People should stop pretending that the deficit commission actually has any power to do anything.

[BzaDem]

The commission has no more power than a group of 18 of us. It will likely make a recommendation in December, just like you or I could make a recommendation in December.

The people that have the power are the members of the House and Senate. If the deficit commission makes recommendations to cut SS, they will have to win on a House vote and win on a 60-vote cloture vote to end a filibuster in the Senate. CONGRESS is the body that has the power to act or not act on the recommendation of the commission, just like it has the power to act or not act on a recommendation by any other group or person.

That is why I find the complaints about Simpson so silly. Of course Simpson wants to gut Social Security. Of course most everyone else in the elected Republican party wants to do the same. If Simpson actually was given more power than you or me to enact his policy wishes, that would be a huge problem. But he isn't. The commission is just a way to come up with recommendations.

Replacing Simpson with another Republican who holds the exact same views (but maybe is more discrete about it) would actually hurt the cause of preventing cuts to Social Security. Why? Because it would be much easier to discredit recommendations (depending on what they are) with a guy like Simpson at the head of the commission, than a quiet Republican who thinks exactly like Simpson does but has a more polished public persona.

All of this talk about the "commission as a powerful body" reminds me of the Republican scaremongering that "Obama has a secret plot to take your guns and implement Sharia law!" No, he doesn't. No, he doesn't even have the power to do so (unilaterally or with Congress). Likewise, the commission has no power to do anything (let alone cut SS). That power lies solely with Congress, as it always has.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. But the drama evolves from the pretending. nt

[griffi94]

2. i thought pelosi

had said the house would give an up or down vote on the committees recommendations.

[BzaDem]

3. Pelosi didn't say that unilaterally. A majority of the House said that when it voted for the rule.

The entire House always decides whether or not to pass a rule, just as it did in this case.

On top of that, the rule simply means the House has an up or down vote. Which is what always happens in the House with bills. The Senate is the body where having an up or down vote first requires 60 votes to end debate. So if they passed a rule waiving the 60-vote requirement in the Senate, then I would agree that it would be a problem. But in the House an up or down vote always occurs and does not require a supermajority.

[griffi94]

8. i thought it meant

that it got a straight up or down floor vote withought going to committee
without any amendments, just yay or nay on the recommendations.

i also thought that the house had voted not to form a commission on the deficit but the commission was formed by executive order.

[BzaDem]

17. The commission was formed by executive order. That's why it has no power on its own.

Yes, it will get a straight up or down floor vote without going to committee. Just like tons of other bills out of the House that get a straight up or down floor vote. (In fact, the large reconciliation bill amending the healthcare bill was written behind the scenes was substituted into a shell bill with no amendments allowed.)

My point is that the House can do basically whatever it wants with bills. This has always been the case and it is the case for this proposed bill. If the House passes the bill or waives its normal rules, the HOUSE is doing it (not the commission).

[griffi94]

25. the concern as i understand it

is why the commission was formed in the first place, and why SS is being considered in the second place.
myself and obviously many others lack faith in the democratic congress, and yes that's an issue with the congress, but if the commissions recommendations are going to be given a straight vote, then the committee does have some power. to be precise they have the power to suggest 'tweaks" to SS.
i believe that many here are wondering why the president let this group get anywhere near SS.
jmho but the committee was appointed to some end and the only logical end that many see is to cut SS.

[BzaDem]

28. The committee was appointed to deal with the deficit.

The deficit is currently not sustainable in the out years. Fixing the deficit in the long run will require politically difficult choices. Hence the bipartisan commission.

Social security has everything to do with the deficit (see post 13). Hence, the commission is talking about Social Security.

Does this mean I would want the commission to cut SS? No. I think there are plenty of ways to deal with the deficit without cutting Social Security.

But that is why the commission is looking at SS (and why the commission exists).

[griffi94]

47. i will say

that if SS is cut or the age raised, and it's under a democratic administration, the democrats will be toast for a long time.
your position is this isn't because of the commission won't really matter even if it is technically correct.
the anger you're seeing over this is because as you say, there are better ways to deal with the deficit. myself and a lot of other people here see this as a way for conservatives to bring a wrecking ball to SS. it never should have even been raised as an option.

the fact that it happened under a democratic president while the democrats held majorities in both chambers is really a deal breaker.

