To prevent a "December Surprise" raise hell NOW!

[eridani]

If Dems campaign on defending Social Security and Medicare and win, and then at the end of the year cut these programs on the grounds that the cuts won't be as bad as Ryan's, 2014 is going to make 2010 look like a major Democratic victory.

http://www.nationofchange.org/happy-birthday-social-security-now-about-your-gift-1344958166

Why has this radical-right consensus formed in elite Washington circles? We don't know for sure, but all that "billionaire funded" activity couldn't have hurt. Which gets us to another lump of coal Social Security might be getting in its Christmas stocking this year:

Political "defenders" who'd rather switch than fight. Social Security is one of the Democratic Party's signature accomplishments. After the Republicans' 2005 attempt to privatize it, voters trusted Democrats by a margin of 30 percent (50 percent to the GOP's 20 percent) to manage it well.

But the White House has made a number of misguided attempts to score political points inside the Beltway by forcing an unnecessary "deficit reduction" deal along the lines of the one proposed in the "Simpson Bowles" plan proposed by the co-chairs of a failed Presidential Deficit Commission. By 2011, when the last conclusive polling was done, that lead had disappeared and the Republicans were more trusted than Democrats to protect the program

<snip>

Now they're still working on a December surprise to cut the program. Even Nancy Pelosi's gotten into the act, saying that "If (another bill) were Simpson/Bowles I would have voted for it ... (and) thought it was not even a controversial thing ..."

How's that for trading away one of your party's strongest political arguments? The Democrats' seeming urge to trade away this vital program casts a dark shadow of our birthday celebrant's future.

A "December surprise" that cuts Social Security at Christmastime? That would give the Grinch and Ebenezer Scrooge a run for their money.

[silvershadow]

1. I couldn't agree more. nt

[cali]

2. well,

frankly, I'll focus on that if need be after November 3. Because rMoney/Ryayn are the imminent and far worse threat. I depend on Medicaid. Without I'm fucked six ways from Sunday as I have a chronic, painful, neuro-vascular condition as the result of an accident I had last year. Self-interest? Of course, but I don't think I'd make it without Medicaid.

[eridani]

4. If you depend on Medicaid, you can't afford a "December Surprise"

Naturally we have to fight the mass murderers R&R, but slower death is NOT an acceptable alternative

[cali]

7. you have to prioritize. you just do. What I totally can't afford is rMoney/ryan.

that you don't grasp something so simple and so fundamental is sad.

Let me be crystal clear: I have no use whatsoever for dumping on Obama until after the election- which hopefully he'll win. Then, I'll gladly climb back aboard, because lord knows there's plenty to criticize him for. Until then. Count. Me. Out.

[sabrina 1]

33. Why would letting Democrats know that we are concerned about this talk

BEFORE it's too late, interfere with stopping Romney/Ryan? We can do both.

Assuming Democrats are on our side, letting them know we are aware of this talk and want a clear statement NOW should simply get the desired response. Which would be a clear statement that they, in no way, have any intentions of doing this in December and that it is a complete lie. It's really very simple.

It's the kind of thing you do if someone tells you a friend is going to do something foolish. You don't wait to see if it's true or not, you ask your friend about it. If it's not true, s/he will say so. But if it is, then you have a chance to try to dissuade them from making a very bad decision.

There is no plus side to NOT getting clarification on this right now. It should be easily dispensed with if there's no truth to it.

[woo me with science]

55. Nonsense. How on earth is making specific our candidate's defense of these programs

"dumping on Obama"?....unless you believe that Obama will back these cuts and you fear his being asked about that.

[JNelson6563]

3. Sorry, too busy working campaigns now

Between my paying job and my volunteer work for local Dems I will leave the screaming about things on the tubes that *might* happen to keyboard commandos that have little to do in the first place.

Enjoy!

Julie--grateful some have the internet to play with as it keeps them out from underfoot

[eridani]

5. Thanks ever so much for the Simpson-Bowles cheerleading n/t

[JNelson6563]

25. lolz

[jerseyjack]

20. Dem leadership has already expressed willingness to compromise.

Problem is that Repubs are only willing to compromise on what they are willing to take. They are not willing to give.

Dems have expressed willingness to give up a few things in order to avoid giving up more.

:. We lose.

You can't ignore this stuff now and plan to play catch-up later.

[mmonk]

6. Those of us that protest will.

The 99% will not sit it out.

[cali]

8. Raising Hell on Obama now as opposed to working to defeat rMoney/ryan

is counterproductive, and no, of course you can't do both. If you raise hell about Obama screaming to the rooftops about how he'll kill/cut Social Security and Medicare you obscure the gulf between the two candidates, the two vp candidates and the parties. Now maybe you can afford what will come with romney. People like me can't.

[joshcryer]

13. It would be useful if there was something to raise hell about.

As far as I see it it's much to do about nothing. A Dec vote on the budget (and any sort of reductions) just isn't necessary. Even if the House brings it up the Dems have no need to vote for it, particularly if we win back the House. We can just point and laugh about how they voted for the continuing resolution to keep the government running until March of next year. :rofly:

[sabrina 1]

35. Lol!

And then, when it happens and 'naive' dems get upset, we will from you that 'this was mentioned during the campaign. You all just weren't listening and only heard what you wanted to hear'.

I love the irony.

[joshcryer]

61. It's highly unlikely to happen.

I mean you are already in the other thread where Biden says that they won't touch Social Security tooting your own horn acting as if you and the others were the ones who made that their position or something.

[mmonk]

18. I'm not an either or person. I'm awake.

I'm not raising hell at an individual.

