Breaking: McConnell Reid is Out, Major Deficit Reduction Plan i.e. Gang of 6 On the Table

[jtown1123]

Please start bombarding your reps and the White House with phone calls. This new report from Sam Stein at Huffington Post says Boehner and Obama are working on a huge deficit reduction bill to pass the debt ceiling. We all know this is going to include some devastating cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid (if they use Gang of 6) and pretty much everything we hold dear. This is going to get rammed down everyone's throats at the last second. I doubt we can stop it but we have to try...

Huffington Post

McConnell-Reid Debt Deal Close To Being Scrapped, Larger Package Reportedly In Reach

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/mcconnell-reid-debt-plan_n_905699.html?1311266740


The president and his team had separate meetings on Wednesday evening with congressional Democratic and Republican leadership to chart out a way forward on the debt ceiling deal. The administration pressed, as it has in the past, for lawmakers to coalesce around as big a deficit reduction package as politically possible. There are conflicting reports as to what was discussed. But according to multiple sources from both parties, the administration signaled a willingness to tackle a bigger plan than even that proposed by the bipartisan Gang of Six.

What such a deal would look like is difficult to pin down in detail, as much of the Gang of Six proposal requires congressional committees to write in the specific cuts to programs under their purview. But it would involve steep reductions in health care spending -- both in Medicare and Medicaid. In previous debt ceiling negotiations, the administration has supported further means-testing elements of Medicare as well as raising the eligibility age of the program. Cuts to Medicare suppliers would also be part of a larger package, as would adjusting the payment structure of Social Security so that a lower level of benefits was paid out over time.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[jtown1123]

2. Agreed 100% He is the one pushing this, he doesn't want a clean debt bill

[gateley]

11. He's pushing not defaulting! Look at what he's up against!

You guys go ahead and support the Republican of your choice -- see what happens then.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. If congress defaults, he has the power to simply order the treasury to honor debts.

In fact, to do otherwise is to violate the constitution.

But he won't do that because "what he's up against" is his own goal of cutting Social Security.

[gateley]

22. "...simply order the treasury to honor debts."

We out here always think it's so simple, and even if he were to go that route, it may be too late to stop our credit rating from sinking.

And I think your view that his "goal" is to cut Social Security is wrong. Please, no need to prove why you're right, I've seen it all before and it hasn't changed my mind. Your proof won't either.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Apparently Bill Clinton doesn't get it either?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/bill-clinton-debt-ceiling_n_902266.html

[gateley]

34. I'm fully aware of what Clinton said and that the option exists,

just that there are repercussions associated with this action, too. "Simply" makes it sound like a no-brainer, whew, glad that's over, let's move on -- when it's NOT that simple.

I'm not totally against it but I don't understand all the pros and cons of any action. And Clinton isn't infallible. I'd seriously like to hear Ross Perot's take on it, he's the one who's made the most sense over the past several years.

[JDPriestly]

56. And Obama is always to chicken to take the repercussions and deal with them.

Obama should resign now. He is not able to deal with his situation.

[FreakinDJ]

59. Ross Perot was right

Reduce the growth rate of federal government. (Jul 1996)
Long-terms solutions instead of polls. (Jul 1996)
Term Limits linked to Congressional performance. (Jul 1993)
United We Stand America: create government from the people. (Jan 1993)
Electronic Town Hall to replace representative government. (Nov 1992)
End pork; end loopholes; end exit polling. (Nov 1992)
Reduce government perks and staffers. (Nov 1992)
The system is corrupt, not the people in it. (Nov 1992)
Election reform: shorten elections, free air time. (Jul 1992)
Curb PACs, ban soft money, ban electoral college. (Jul 1992)

[JDPriestly]

55. If he had not had the goal of cutting Social Security from the

very beginning of his presidency, he would not have appointed Geithner, a Pete Peterson protege, to Sec. of the Treasury.

Please tell me, if you disagree with me, why Obama appointed Geithner as his Sec. of Treasury if Obama did not want to cut Social Security and Medicare from the get-go.

[gateley]

60. I don't have an answer to that. Obama didn't explain it to me, nor did

he explain it to you, so it's speculation on your part.

I just don't believe Obama had/has a goal of cutting SS from the get-go, and no "proof" people offer can change my mind.

Geithner, and other appointees, really do bother me, I just don't understand his choices, but I don't think they're part of the plan to carry out any nefarious "goals".

And, as always, I could be wrong. But I, unlike others, am willing to admit that possiblity.

[jtown1123]

64. Do you read Digby? She met with the WH team back in early 09

and she said all they were talking about was how they were going to "reform" entitlements and get a major debt deal. It was always a goal of Obama and his economic team to cut a deal on SS.

[jtown1123]

65. Also he put together the BS fiscal commission after he mocked commissions

during his campaign. He appointed the two most outspoken anti-SS co chairs one could have imagined (Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson). If he was such a huge defender of SS, I doubt he would have gone in this direction. Also, his whole economic team is full of people who are perfectly fine with "trimming" Social Security.