[sabrina 1]

50. Social Security is not the cause of the deficit. Therefore, as

every reputable economist in the country has said, to even be discussing cuts in SS benefits makes this Commission illegitimate.

The fact that it is stacked with people with a record of being hawks, and of considering cutting SS beneiftis, is something to be VERY, VERY worried about.

Sorry, but we saw what happened with the PO after being told not to get excited, Democrats would push for it in the end. Right!

There is no way that the American Public is going to trust Congress or the Senate not to accept the Committees recommendations.

The big question is why was the Committee stacked with people who are known to consider cutting SS benefits, including both Chairmen?

YOU can decide there is nothing to worry about if you like, but for most Americans the very idea of cuts to SS even being raised, is all they need to hear. And Democrats at least need to know what will happen if they go along with this ridiculous idea.

I am sick and tired of hearing 'wait until it happens before you get excited' over the past number of years. Every single time that happened, we lost.

We lost on the MCA.

We lost on the PO.

We lost on the War in Iraq.

We lost on the FISA Bill

We lost on holding the Bush administration accountable.

We lost on the bailout of Wall St. etc. etc.

And all because we were told not to fight. Well, I think those days are over. Doing the same thing over and over again, ie, trusting politicians to do the right thing, is just plain stupid.

Each time people were rightfully angry, we heard the exact same 'don't worry, be happy' arguments you are making now.

This time that isn't going to happen. Democrats are going to have to assure voters that they will never even consider Alan Simpson's and his cohorts, both Dems' and Repubs', proposals on SS. And they have to do it before the November election.

This OP sounds very, very familiar and imho, it takes a lot of gall to ask people to just sit and wait for politicians to finally stand up for the American people. Like that's going to happen!

The pressure is working. The President has dropped the language of Alan Simpson claiming that the deficit was caused by SS, which he was claiming earlier this year. And they've dropped the idea of privatization, for NOW.

So, they need to know, the same way Bush learned, to keep their hands off SS and start looking at the real problems that actually caused the deficit.

Social Security if fine, even by the most pessimistic projections, it is good for many years to come. But the Fed. Govt needs to get its act together and start tightening its belt regarding war, and bailouts for the wealthy eg. And they better NOT ask the AMerican people to pay those debts for them. I think we've had enough.

[BzaDem]

57. I'm not saying we should wait. I'm simply saying that we should direct our opinions to CONGRESS

which has the power to affect SS, and not scaremonger about a powerless commission.

"Sorry, but we saw what happened with the PO after being told not to get excited, Democrats would push for it in the end. Right!"

The PO was pushed right up until the week cloture was filed at the end of December. Right up until the minute where they needed Lieberman's vote, and he told them no unless the PO is gone. They pushed up for it right up until the end, when they could push no further because the votes weren't there.

You are correct that SS didn't cause the deficit directly, but paying down the T-bills to allow benefits to flow out WILL increase the deficit. This is not the fault of SS; this is the fault of Congress who used the money to fund other things like taxes on the rich. But that doesn't change the fact that we need to increase the deficit to pay SS benefits until 2037. After 2037, there isn't enough money even if they NEVER spent the money from the SS fund.

[sabrina 1]

58. Well, I agree with several of your points, such as putting pressure

on Congress. I don't think anyone thought it would do any good to talk to the Commissioners, except for those who are members of Congress, like Paul Ryan eg, who is hearing from his constituents.

And we agree on what caused the deficit. And that it needs to be fixed in order for the Fed. Govt to be able to meet its obligations, to pay its debtors, one of which is the SS trust fund.

If they cut SS benefits, or raise the retirement age, all that would do would be to help raise the deficit. By 2023 eg, there will be over 4 trillion in the fund. Cutting benefits and/or raising the retirement age would increase that even more. And that is what they want. It would meant they could continue to borrow and spend, instead of cutting back their spending.