[progressivebydesign]

40. I'm seeing a ton of that today. I've been here a while and know EXACTLY what they're doing. n/t

[woo me with science]

56. Absolute nonsense to characterize demanding specifics as

raising hell "on Obama." These programs are popular across party lines. We HELP Obama by demanding that the stand be specific.

Specifics can only help our party...if our party is truly serious about defending these programs.

[joshcryer]

64. Obama's SPECIFIC proposal is RAISING THE CAP.

FACT.

[woo me with science]

66. GOOD!

Now let's ALSO be clear that he will not repeat last year's support of a chained CPI, increases in eligibility ages, or any other cuts from the Grand Bargain.

Raising the cap is EXCELLENT. Let's all be clear that the Democrats will protect these programs IN EVERY WAY.

[joshcryer]

68. His hands were tied last year and he wanted stuff to get done.

I don't blame him for putting in all the possibilities. I pity him more than anything because he actually thought Congress would work with him.

Let's untie his hands, why don't we?

Let's not bash the Democrats and make them out to be no different from right wingers and throw out paranoid conspiracies that they're the ones who are going to usher in austerity for us all.

I think Obama has learned his lesson about putting everything on the table because he's certainly distanced himself from it. edit: but I don't think he's gone into partisan mode nor do I think he will.

[woo me with science]

70. When demanding clear policy positions is perceived as "bashing,"

we have entered a sick period in our politics. Millions of seniors depend on these safety nets to survive from day to day. It is beyond insulting to suggest that they do not deserve clear answers to these questions during an election year, after they witnessed these very same policies used as bargaining chips last year.

Real Democrats defend social safety nets, period.

They don't put them on the table.

[joshcryer]

73. Obama's positions are clear!

You're reading policy wonks and not actually looking at his positions!

All of these fucking shitty quotes are during legislative negotiations.

People forget there was a budget crisis.

People forget that Obama's budget was shot down across the board (the Congress was held hostage by the teabaggers that we allowed to get elected).

So what does Obama do? Stand around and suck his thumb and say "Well fuck you Congress, nothing gets done, let's collapse the government!"?

No, he goes, "Welp, I even said I wasn't going to do this, but let's make a commission on the deficit." Yep, and what happened then? Obama got shit on all over DU for making a commission because of a quote during the 2008 campaign he said he wouldn't do that. I mean, the term "catfood commission" actually got thrown out here!

Then, in a wonderful, brilliant display of genius, somehow, fucking amazingly, the Democrats get a continuing resolution on the budget to put all of this shit off until March 2013. No need to discuss the budget at all during the elections.

In all of that Obama's willingness to negotiate and willingness to get things done because him being the "great capitulator."

Well you know what? If people can't grasp politics why do I even fucking try?

[woo me with science]

77. Obviously they aren't.

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:39 AM - Edit history (16)

In the history of the Democratic Party, it was not necessary to pretend that these programs are in any way negotiable or a bargaining chip.

To put seniors in that position is not just a betrayal of them; it is a craven capitulation to right-wing talking points. It is a public signal that you no longer consider these programs a sacrosanct commitment by the Democratic Party to the most vulnerable among us. It is a move to the right, an admission that you agree with Republicans that Social Security and Medicare are just like any other measly policy position that can be bargained away.

It is a dilution and a corruption of the Democratic message to the people, and a cheapening of what our party stands for. Now more than ever, we need a Democratic Party that stands for something.

And these protestations that they *must* go on the table for politics' sake are particularly limp, given the strong support for defending these programs across the country and, the polls even show, across party lines.

They do not belong on the table, period. And if we make that clear, and President Obama makes it clear that he will not put them there, it can only help him in this election.

By the way, I appreciate your refreshing honesty here in admitting you think the programs need to be available to put on the table for negotiations' sake. Until now, I had heard only vehement denials that they would be put on the table, paired with inexplicably desperate demands that none of us ask the President to confirm this specifically. Thank you for making clear the reason for the defensiveness on this point: that all that insistence that they *won't* be on the table is not something anyone should really believe at all.

IMNSHO you could not be more desperately wrong about this. A nation weary and cynical from being impoverished and stripped of its resources for the future is not hungry for more political machinations and tricky bargaining chips. We are hungry to know, clearly, strongly, and specifically, that Democrats will stand for us and defend our meager safety nets unconditionally.

[joshcryer]

80. I do *NOT* "think the programs need to be available."

That is what Obama thinks.

That does not mean that Obama is for cutting those programs as his policy proposals are clear.

This rhetoric is just more baseless slandering against Obama.

[woo me with science]

81. "That is what Obama thinks." Then Obama is wrong,

and Democrats need to stand up and tell him so.

Stop with the nonsense about "slandering." You just wrote yourself that Obama believes this.

If he does, and plans to use them as a bargaining chip again, then Democrats are absolutely correct to be raising this as an issue during the campaign.

[joshcryer]

83. Ugh. How does "open to something" equate "advocacy for something"?

It doesn't.

I am open to hearing what Paul Ryan has to say at the debates.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN I ADVOCATE WHAT PAUL RYAN IS SAYING.

[woo me with science]

84. You can't be serious.

Read this again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1140840

[joshcryer]

86. There is no big deal to being open to something.

You think it equates "plans to use them as a bargaining chip" and that we should "be raising this as an issue during the campaign."

I know fully well what you wrote. You still think that being open to something equates policy position advocacy one way or another.

It simply doesn't. The fact that during those deals nothing was accomplished except that it was put off even further proves that there in fact is not even a policy overlap.

I think being open to the other side is bipartisan bullshit because it lets conspiracy theorists and people who can't think clearly have long drawn out conspiracy bullshit arguments, but what can you do.