[jtown1123]

26. No, he was offered a clean debt bill last week and he didn't take it.

He has always said he wants a huge debt reduction bill. This is all on him now.

[gateley]

35. It's ALL ultimately on him, he's the President. The blame and

the praise land on his doorstep.

What was the clean debt bill he was offered? (Sincere question - my head is spinning trying to keep up, which one are you referring to?)

[JDPriestly]

58. Seniors will not vote for Obama in 2012 if there are cuts to Social

Security. He already cut Medicare in the Health Insurance Reform bill. Yet here he is again -- working to cut Medicare.

This is totally on Obama's shoulders.

Harry Truman would have been out there talking to ordinary voters all over the country. Obama doesn't dare face the voters because he knows he is doing wrong.

He should have left D.C. to the Republicans and held huge "support our seniors" rallies around the country. Independent and Democratic voters would have turned out to support him in the millions.

[KittyWampus]

44. That is an outright falsehood. He was NEVER offered a clean debt ceiling bill.

[jtown1123]

66. Oh really? The McConnell Proposal was pretty damn close

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-white-houses-case-for-a-big-deficit-deal/2011/07/14/gIQAdj4AEI_blog.html

[Lorien]

29. So you're saying that he's incapable of true leadership

unlike Bush who pulled the strings of the Dem congress?

[gateley]

36. PLEASE don't tell me what I'm saying. You can ask if I'm saying

it, but when people tell me what I mean, fuck it.

[dbonds]

37. There are other non destructive ways to raise the debt ceiling that he can do by himself.

He just has to wait for default, then he can raise it with Presidential powers.

[daa]

51. And what would be different?????????????? You think

McCain would have gotten away with slashing social security and ending Medicare?

[JDPriestly]

54. He is up against his own unwillingness to take the side of the people

and explain to conservatives why they are wrong.

He agrees with them on economics. That is why I cannot vote for him in 2012.

Obama has betrayed fundamental Democratic economic ideas.

[Palmer Eldritch]

7. The GOP is accepting applications.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. I'm not sure why. n/t

[Palmer Eldritch]

14. If you want a Repuke President, that's the place for you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. I think we have a repuke president. Just an unusually effective one. n/t

[Palmer Eldritch]

17. Do you even attempt to live in the real world anymore?

or have you completely retreated into some idealistic fantasyland?

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. You haven't been keeping up with current events.

Game over man.

[Palmer Eldritch]

30. You don't know what I've been doing.

But I sure as hell haven't been running around like a chicken with its head cut off blowing every little rumor up into Armageddon.

[gateley]

8. Seriously? Do you realize what you're saying? Wow. If we

had a Repub Prez the Big Three would be g-o-n-e.

Wow.

[jtown1123]

10. Nope. Never happened under Bush b/c Dems had unified opposition

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. The big three, unions and social security survived Bush.

Because the (d) congress did the least they could do.

[slay]

21. The American People deserve a Dem president with Dem values - not Repub ones

i'm fucking sick of it.

[gateley]

25. So what are you going to do about it? nt

[slay]

45. I'm writing in Bernie Sanders

not much else we can do with so much corporate $$$$ funding both the D's and the R's. i wish we had another option, but we don't - so I'll write in Bernie Sanders.

[gateley]

48. Bernie will be voting for Obama. He knows what will happen

if the Republicans can get close to stealing it.

I disagree with your approach (I'm too pragmatic, I guess - not willing to pay the long-term price of splitting the party) but I REALLY understand how you feel! :hug:

[slay]

49. I do not think he will be voting "for" Obama

you may be right in that he votes AGAINST the republicans - which in our shitty 2 party system is by default a vote for the Dems - but i can not approve of 4 more years of horrible leadership and betrayal by Obama. maybe it will take 4 years of Michelle Bachmann to wake people up - I hope not - but if Obama "wins" - it will be without my vote. i do not support his actions while president and will not be scared by evil republicans into voting for him. we will NEVER get a progressive in office if we keep voting for pro-corporate people who claim to be Democrats. Can't do it.

[gateley]

52. Yeah - that's what I meant -- against the alternative.

I'd agree with the 4 years of a Bachmann waking people up, but I don't have the faith in the American people to wake up anymore. I couldn't believe it when W was reelected (or, got enough votes to be close enough to steal it), I can't believe the number of whacks Americans have voted into office (many in an attempt to "show the Dems" they were pissed, and are now experiencing buyer's remorse),

So Obama gets my vote. Regardless of how I feel about him when the time comes. I'm not willing to shoot myself in the foot, and not willing to let my own feelings cloud my judgment of the big picture.

But again, I understand your position.