As for after 2037 (and that is just this year's estimate based on a bad economy and high unemployment, if the economy turns around, that figure will move forward. The Congressional Budget Committee eg, places the date around 2041-2049 even now eg). But even using the worst case scenario, 2037 SS will not be broke. It will continue to be able to pay up to 78% of benefits after 2037. But all of that as I said, is the worst case scenario, assuming the economy never recovers.

So yes, improving the economy, reducing the deficit, will ensure the Government CAN pay its debts, not just its debt to SS but all of its debts.

As for the Senate not listening to this Commission. I would not count on that. Eg, in an interview with Cenk Ungar, Sen. Van Hollen was asked if he would vote for SS cuts if the Commission recommended them. He tried to side-step that question but his answer was enough to tell us that we need to be very, very concerned and that this Commission DOES have power. He said he have to wait to see the entire package, because that is what they would be voting for. When pressed if the package included cuts to SS, would he still vote for it, he became agitated and would not answer.

I'm sorry, but I disagree that this Commission doesn't have power. And it should be disbanded.

Obama in the campaign got it right about commissions like this when he said that 'all they are are a stealth way to get around the legislative process'. And in a debate with McCain, he dismissed them as a 'stunt'. Something changed his mind after the election. He didn't do such a complete turn around if there was not a good reason for it. Some people in DC believe he was going to trade cuts to SS with Republicans for tax cuts on the wealthy. I hope that is not the case, but he didn't set up for fun, that's for sure.

[eridani]

61. What in fucking HELL do you think we are doing?

There is a very active campaign going on to get congresscritters and candidates to sign pledges to defend Social Security and Medicare. Why in fucking HELL are so many Dems dragging their feet on this?

Pledge to Defend Medicare

Since 1965, Medicare has increased the number of seniors over 65 with health insurance from 50% to 93%. It is one of our most successful programs for reducing poverty and poor health in that age group. All working people have paid taxes into the Medicare system for their entire working lives.

Medicare has earned a very high level of popular acceptance over the years, with much higher percentages of the population expressing high levels of trust in the program compared to private insurance. In addition, it spends a far lower percentage of its budget on overhead.

Therefore in the interests of my constituents, the current and future beneficiaries of Medicare, I pledge to vote against any attempts at reducing the deficit on their backs, including

• Means testing Medicare so that it becomes a poverty program available only to those who spend their entire retirement savings and sell their houses
• Raising the Medicare eligibility age, or
• Reducing the actuarial value of Medicare insurance, or
• Cutting provider payments to the point where they refuse to treat Medicare patients


Signed _______________________

Date_________________________



Pledge

Social Security is the only dependable source of income for retired Americans and supports millions of families through its disability and survivors programs. Every working person pays into it and earns benefits.

For 75 years, Social Security has been America’s most trusted institution. It is frugally administered and soundly financed to continue providing a foundation of economic security for future generations.

In the interests of my constituents – the men, women and children who are Social Security’s current and future beneficiaries – I pledge to:

• Defend the integrity of Social Security against efforts to reduce its benefits or weaken its protections;
• Support responsible efforts to strengthen Social Security benefits;
• Oppose any and all efforts to reduce the federal deficit by failing to fully honor obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund, built by the payroll contributions of working Americans.

Signed:
Date:

[sandnsea]

4. Net recommendation: 0

I just don't understand what has happened to this place. Truth is completely rejected.

[Stinky The Clown]

43. The same happens on the flip side, darlin'.

This place has devolved into (at least) two warring camps. The words or facts take a back seat to the (assumed) gang colors of the poster.

[katandmoon]

5. You sound sooooooo sensible!

[Raineyb]

6. Why is Social Security even being brought up? This is about the deficit which Social Security does

not contribute to as it's a separate fund. The fact that the politicians stole from it doesn't change that. There's a very simple way to do something about the deficit. We can stop spending so much money on the fucking pentagon. Funny how that doesn't seem to get mentioned they go straight for Social Security which isn't nearly the drain coffers the way the country's profligate spending on all things military.