[woo me with science]

93. And what you are advocating

I would describe in even stronger terms than "bipartisan bullshit." You are advocating dishonesty, clever wording to conceal intentions, and attacks on those who merely want straight answers about what this President will tolerate in terms of attacks on OUR safety nets.....the only things standing between millions of us and desperate poverty, hunger, and homelessness.

How many times have people here been mocked and derided for even *suggesting* that these programs will be on the table again? And yet here you are now acknowledging that they probably will....that the President thinks they need to be.....but that we shouldn't "bash" him by making that intention explicit in any way. We should be quiet, not make the real intentions public, and just trust that everything will turn out okay.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Josh, people are sick to death of clever political maneuvering. They are sick to death of careful, misleading wording and political games and double meanings, while they see their assets and futures being sucked away.

President Obama has *already* endangered Social Security....by forming the Catfood Commission, by selecting known enemies of Social Security for these negotiations, by supporting and continuing the payroll tax cut that ties SS to the deficit, and by repeatedly and vehemently validating Republican framing on this issue.......And by putting cuts on the table last year.

OF COURSE Americans want clear, specific promises that he will not attack these programs in a second term. We deserve that much.

You express outrage that people would ask these questions. My response is, How dare *you* attack fellow Democrats, and Americans across the country, for asking simple questions about this President's positions and expecting clear answers....during an ELECTION YEAR. How dare you twist and smear as a "conspiracy theory" the simple desire for reassurances that nothing like the Grand Bargain will ever be put on the table again.

[joshcryer]

94. Obama is going to be handedly reelected.

And there will be no Dec. surprise.

And there will be no austerity.

My outrage is only focused on those ignorant people on the left who let the right wing drive the narrative because of bullshit politics.

No politician is honest or is straightforward and clear on issues.

But some politicians are downright evil.

It's better to look through the deceit and figure out which side is evil than it is to worry about stupid political maneuvering that from one moment to the next is irrelevant. Really, your whole "Catfood Commission" became a political maneuver to extend funding for the Federal Government until March of 2013. All the outrage that politically intelligent people had to endure? Total waste of time.

[woo me with science]

95. There is ALREADY austerity coming down the pike,

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 05:33 AM - Edit history (3)

approved by Obama, thanks to this approach.

The debt ceiling negotiations last spring were a travesty. Obama echoed Republican framing of the problem, *started out* on the right, and moved rightward. The outcome was an agreement for over a TRILLION in new cuts in an already starved economy, and all the discussion after that was about how it could go even higher. This despite the warnings of hundreds of economists. Are you claiming that all that will magically disappear?

That is the outcome of the approach you are defending.

And you need to clean your glasses and look again at just who is *constantly* allowing the right wing to drive the narrative. The liberals sure as hell weren't the ones giving speeches about pea eating.

Good grief, Josh. The entire point of this argument is that Democrats should not allow this despicable right wing framing of Social Security and the deficit. We are in this mess *because* Democrats keep playing the right wing game and allowing us to be pulled rightward....because Democrats have stopped standing up for and proclaiming the core values and principles and policies that we have historically stood for.

And here you are advocating more of it.

"It's better to look through the deceit..." Good god.

[joshcryer]

96. OK, so when the right wing says "Obama cut SS..."

...it's the Democrats fault because, while Obama did not cut SS, he did put it on the table, and therefore the Republican lies are fully justified.

Else, we can go along with the Republicans and say, "Obama put it on the line." And ... the Democrats are the one driving the narrative? I think if you agree with the Republicans on that issue, their blatant lies, then you're being manipulated and letting them drive the narrative for you.

[woo me with science]

97. Well, that was convoluted.

If you are worried about Republicans' blaming Obama for putting SS on the table, there is an astoundingly simple solution to that:

Don't put it on the table.

[joshcryer]

98. Right, that's what I thought.

You think the Democrats are driving the Republican narrative even though they're simply playing politics. So instead of recognizing that politics are being played, it's necessary to side with the Republicans on these issues.

[woo me with science]

99. That made no sense whatsoever. nt

[joshcryer]

101. Fair enough.

Continue being a pawn.

[woo me with science]

102. The only "siding with Republicans" evident here

is in the stunning insistence that Democrats must continue to play their game, echo their talking points, and wrap political campaigns in deceit.

[joshcryer]

104. That's politics.

It's necessary to avoid Republican talking points if you want to succeed. But instead, we champion their talking points, and then it simply moves us further to the right.

[woo me with science]

106. ROFL!

"It's necessary to avoid Republican talking points if you want to succeed. But instead, we champion their talking points, and then it simply moves us further to the right."

You just said all the right words...Now if we can just get the administration to follow them.

[joshcryer]

107. The administration is merely reaching across the isle.

It is not advocating their positions as you are portraying them as.

Therein lies the rub.

You are slandering the administration for something it isn't doing. Playing right into the hands of the Republicans.

[woo me with science]

108. You are repeating yourself now.

You have a good night, Josh.

[joshcryer]

109. Yeah, as if you haven't repeated youself at all during this.

Comparing the administration to Republican policies. Ridiculous.

[pscot]

87. That's my favorite Obama defense. His hads were tied.

The French peasants said the same thing about Louis Quatorze.

[joshcryer]

90. Might want to self-delete that.

Just sayin'.

[limpyhobbler]

9. Try this - Raising hell about this issue now actually _helps_ the Obama-Biden campaign...

Since this is one of their strongest issues.

The more the topic is on protecting Social Security and Medicare, the more they can paint Romney and Ryan as the radical extremist privatizers that they really are.

We hope it also has the side benefit of actually helping to lock down the Dems to prevent crappy compromises in December.

