron who talked about "real rape" once debated a male Democratic opponent who ran on no abortion absent rape or incest. However, Obama did ultimately "evolve" all the way back to his 1994 position for equal marriage as he contemplated his re-election campaign. (Whether that was more or less forced by HRC and the fact that one in 8 bundlers for the Democratic Party is gay is up for grabs. What is certain is that, IMO, the position that a President takes is influential and I am glad Obama took the position he did.)

As for the economic differences, yes, there are also some of those, but they are nowhere near as dramatic as some claim. And, if and when the traditional base finally shuts up and sits down, you can bet the economic differences will get less dramatic.