[BzaDem]

15. Making good on the T-Bills in the SS trust fund will increase the deficit.

Therefore, Social Security has everything to do with the deficit. In addition, after 2037, there won't be enough money EVEN AFTER all the T-bills are paid back. (See post 13 in this thread.)

[Raineyb]

72. They don't seem to have any problem with that when they borrow money from China to kill people

in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Besides which the government has never defaulted on T-bills, all they have to do is lift (or better yet eliminate) the cap and stop fucking spending the money on their bullshit.

Social Security shouldn't even be on the table. Furthermore, raiding the fund then coming back and saying there's no money is complete bullshit. You want to cut the deficit you find the money somewhere else. But you don't touch Social Security to do so. This "deficit commission" seems to be nothing more than a piss poor excuse to do something Wall Street has wanted all along, to get their rapacious hands on our money. There's no reason whatsoever to include Social Security in this commission unless this commission was an end run to screw with it in the first place. And the money needed to pay back Social Security ain't shit compared to what we spend on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like I said, there's no reason for Social Security to be on the table whatsoever. And considering it is more pandering to the right wing who hasn't gotten a god damned thing right ever.

[Better Believe It]

7. So 18 DU'ers have as much power as the "Deficit Commission" and I can make a recommendation to ....

Congress that will be voted on by the Senate and House!!!!!

My oh my. How in the world did 18 DU'ers and myself individually obtain so much power over the House and the Senate, at least as much as the deficit commission?

Any ideas on how I can use that power wisely?

That's amazing!

You did write: "The commission has no more power than a group of 18 of us. It will likely make a recommendation in December, just like you or I could make a recommendation in December."

You know what I say to that?

Horsefeathers!

Now it is true the "entitlements" cutting commission will have to "win" a House vote and a Senate vote.

However, you failed to mention one little, teeny, tiny, itty, bitty thing.

The House will not hold hearings on the commission proposals!

The House will not permit any amendments to the commission proposals!

The House may not debate the commission proposals.

The House will only be permitted to have an up and down vote on the commission package. And how much time will the House members and general public have to study their proposals? They won't say. But, since they need to ramrod this past a lameduck House I would imagine several hours .... maybe as high as 48 hours .... or maybe not.

Terrific.

And the Senate? Well, since the commission proposals will deal entirely with the government budget can't it be voted on using reconciliation? Only 51 votes are needed to pass. But if 60 are required for passage they will be obtained unless widespread opposition to the commission is organized starting right now .... not after the commission presents its poison to Congress.

You apparently think we should hold back and keep our "powder dry" until after the election.

Is that your "winning" strategy?

[BzaDem]

11. "The House will not hold hearings!" "The House will not permit any amendments!"

Who decided this? THE HOUSE. Not the commission, which has no power. The House has the power and is accountable. The commission is just a bunch of people in a room making a recommendation. It has just as much power as you or I to make a recommendation. Sure, the House might only VOTE on the commission's recommendation, and it might laugh at one you or I make, but it is the HOUSE that has the power to make those decisions, not the commission.

"Well, since the commission proposals will deal entirely with the government budget can't it be voted on using reconciliation?"

No. Budget reconciliation can't be used on anything right now, because no budget was passed.

"You apparently think we should hold back and keep our "powder dry" until after the election."

No, I don't. I never said that. I am attacking all the people who throw up the commission as some sort of boogeyman like Republicans do about "Obama the gun grabber." People SHOULD be active now in lobbying CONGRESS about the issues such as SS benefits. Because it is CONGRESS that has to decide what happens to them.

[Fumesucker]

14. Why is SS on the agenda of the *deficit" commission?

SS has nothing to do with the deficit so there is no logical reason they should even bring it up in meetings..

[BzaDem]

16. SS has everything to do with the deficit (see post 13 where I responded to you).

[Fumesucker]

20. You can say that until you turn blue in the face...

It no more makes it true than I can flap my arms and fly to Mars..

[BzaDem]

22. You don't even pretend to contradict what I am saying. You just talk about the REASON for it

affecting the deficit. Sure, the REASON for it affecting the deficit is that the money was spent on the wealthy and wars (and other things). But that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with the deficit. It has everything to do with the deficit (for reasons you and I both dislike).