Seems like a win-win to me. I don't understand the resistance or why people think it would hurt the President.

So how do we raise hell? Who to call or email, and what to say? Is there a way to influence the Presidential debate questions?

[joshcryer]

12. Well, it was only the GOP's freaking platform in 2010.

Nevermind that it never got out of committee and never was up for a vote, but they used it as messaging very well. Obama's willingness to "put everything on the table" for better or worse bit him in the ass.

I seriously don't see this coming to any vote. I'd be shocked if it did and if both Houses passed anything relevant. The July 31 continuing resolution funds the Federal Government until March of 2013. The Republicans didn't want the budget to be a real core of the election debate.

So to go back and fiddle over 1) a commission that was nothing of portent and 2) emphasize Obama's post-partisan willingness to "put everything on the table" isn't productive. It's what he campaigned on and it's what we got.

[eridani]

14. So why is Pelosi saying that Simpson-Bowles is a good idea? n/t

[joshcryer]

21. Politics.

This election campaign is going to be partially about deficits. If she said "we solve the deficit by implementing Obama's 2013 budget" the Republicans freak the fuck out because Obama's 2013 budget was a pure spending budget, tax hikes, whole nine yards and did not get a single vote in the Senate or House. It moved the deficit reduction all the way out until 2022. Obama "put everything on the table" so the teabaggers would be forced to play their hand. What did they do? Why golly gee they waffled and played into Obama's hand and forced a continuing resolution to put the budget debate off until March 2013! Haha!

This is why Biden says "Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value." Obama's 2013 budget was brilliant. The biggest significant cut was LIHEAP but only after he raised it (so basically it would've went back to what it was, iirc). Nothing else got touched.

So in other words, Pelosi is not being totally honest here, because there simply is no need to even consider this until the elections are over, and if we win back the House it won't need to be considered until March of 2013. She is trying to come off as a deficit hawk just like every damn body in this election.

Don't get me wrong, I think if they got a big deal such as another stimulus package or something they'd implemented a Chained CPI or raise the retirement age and slice Medicare, etc, but it all hinges on whether we win back the House. It's going to be ugly if we can't get back the House because yet again the administrations hands will be tied for another 2 years. And the bemoaning that the President "puts everything on the table" as per his campaign promises will continue. *sigh*

[eridani]

23. So we have to go along with Repuke messaging?

Nonsense. Why not publicize the Peoples Budget instead?

What budget plan actually saves lifeline programs while reducing the deficit? The Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget of course!

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

The People’s Budget eliminates the deficit in 10 years, puts Americans back to work and restores our economic competitiveness. The People’s Budget recognizes that in order to compete, our nation needs every American to be productive, and in order to be productive we need to raise our skills to meet modern needs.

Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit and Raises a $31 Billion Surplus In Ten Years
Our budget protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and responsibly eliminates the deficit by targeting its main drivers: the Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession.

Our Budget Puts America Back to Work & Restores America’s Competitiveness
• Trains teachers and restores schools; rebuilds roads and bridges and ensures that users help pay for them
• Invests in job creation, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing and R&D programs

Our Budget Creates a Fairer Tax System
• Ends the recently passed upper-income tax cuts and lets Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of 2012
• Extends tax credits for the middle class, families, and students
• Creates new tax brackets that range from 45% starting at $1 million to 49% for $1 billion or more
• Implements a progressive estate tax
• Eliminates corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies; closes loopholes for multinational corporations
• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange

Our Budget Protects Health
• Enacts a health care public option and negotiates prescription payments with pharmaceutical companies
• Prevents any cuts to Medicare physician payments for a decade

Our Budget Safeguards Social Security for the Next 75 Years
• Eliminates the individual Social Security payroll cap to make sure upper income earners pay their fair share
• Increases benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side
Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home
• Responsibly ends our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to leave America more secure both home and abroad
• Cuts defense spending by reducing conventional forces, procurement, and costly R&D programs

Our Budget’s Bottom Line
• Deficit reduction of $5.6 trillion
• Spending cuts of $1.7 trillion
• Revenue increase of $3.9 trillion
• Public investment $1.7 trillion

I’ve culled the quotes to emphasize approval of this plan by certified establishment types.

President Bill Clinton

"The most comprehensive alternative to the budgets passed by the House Republicans and recommended by the Simpson-Bowles Commission"

"Does two things far better than the antigovernment budget passed by the House: it takes care of older Americans and others who need help; and much more than the House plan, or the Simpson-Bowles plan, it invests a lot our tax money to get America back in the future business"

The Economist
“Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people.”

The Washington Post
“The Congressional Progressive Caucus plan wins the fiscal responsibility derby thus far."

Forbes
"instead of gutting programs for the poor like Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, and the new healthcare law, the People’s Budget focuses on cuts in defense. It also doesn’t scrap new financial regulations designed to at least partly stave off another massive financial collapse like the one that put us in this mess in the first place."

[joshcryer]

31. Go for it. Just don't box Obama in with the Republicans.

They want you to talk about how he's willing to "put everything on the table."

It plays right into their messaging.

Meanwhile being paranoid about something that is unlikely to happen before the elections is counterproductive at best.

[eridani]

32. But cutting SocSec and Medicare right after the election when nobody--

--is paying attention to a lame duck Congress is acceptable, just because Simpson-Bowles cuts are nowhere near as bad as the Ryan proposals?

[joshcryer]

37. Nope, please get off that conspiracy. I already explained why there's no reason for it.

It's irrational.

[eridani]

43. Rachel Carson was such a paranoid conspiracy theorist, wasn't she?

All that alarmism about DDT and extinction of bird species. And fifty years later is isn't anywhere near as bad as she predicted. Limiting the use of DDT as a direct result of her work obviously had nothing to do with that happy outcome.