[slay]

61. I agree that Obama is the lesser of two evils

i just have a real problem voting for an "evil" period. Obama tricked us into thinking he was going to be a bold, passionate leader who was going to change Washington, get rid of insiders, provide hope for the country after 4 years of Bush. Hahahaha - what suckers we were to believe that! it's my opinion that the system is broken beyond repair. in a country this big it is way too easy for rich corporations to buy off 51 senators - that's all they have to do. we need a fundamental change in the system before it destroys not only this country and its people, but the planet as well. i believe many of the people in congress right now (most on the republican side) are truly evil people. but they couldn't do it without the help from the enabling Dems. the Dems i see these days, other than a few like Kucinich, do not stand for The People - they stand for the corporations. i can no longer support this horribly corrupt system. i understand how you feel though - that's how i felt when i voted for Clinton the second time. i have a feeling you'll see things my way in the future - see how you feel after 4 more years of Obama virtually guarantee us a Repub prez in 2016. we're in a really bad spot with no good answers - i can understand both the arguments in voting for Obama to hold back the republicans, and against him cause his economic policies basically ARE republican. many people will still vote for him, and he will likely win IMO, but he has done too many bad things - wars, tax cuts for billionaires, covering up the war crimes of the Bush era, and now supporting attacks on SS and medicare for me to even consider voting for this guy just cause he claims to be a Democrat. this system is fundamentally broken and must change at some point otherwise we will all end up slaves to massive corporations, working for just enough $$$ barely stay alive. :(

[gateley]

62. I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you cite, but

where we differ is how we will vote. And that's one of the good things still about America, we can each vote however we choose. Even if YOU'RE wrong! :evilgrin:

[girl gone mad]

63. Write in a true Dem..

to start.

[Lorien]

28. Agreed. When Scott Walker betrayed the people there were protests and recalls

but this Trojan Horse has stifled dissent with his army of corporate mouthpieces who have infiltrated the party. He's even more destructive than Bush, which is mind bending!

[JDPriestly]

53. No difference.

I want a candidate who will challenge Obama. He is just another Wall Street shill stealing from the people.

This is not the change I voted for. Obama cannot deliver on his most important promises.

[MichiganVote]

3. What? No bail out for billionaires? Nothing spicy for the health care lobby?

Come on Washington, where's the revenue bail out on top of bail out for the top...

[gateley]

4. I heard that the Gang 'o Six's plan was being met with

less than enthusiastic response once the Members started looking over it.

SOMETHING has to be done! As Bob Shrum just said on Andrea, the adults in the room (Obama, Boehner, McConnell) know this. The New Kids on the Block don't -- they don't understand the repercussions that defaulting will engender.

He said "I tried to say something nice about Boehner and McConnell" :7. But he's right, those who have been in the game for a while understand.

[jtown1123]

16. Not what I've been reading...Obama wants a big plan. Gang of Six is the only big plan out there

[gateley]

19. But the Congress isn't very thrilled with it thus far - didn't

make myself clear, sorry.

[jtown1123]

24. Yeah but if party leaders say they have to take it, they will. Like TARP.

[gateley]

33. I don't know -- this will anger a lot more voters than TARP

did. Their jobs are on the line. IMO, anyway.

[jtown1123]

39. I hope you're right

[gateley]

42. Randi Rhodes said when W started yammering about privatizing

SS, that's when his ratings plummeted. Wars, okay! Touch my SS -- off with his head!

Which is why I'm so surprised EITHER party is willing to touch this with a 10 foot pole!

[jtown1123]

68. You want my honest opinion?

Obama won his election without seniors and he thinks can do it again.

[elleng]

5. 'We all know' NOTHING.

[jtown1123]

12. WOW did you read the article? Let's sit quietly while we get screwed.

[EFerrari]

31. That's not really true. We've been getting good credible reports

from Bernie Sanders and from CEPR and they've been posted here.

[jtown1123]

40. Agreed. There is plenty of info comingout of these meetings.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. That's because the bosses are deciding our fate behind closed doors.

[Maven]

46. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1525277&mesg_id=1525305

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LLStarks]

20. Good. We may finally get something passed in both houses. nt

[EFerrari]

32. This is another financial coup de etat.

Just like the bail out.

[slipslidingaway]

43. + 100 nt

[girl gone mad]

67. We suspected this would be the outcome back when the bailouts were rammed through.

Obama is following Norquist's playbook to a T. He transferred massive amounts of private debt onto the public's balance sheet to save the kleptocrats from their own failures. Now he complains that the government can't pay its bills unless we cut the social programs. Nasty neoliberalism.

[dbonds]

38. You have been betrayed...

[slay]

47. +1

the system is broken and we have indeed been betrayed. i wonder if republicans feel betrayed by their party too? i doubt it - they aren't usually the brightest bunch and with so much fox"news" brainwashing they probably don't even realize there is only one party now - the corporate money party.

[JDPriestly]

50. Undemocratic. It removes the onus of voting for cuts from the

Republicans although they insist on not raising taxes.

This is a cop-out.

[WinkyDink]

57. I'm tellin' yas: "Means-testing" WILL= Pay from your Money-Mkt Acct FIRST. Hits Middle-Class!!

[mzmolly]

69. ""We did not leave the [White House] meeting yesterday feeling like there was a clear path moving

forward."

...

"The White House declined to comment on any aspect of the meetings and denied reports of a deal. Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said only the following: “While we are keeping the lines of communication open, there is no ‘deal’ and no progress to report. We are still focused on the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ bill that passed the House with bipartisan support, and hope the Senate will take it up as soon as possible.”