[Fumesucker]

33. That wasn't my intention, I got you to admit that the commission is headed toward fucking with SS..

You're easy to manipulate...

SS really and truly has nothing to do with the deficit though, it's a totally different funding stream than the rest of the federal budget, you can try to evade that all you want but it's completely true.

[BzaDem]

35. I never said that the commission would not propose cutting SS!

I think the chances are certainly higher than I would like.

On the other hand, I don't think any proposal to cut SS has a very high chance of passage.

"SS really and truly has nothing to do with the deficit though."

Sorry. I gave you explicit reasons why the different funding stream means NOTHING about whether or not it is connected to the deficit. You don't even try to rebut them.

[Fumesucker]

42. There's nothing to rebut..

The fact that Congress has stolen the money from a completely different revenue stream to give to the rich (their donors) and has no intention of repaying it is what's important.

[BzaDem]

45. You keep saying that, and I keep agreeing with it, but it does NOT refute the fact that SS has

everything to do with the deficit.

Yes, Congress has used the money for other purposes. But that DIRECTLY IMPLIES that to get the money back for Social Security, we will have to BORROW.

In addition, in 2037, it would not be solvent EVEN IF they never used a penny for tax cuts or anything else.

If you continue inaccurately stating that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit, you will have to rebut the above two points.

[Better Believe It]

23. And do you think someone leaned on the House leadership to agree to those restrictions?

I believe the deficit commission should be disbanded by President Obama.

That would make this discussion moot.

Do you agree with this suggestion or do you think the commission should be allowed to continue its work and present their proposals to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to Congress after the November election?

I'm listening.

[BzaDem]

26. I have no problem with the commission continuing.

I would have a problem if my Congressperson voted for recommendations which cut Social Security benefits.

Trying this bipartisanship dance is actually good (so we can know once and for all what can be gained and not gained from it, and not tout bipartisanship in the future if we know from past experience it won't work).

[Whisp]

9. awwww..... you spoiled the fun!!!!

:rofl:

around here, some think Simpson is more powerful than that Krytonite guy. So much nonsense here lately it's just unbelievable.

[Fumesucker]

10. Social Security has absolutely zero to do with the deficit..

SS has its own funding source that has no connection whatsoever with the rest of the federal budget.

Why then is SS on the agenda of the Catfood Commission in the first place?

I predict that you will not answer this question.

[BzaDem]

13. It actually has everything to do with the deficit (though that is not the point of my thread).

Yes, SS has its own funding source. That funding source has 2 problems.

1 is that the government borrows against it. 2 is that even if the government DIDN'T borrow against it, it would not be sufficient to pay full benefits by 2037.

So there are really 2 problems: the problem up to 2037, and the problem after 2037.

For the problem up to 2037, SS is technically solvent, because it has treasuries that are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. HOWEVER, in order to actually MAKE GOOD on the treasuries without any additional laws, we will have to borrow (increasing our deficit). So it has a large connection to the deficit, though it is a two-stage connection (as opposed to a direct connection).

For the problem after 2037, laws will have to be changed (because even if all the treasuries are paid back, the fund won't be sufficient for full benefits). Taxes will have to go up, other spending cuts will have to be made, or we will have to borrow more. All of this affects the deficit.

Does this mean I am in favor of Social Security benefit cuts? No way. The cap can easily be raised to capture 90% of income as it was originally intended, and this partially solves the problem. In addition, other taxes can be raised and/or other spending can be cut outside of social security to make up for the shortfall.

But to pretend that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit is ridiculous.

[Fumesucker]

19. Oh bullshit..

We all know that the money from SS has been blown on tax cuts for the wealthy and two unwinnable wars one of which was totally optional, not to mention incredibly, indeed criminally, misguided.

I'm so fucking tired of circumlocutions, rationalizations and spin I could just :puke:

Once again, the deficit has not one fucking thing to do with SS..