[joshcryer]

46. The difference being is that your conspiracy will be validated...

...or debunked in 4 months.

And I guarantee you that when no Dec. surprise comes out all of the people posting paranoid conspiracy theories with no basis in reality will happily scurry away and refuse to apologize for the scaremongering that they did for the months leading up to Nov.

Fortunately it looks like the responses to this thread see it for what it is and aren't going to play along.

[eridani]

103. If we succeed in prevenng cuts, then the scaremongering will have worked n/t

[joshcryer]

105. Don't overestimate the power of a forum post.

Then again, who am I to expect people not to move the goalposts.

Yeah, denialist rhetoric ftw...

[TheKentuckian]

24. The politics are beyond stupid. Who is impressed besides the folks on auto-impressed?

All of this austerity talk has done is muddy the waters on who the public trust to preserve the programs and sew distention in out own ranks without gaining any media traction, without softening the opposition, and without attracting the mystical independents to the standard of "reasonableness".

Okay, there are no magic bullets and nothing always works so you try some things that don't turn out like you plan, a wise person stops when they see the lack of benefit and even those who simply aren't counted among fools stop when it bites them in the ass.

Politics might be a fair response but smart politics it ain't, though some will paint it as such when the President wins because they will be able to say he won but a loss would be blamed elsewhere, likely on liberals for begging him not to do stupid shit that is justified by "he campaigned on it" when he is also given any number of passes on other things he campaigned on which were disregarded, botched, and/or botched so they could be disregarded while being defended for wrongheaded policy because he didn't campaign on it, and that puts to the side the stuff that some believe he did campaign on and others claim he didn't due to wording or open statements run with.

[joshcryer]

36. It is not "smart politics" to use their messaging.

The OP essentially wants to "play defense." Those scaremongering about a December surprise suggesting that Obama's willingness to put everything on the table means it will be put on the table is nonsense. If you look at the political landscape it simply appears highly unlikely. It could only happen if some unfortunate circumstance happened such as losing the Senate and Romney getting elected or some other crazy carrot being dangled that makes it politically inticing. Even then the incompetent House is not likely to do anything progressive or useful between Nov. and Jan.

The 112th Congress has been squandered by teabagger nutjobs.

I'm not sure that deficit hawking is a stupid strategy, given that the narrative is always controlled by the Republicans. I mean you look at Pelosi whose original quote is taken out of context here.

In March Pelosi said, playing politics, "It was more a caricature of Simpson Bowles, and that's why it didn't pass. If it were actually Simpson-Bowles, I would have voted for it."

In April Pelosi said, "My problem with it was what it did as far as Social Security is concerned. Apart from that we said, there's a lot to work with."

So, politics. It's not even deficit hawking as I originally suspected. But then that's what I get for taking the OP at face value and not researching the quote.

[limpyhobbler]

16. I tend to agree there isn't going to be a December suprise attack or anything like that.

But at some point during the next Congress they are going to revisit the deficit issue in a major way. They don't want to or aren't able to make big defense cuts. There is a lot of Wall St. money slopping around down there and there are a lot of different ways to attack the safety net. We aim to protect the few saftey net and retirement programs that we have. So the general point of the OP is correct I think, even though I don't know about the timing of the budget votes. I wouldn't think they would do anything too controversial after the election but before the new Congress is sworn in.

[joshcryer]

22. They might try some crazy crap either way.

They might dangle some really good stuff like employ free choice act and a big stimulus or some such in order to get some really sinister crap in there like raising the retirement age or cutting Medicare. I just can't predict or see whether Obama would go with it. If he doesn't think the new House would implement those policies he might take the carrot, then again we might see a much more populist President who raises hell. I don't know.

One thing is for sure though nothing has to be done until March 2013.

So as far as I see it we need to get the House back if we want to keep anything from coming to a vote and if we want to block our highly bi-partisan, openly compromising (to his detriment) President from signing off on some kind of bullshit. I mean if we get the House we can just take a deep breath because there's a near certainty nothing gets passed.

Where I stand here nothing happens in Dec. because this congress is the most incompetent in history.

[eridani]

15. "helping to lock down the Dems to prevent crappy compromises in December. "

Plus a bazillion!

[eridani]

17. Who to call or email, and what to say?

Tell them that cuts are unacceptable at any level--no excuses for weak defense just because the Simpson-Bowles cuts aren't as bad as the Rmoney/Ruin cuts.

President Barack Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
202-456-1111 - ph
202-456-2461 - fx

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
309 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-2152 - ph
202-228-0400 - fx

Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Democratic Whip
http://www.democraticwhip.gov/content/email-whip
1705 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-4131 = ph
202-225-4300 - fx

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Democratic Leader
http://www.democraticleader.gov/contact
Office of the Democratic Leader
H-204, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
[phone] - ph

Democratic National Committee
http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

We cannot let Republicans get by with the following crap this time. The only true defense is promising no cuts, period

REPUBLICAN MAILER ON MEDICARE

http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/reach_out_and_touch_medicare#ixzz1US9aru7F

For The Record…It Was Obama Who Offered To Cut Hundreds Of Billions In Medicare During The Debt Debate

OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS PUT MEDICARE CUTS IN DEBT CEILING DEAL

USA Today: “Cuts in Medicare and other entitlement programs are on the table.” (Susan Page and Fredreka Schouten, “Political Damage Even If A Debt Deal Is Done,” USA Today, 7/31/11)