[BzaDem]

21. "We all know that the money from SS has been blown on tax cuts for the wealthy"

Of course it has! Where have I disagreed with you on that?

I am simply stating that Social Security has everything to do with the deficit. I never disagreed with you about the reason for this. I just said it had to do with the deficit (which is patently obvious).

The following statements are both true simultaneously:

1. The money in the trust fund has been spent on other things, including tax cuts for the rich and wars
2. Social Security has everything to do with the deficit

2 actually follows from 1. We both don't like 1, but that doesn't mean that 2 doesn't follow from 1.

[Fumesucker]

29. Congress simply won't take radical action that upsets major donors..

People who depend on SS benefits for survival are by definition not major donors.

People who would pay more in SS if the cap were raised or eliminated are often major donors.

The end conclusion of the deficit commission is assured.

[BzaDem]

31. You might be right about that

(though it doesn't contradict anything I have said).

Yes, major donors are unfortunately an influential constituency. But so are seniors (and they vote in much higher numbers). So I don't think the outcome you describe is "assured" (though it is possible).

[defendandprotect]

30. Is this from the Wall Street Journal...??? GAO and Social Security Administration are wrong . . .???

And you're right???

[BzaDem]

36. GAO and the Social Security Administration don't disagree with that.

And no, it's not from the Wall Street Journal. It's from basic knowledge about how our government works that everyone should know (but unfortunately too many don't).

[defendandprotect]

32. Social Security has only run SURPLUSSES . . . though they are still not supposed

to be included in the general budget -- they are there to offset and make the

stink of the MIC budget look better!!

Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system -- with a month or more's funds on hands --

Rather it has been forced to create a SLUSH FUND SURPLUS which has been $250 billion and

more every year for the use of elites -- tax cuts for rich -- war, etal.

[BzaDem]

37. By 2037, it will be paying out more in benefits than taking in.

But even before 2037, paying out full benefits will require making good on the treasury bills in the trust fund, which... increases the deficit.

So while you are correct that the fund has been raided to pay for many things, such as tax cuts for the rich, that doesn't change the fact that making good on the Treasuries in the trust fund will directly increase borrowing.

[sabrina 1]

54. So what, this has happened many, many times since SS

began. And 2037 is the worst case scenario, from the SS Trustees who based that figure on a bad economy and in a time of high unemployment. The Congressional Budget office gives a figure of 2041-2049.

Regardless, there is a surplus again this year and if the economy improves over the next 25 years, those numbers will change again.

You are giving out wrong information. And the very fact that you are tying SS to the deficit shows how little you understand about this and are merely propagating the lates lie to scare people when there is absolutely no reason at all to be scare regarding SS, UNLESS the Govt. decides to cut benefits, and will only add to the surplus, which could in fact INCREASE the deficit.

[defendandprotect]

70. ...and slight adjustments have always been made ... when necessary ...

trust they'll increase the cap to some degree -- that's all that's necessary.

Let's also be clear, the Treasury securities held by the Trust fund will keep the fund

solvent into infinity -

[girl gone mad]

73. The government doesn't have to borrow to spend.

No borrowing is required.

[mikehiggins]

44. The real question to my mind is "so what?"

Is there anyone out there that thinks for a second that reneging on two or three trillion in Federal securities will NOT have a disastrous effect on the ability of the US to sell bonds at all? Even if the White House secretly assures China, et al, that THEIR securities are safe, why on earth would they believe that?

As for Simpson, et al, their attitude seems to be that the money was spent so tough shit, retirees.

I don't think that Mastercard or Visa would be very happy if I told them the same thing.

What do you think?

[BzaDem]

46. That is true but besides the point, because

we are not going to reneg on the securities no matter WHAT the commission reports or who holds power. Even if Bush takes over and Social Security benefits are cut, that is NOT the same thing as reneging on the bonds themselves. The bonds will be fully paid into the trust fund, and then a law will be passed that reduces benefits (and directs the money in the fund to other things). That is not a sovereign default.

To put it another way, how is a default officially recognized? When someone goes to court and sues the defaulter for not paying their bills.

In this case, we are talking about money the government owes itself. So no one would go to court, because the government can't sue itself. And even if the government COULD sue itself, it would have nothing to sue over, because the bonds would be paid (and then a law would be pass taking the payment back or applying it to future years, using the authority Congress has to affect the amounts of spending).

Cutting benefits can and will never produce a sovereign default, and it would therefore have no effect on the ability of the US to sell bonds at all. Not in the slightest.

That does not mean benefits should be cut! There are a huge number of other things we can do to fix the deficit that have NOTHING to do with Social Security.

It just means that a hypothetical benefit cut would have nothing to do with defaulting on bonds, and would not affect our ability to sell them.

[nevergiveup]

12. Obama is going to cut my Social Security and take away my Medicare

I read it here every day. Be afraid. Be very very afraid. :scared:

[defendandprotect]

34. Are you saying that's not what Wall Street and right wing want . . . ? Not what W was after??

Not what Repugs have been after since New Deal and Social Security were put

in place???

[BzaDem]

38. No. He is saying that Obama doesn't want that.

He isn't saying anything about the right wing, W, post-new-deal Repugs, etc.

[defendandprotect]

65. A few still cling to the idea of Obama being for "change" ... but that's pretty much over --

And why would CONGRESS have even bothered with a notification to Obama the

other day saying they wouldn't support any cuts to Social Security or age increases

if they weren't worried about what Obama will do?

Time to wake up re Obama --

We need a new Democratic candidate in 2012 --

[nevergiveup]

40. I was obviously being sarcastic

regarding all the Social Security fear posts recently. Of course the Republicans want to wipe out Social Security. They always have but this doesn't mean Obama is joining their ranks. Obama is not going to mess with social security and everyone here knows it. He may be a lot of things but he isn't stupid.

[defendandprotect]

64. Who would have thought that Obama would have FAILED to deliver

MEDICARE FOR ALL -- what could have been easier -- full backing of the nation --

76%+ for single payer MEDICARE FOR ALL ---

Obama is too consistently on the wrong/right side of issues --

No - I'm sorry, these days you do need a :sarcasm: on a post like that --

Obama moved to the right wing/elite/corporate side when he first picked his "team" --

from the notorious DLC'er Rahm Emmanuel to Wall Street Crowd and holding over Bernanke,

etal!

And, we've seen little since then but more and more movement to the right!

Obama also put the Cat Food Commission in place by Executive Order --

AFTER Congress turned it down.

AND loaded it with right wingers like Simpson who have been drooling to cut Social Security

and Medicare --

At this point in Obama administration, I'm amazed that there are still a few who are clinging

to the idea that most of us "just don't understand his chess game" -- !!

[RB TexLa]

18. It's good for negative campaign ads: Senator Simpson wants to cut your social security by 80%!

As well as for use in fund raising letters to people receiving SS benefits.

[BzaDem]

24. It is not useful for campaign ads, because

1) Simpson left the Senate a long time ago
2) Simpson is from Wyoming, so he always won and ads would not have changed that even if he was in the Senate today

A much better campaign ad would be:

Majority Leader McConnell won't commit to voting against any bill that cuts Social Security. THAT is putting the blame where it belongs.

[RB TexLa]

27. Doesn't matter, the American public for the most part doesn't know who is and isn't

still in the senate. It doesn't matter where the blame belongs it's getting people mad enough to go vote against republicans. I also wasn't thinking people would use the ad in Wyoming but more in states with more retirees.

Not really concerned with truth, more concerned with winning.

[csziggy]

39. So is it a big distraction - and if so, what are we allowing to be hidden?

When something like this comes up and is claimed to not be as important as we and the media are treating it, I wonder what all this noise and hoopla is keeping us from noticing.

More oil in the Gulf? The accusations that BP is not living up to their promises of paying claims? Something new in the Middle East - or a continuation of the same old stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What stories are not being covered because we are paying attention to Simpson, Brewer, Angle and other wing nuts?

[BzaDem]

41. It diverts accountability from the Congresspeople who actually have the power to enact laws.

If SS is cut and people blame the commission, then they are not blaming the right people. Accountability is lost when the wrong people are blamed.