Obama Agreed To Medicare Cuts In Debt Ceiling Deal. “The deal announced on Sunday by Congressional leaders and the White House would make across-the-board cuts in military spending, education, transportation and Medicare payments to health care providers if Congress does not enact further deficit-cutting legislation by the end of the year.” (Robert Pear, “Congress Must Trim Deficit To Avoid Broader Cuts,” The New York Times, 7/31/11)

Obama Said “Adjustments” Must Be Made To Medicare. OBAMA: “Yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like Medicare so they’re there for future generations.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks On Budget Control Act, Washington, D.C., 8/2/11)

DURING DEBT CEILING DEBATE, OBAMA OFFERED $650 BILLION IN CUTS TO MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND MEDICAID

Obama Put “Major Changes” To Medicare On The Table During Debt Ceiling Negotiations. “To hit the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, the congressional committee is likely to reconsider major changes to Medicare that the White House and congressional leaders put on the table during this summer's debt-ceiling negotiations.” (Janet Adamy, “Debt Deal May Hit Medicare,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/2/11)

Analysis by Democratic pollster—
http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/08/pollster-medicare-not-just-a-seniors-issue

Her bottom line: It is an even more important political issue now than in the past. “It’s not just a seniors’ issue by any matter or means,” she said. The Medicare changes in the budget plan advanced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., “really elevated it, because it was such a clear distinction” between the Democratic and Republican positions. ”You saw it play out in the N.Y. special . And it is the top testing message in congressional races right now,” Lake added.

She’ll be watching how aggressively Democrats rally around protecting Medicare but believes it will be harder for the party “to draw the distinction that many of us believe in” because President Barack Obama talked about Medicare cuts in the context of the budget deal. “So I think it’s going to depend on how strong a stance Democrats take or whether they muddle it.” Regardless, she adds, “it has the potential to be THE voting issue in 2012.”

Indeed--and the Ruin VP choice has made that clearer than ever.

[woo me with science]

52. ^^^^^^Yes, please write and call. Numbers/addresses here ^^^^^

Thank you for an excellent post.

[Generic Other]

26. Everyone just has to do their little bit

We are all agreed that defeating the GOP is important. In every race. I made this generic video to highlight the point that progressives do not back cutting social programs. We do not break our promises to the American people. We all need to keep hammering the message home. Fuck the GOP and the stagecoach robbing horse they rode in on!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748661

[eridani]

34. Good work--I tweeted it n/t

[joshcryer]

10. I highly doubt anything of import, including this, will come to a vote in the 112th Congress.

Given how incompetent that Congress is and how utterly divided it is, I just don't see it happening.

[MiniMe]

11. 2008 was the Dem victory

2010 was a bad year for the dems.

[eridani]

19. Useful reference websites

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/statereports2012
50 state report on Social Security

Medicaid Expansion Center
http://fusa.convio.net/site/R?i=uxaRVXqevSQy85B3oIf_ew

States that plan to expand Medicaid coverage in 2014 have lots of work to do to prepare. In many states, advocates need support in making the case for expansion. The Medicaid Expansion Center offers information on everything from the Supreme Court decision’s effect on Medicaid to news from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), plus the best tools for helping your state make the most of the expansion.


Medicaid Defense Center
http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/medicaid/defense-center.html

Medicaid is funded by both the federal government and the states. Decisions made by either can affect Medicaid’s future, as well as access to health care for millions of Americans.

Right now, many in Congress are seeking to cut Medicaid funding and make across the board changes in the program’s structure. Some governors are looking to make deep cuts in state program funding, as well as asking for federal approval to change the way Medicaid is structured or operates in their state.

The Medicaid Defense Center gives you information on what’s happening at both the state and federal level and provides some tools to help you in your work to keep the Medicaid program strong, both federally and in your state.

[woo me with science]

100. Thank you for posting this. nt

[Democrats_win]

27. Dare to dream Democrats!

This December surprise is sooo bad. Wouldn't it be nice if they raised the income cap on Social Security. I am way under that cap so all of my income is subject to the SS withdrawls. But rich people make so much money that a good portion of their income is above the cap and is thus not subject to SS withdrawls. Changing or removing the cap would easily save SS.

[Autumn]

28. This quote by Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi is why some

of us older Democrats no longer trust Democrats. And that is why there is a lack of enthusiasm. I trust them as far as I can pick one up and throw them. Never in my 60 + years have I heard Democrats talk like this. Never.

[ieoeja]

30. You wouldn't have the actual quote, would you?

The link didn't show any more than what is in the OP: two fragments connected by words inserted by the author. And it doesn't even make sense grammatically. If you have the original, I would love to see it.

Especially since there was no single Simpson/Bowles plan. When they failed to agree on any one plan, all dozen or so were put on the table. Some of the proposed Simpson/Bowles plans include:

- lifting or eliminating the cap which makes income much over $100k exempt from paying into social security

- adding a social security tax on unearned income (capital gains, dividends, etc)

[joshcryer]

38. Thanks to your query I found it. The OP is misrepresenting Pelosi:

In March Pelosi said, playing politics, "It was more a caricature of Simpson Bowles, and that's why it didn't pass. If it were actually Simpson-Bowles, I would have voted for it."

In April Pelosi said, "My problem with it was what it did as far as Social Security is concerned. Apart from that we said, there's a lot to work with."

Pelosi as far as I can tell has not supported the cuts in Simpson Bowles. This quote is every fucking where (on right wing as well as left wing sites) and it's completely silly.

[eridani]

42. It is an indication of a totally unacceptable willingness to compromise n/t

[joshcryer]

44. Which is their message since 2008.

This whole bipartisan thing wins elections for some reason.

[Autumn]

47. Okay. From your post, a quote from Nancy

" If it were actually Simpson-Bowles, I would have voted for it."

What YOU say, "Pelosi as far as I can tell has not supported the cuts in Simpson Bowles."

Let's see

" If it were actually Simpson-Bowles, I would have voted for it" Sounds like she supported the cuts in Simpson-Bowles in March. , if she said she would have voted for it.

[joshcryer]

48. She voted against it.

She was saying in weaselly political talk that she supported the "good parts." She was saying that the Simpson-Bowles that they voted for wasn't the Simpson-Bowles that she would've voted for because it cut Social Security which the second quote clearly demonstrates.

*sigh*

[Autumn]

49. Well I don't speak weasel. I speak plain.

*sigh*

[woo me with science]

51. Amen.

Time to pin down what running on behalf of the people actually means, in specifics.

Real Democrats do not attack these programs. Period.


49% of Seniors “living on a food budget of about $5 a day"
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1129445

[Teamster Jeff]

29. Great Post Thanks nt

[progressivebydesign]

39. What? I'm sorry, I've been focused on ELECTING a Democrat for the White House.... n/t

[sabrina 1]

41. Speaking of Bowles, after reading Ezra Klein's prediction that Bowles will

replace Geithner, I think that's another issue that needs to be addressed. Bowles, loved by Ryan, a longtime supporter of cutting SS, should not even be considered as a possible member of the administration's cabinet. I hoped after the disaster of the Commission we would never hear of him again.

[joshcryer]

45. Stopping Bowles is far more important than a Dec. surprise conspiracy.

We need to make it clear to the President that Bowles is unacceptable.

[woo me with science]

54. We can do both. nt

[joshcryer]

60. No, one is unproductive and plays into the hands of right wingers.

It's their message and if we agree with them on their (false and misleading) message we only hurt ourselves.

Particularly when it's based on a conspiracy that goes against political reasoning.

[woo me with science]

63. Nonsense.

These programs are popular across party lines. We HELP Obama by demanding that the stand be specific.

Specifics can only help our party...*if* our party is truly serious about defending these programs.

[joshcryer]

65. I'm talking about bashing Obama's "willingness to put everything on the table."

The OP is basically caricaturing Obama's position to "imply" that he's going to "cut everything" and that he'd let a December surprise ruin us! It's nonsense!

Obama's budget didn't cut anything (LIHEAP was a reduction to previous levels and it was the only significant "cut&quot .

Got voted down in Congress.

Obama suggested in a speech once that we "adjust based on inflation" and it didn't go over well at all, and what happens? The quote about him putting it on the table is thrown out there and the quote that he was for looking into adjusting for inflation out (over a year ago), and it is made to make the President look like he wants to gut these programs.

[woo me with science]

69. Demanding specifics does not equal bashing the President.

If anything, this vehement arguing to prevent people from asking for specifics is damaging, because it suggests that the President should not be open to these questions.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that asking a President about whether he will accept certain policies during an election campaign is "bashing" him. And it is especially insulting to suggest that people who struggle every day and depend on these programs don't have a right to demand clarity after watching them used as bargaining chips last year.

Clarifying his strong, SPECIFIC defense of social safety nets can only help the campaign... if defending these programs is what he really intends to do.

[joshcryer]

71. Obama's positions are known to anyone who doesn't based their positions on innuendo.

The OP article for example is filled with innuendos and misleading quotes (I went and found Pelosi's quote and it's clearly weasel language and not outright advocacy for cuts, she even said at Charlie Rose that she voted against Simpson Bowels specifically because it was cutting Social Security! Talk about spin and disinformation!)

That said, when the positions are made clear, what happens? Well, it's pretty simple, people get mocked for posting "blue links" and people put their head in the sand and ignore the SPECIFICS that are being asked for. There's a reason I purposefully leave out links when I make my statements, it's because I dare someone to challenge me and I will then provide the links.

It's not damn hard at all to look up "Obama Social Security Caps" as that was his primary platform. Hell Hillary actually bashed his proposal because she argued it would raise taxes on the middle class (an ignorant position to be sure). That was one thing back in 2007-2008 I agreed with Obama on. It's easy enough to look up "Obama Chained CPI" and see that he hasn't mentioned it in almost a year (though you will find site after site rehashing it and requoting the same "inflation adjustment" quote that Obama said! Almost a year later!).

[woo me with science]

74. No they clearly aren't, or people wouldn't be asking.

Not mentioning a highly unpopular policy position in a year would hardly be surprising, even for a politician who intended to pursue it later. What is so hard about saying clearly that you do not support an unpopular position?

And here's just a little hint for people who would try to speak for the campaign: Insulting people who merely seek clear answers about positions that will affect their ability to survive and afford food and medicine is not a good tack for building confidence. All the campaign needs to do is speak clearly and be specific.

It's very simple, and it is not too much to ask from a President who is running as a defender of the people.

[joshcryer]

76. Please Read Obama's entire Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.

All of his positions including his stance on Medicare and Social Security are clearly and unambiguously outlined.

I'll even provide a link for you: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

I have no reason to be nice to people because I myself am a partisan. I don't need to be bullied by innuendos and slanders and conspiracy wonks.

[woo me with science]

50. THANK YOU for this post. Huge K&R

And we need to make absolutely clear that a chained CPI *is* a cut to Social Security.

No more Grand Bargain, ever again.

No cuts or slowing of benefits.

No chained CPI.

No increases in eligibility ages.

Democrats do not attack these safety nets, period. It is time to be specific about what running as a defender of the people really means.

[limpyhobbler]

53. +1 They should get specific about these points.

The President ought to come out and and say chained cpi and age changes are off the table. It could only help his re-election since these are such popular positions. I don't understand all the resistence to this idea.

[joshcryer]

67. I would love for him to do that but he won't.

He doesn't want to say anything is off the table. For better or worse he wants to reach across the isle and talk things over and discuss possibilities. This makes him a mature, intelligent, well meaning individual.

It's frustrating to be sure, but it's damn annoying that a refusal to take things off the table is considered by some here the same as advocating for something. Obama's been advocating for raising the caps since 2007.

As far as I'm concerned we need to win back the House to keep Obama's willingness to be open to everything from sabotaging us. And we shouldn't sabotage his election chances or the chances of getting back the house by being so "concerned" about paranoid conspiracy theories.

[limpyhobbler]

72. We don't want everything on the table. We want these safety net programs off the table.

Be "we" I mean just a lot of people.

How is it paranoid? You said yourself Obama is putting everything on the table...

Why does the President want to put these things on the table? Makes no sense to me.

I don't want to hurt Obama. I want to help him by showing there is a vocal constituency for getting SS and Medicare off the table.

It's clear the gop wants to dismantle the programs. We want to prevent bi-partisan compromises on this issue. A willingness to compromise on our most fundamental principles is neither good politics nor good policy.

[joshcryer]

75. That's how he got elected.

It's one reason I was against him in 2008 (ironically I spend a damn awful lot of time defending him because I respect him for being consistent even when he gets a lot of shit for it).

I don't think a partisan black man running for President would've worked. And I don't think Obama felt that if he ran as a partisan he'd get anywhere.

The problem isn't that Obama is putting it on the table, from my point of view, that's just something he had to do to get elected and he has to do to get elected again to avoid the bullshit angry black man crap. The problem to me is that it's perceived and touted on these forums that Obama, by putting things on the table, is actually advocating for those things. I mean, look at this OP here. A Dec. surprise would have to pass both the House and Senate and Obama would have to sign off on it.

I've outlined some scenarios where I think the "Dec. surprise" could happen but I just think they're so remote it's not worth criticizing the President using right wing talking points on his stances on Social Security and Medicare.

[woo me with science]

78. *Nobody* voted for Obama on the understanding

that he would put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on the bargaining table.

That's just a ludicrous comment.

[joshcryer]

79. I did. I was against it. But I knew he'd play politics with it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/clinton_obama_and_the_social_s.html

God it's like people don't remember the most insane primaries we've ever had.

Stephanopolous: You've also said that with Social Security everything should be on the table.

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?

Obama: Everything should be on the table.

Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?

Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.

I was not a fan of Obama in 2008. I'm more or less pissed that people didn't know he'd do this and are now criticizing him for doing it even though his policy positions are clearly outlined and he is not for these things.

[woo me with science]

88. You keep saying that,

but it's still ludicrous to claim that putting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the bargaining table was something people across the country wanted or expected him to do. That was not why people voted for him. You even admit that YOU didn't like it, and you probably follow the Sunday news shows more than the vast majority of Americans.

Not to mention that it doesn't matter if people should have known better. How dare you tell people that they need to shut up now, because they should have known better then? What an incredibly cynical and passive approach to politics.

President Obama is running now and purposely casting himself as a defender of the 99 percent, including the poorest and most vulnerable among us. It is not only fair, but our responsibility to make him be specific about how he will do that. Our leverage occurs BEFORE the election, not afterwards.

Democrats do not play games with social safety nets, period.

[joshcryer]

89. I simply don't like the right wing talking points.

They're using the same fucking talking point. That he put it on the table, etc, etc. Then they're even spinning it to imply that he actually advocated the cuts, being open to something clearly means advocacy, right?

I mean we have an OP here trying to say, without evidence, that there will be a Dec. surprise and that we should all start fighting now to stop this mythical Dec. surprise from happening. Sounds decent, right? Except buried deep in the language are right wing arguments that are effectively used by right wingers to disenfranchise, disillusion voters from fighting.

[limpyhobbler]

82. You think he has to show a willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare to get elected?

The problem isn't that Obama is putting it on the table, from my point of view, that's just something he had to do to get elected and he has to do to get elected again...

That's what putting it all on the table means right? Showing a willingness to make cuts as part of a compromise or a big bargain?

That is extremely unpopular with voters including Dems, independents, swing voters and even Republicans. I fail to see how showing a willingness to compromise on something like this helps in an election. Actually defending Social Security and Medicare from cutters would be the much more popular position with voters, especially swing voters.

I don't see how protecting Social Security and Medicare from potential cuts is now a right-wing talking point.

[joshcryer]

85. It's bipartisanship. What cuts were made? Were there any?

No? There weren't? Huh. Interesting. I wonder why?

Maybe because once "everything was put on the table" "no cuts were acceptable"?

Simply being open to cuts does not mean that you are advocating cuts as Obama's 2013 Budget proves.

Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value. - Biden.

It is a right wing talking point because the right wing is using the talking point on their daily fucking ads!

FUCK only the fucking right wing can fucking spin shit so much it is impossible for me to explain this coherently. I swear the twisted logic has fucked my head up at this point.

[limpyhobbler]

91. ...um

Chill bro.
You are right that "being open to cuts" is not the same as "advocating cuts".

That's cool the President has no cuts in his 2013 budget. But that's not the budget that will eventually pass right? It will be some compromise version, some deal.

So I guess we are trying to make sure social security and medicare cuts are not on the table for that deal.

I don't understand why anyone would want to keep it "on the table" if they didn't see it as something to potentially trade away.

[joshcryer]

92. That's bipartisanship for you.

[joshcryer]

62. Obama is choosing to highlight raising the caps.

I hope you can agree raising the caps is not a cut.

[DURHAM D]

59. Don't you have your right wing talking points ready.

Go ahead and post 'em or is this all you got?