In addition, I dislike inaccurate scaremongering in general (both about the gun grabbing Obama who wants to kill grandma, and the evil secret commission who will single-handedly dismantle the New deal).

[defendandprotect]

66. Right -- a long tradition of moving tough decisions from Congress whom we ELECT . ..

into other hands where we don't ELECT the participants -- !

Bernanke/FED -- a private bank -- is somehow now in charge of our economy

rather than the Congress we elected to make those decisions!

Same with health insurance -- the Baucus panel put in place by Obama to destroy

and control universal health care -- making sure single payer wasn't on the table!!

It's all nonsense -- and those who can't see that are overboard involved in make yourself

feel good fantasy.

[lib2DaBone]

48. Beware Govt Trolls... telling you everything is OK....

[defendandprotect]

67. Really tough to do that these days--!! And, to our shock, under Dem president--!!!

More shock and awe -- we won in 2008 . . . but essentially we lost!!

[gratuitous]

49. No power except to provide cover

The Treasury has been systematically looted for more than a trillion dollars, masked in part by the Social Security surplus, which was instituted under Reagan for a fanciful "deficit" the program was supposed to run 30 or 40 years down the line. After working people dutifully paid in, the Republicans, aided and abetted by our favorite Blue Dogs and the Sensible Woodchucks, said, "Hey, lookit all this dough just sitting around. Let's give it to our overrich pals. We'll call it a tax cut." So said, so done.

Now, as those Social Security receipts are due to be paid out to working people, there's a fast shuffle, a quick double-deal, and now we're told that the deficit is the scawwiest thing evah, and we have to screw over working people because we shoveled all that money into the overstuffed pockets of the wealthy. But we can't really do that directly, so let's go with the favored tool of insider fuckery: A commission! Chaired by a man who's had a decades-long hard on to fuck the poor and veterans and staffed by multimillionaire members, none of whom is dependent on these programs to stay alive, the Catfood Commission will provide the perfect cover for a December session of Congress to tell us all what naughty boys and girls we've all been for the last ten years. Spending lavishly and not putting enough back in the coffers, we're suddenly running a deficit! Horrors.

There will be not a peep about the budget surpluses from the Clinton years, not a word breathed about the foolishness of the Bush tax cuts whilst launching two invasions of other countries, and the attendant expense of running two supply lines around the world. Nope, it'll be all about the greedy geezers and the voracious veterans, expecting to stay out of poverty in their declining years, or expecting someone else to provide medical coverage for the wounds they sustained allegedly in defense of the country.

I will gladly bet a $10 donation to DU that my precis is a lot closer to what's going to happen in December than the nonsense in the original post. Takers?

[TexasObserver]

51. They have the power to shape dialog in an election.

That power was given to them in yet another bad political decision.

[defendandprotect]

71. Right -- the power of propaganda and Obama put them in that position .....

[WillyT]

52. It Has The Power To Provide Cover For Any Politician That WANTS To Make Cuts...

that's the reason it was horse-shoed into the lame-duck session of Congress (between the election and the swearing in of the next Congress).

They tried to guarantee that it wouldn't be an issue for this election (nobody would have to take a position) and that the lame ducks (losers) would no longer have to worry about political repercussions.

And if things go as I fear... the largest number of losers will be Democrats, and it will be interesting, to say the least, to see how the votes on the recommendations go.

And I'm sure there will be all sorts of charts and graphs and elements to the plan and serious justifications and rationalizations and blah and blah and blah...

:shrug:

[ShamelessHussy]

53. "The commission has no more power than a group of 18 of us" - lol

that sure says a lot about your judgment, which unfortunately only serves to subtract from your credibility.

[Historic NY]

55. thank you...its just an excercise to show how dumb the other ideas really are.

its called providing cover.

[HughMoran]

56. Good post - though I wonder why this obvious fact has to be restated here over and over again

Speaking common sense against an agenda rarely has any effect.

[defendandprotect]

68. The Cat Food Commission has the power of propaganda ... and advice to Congress....

and to the president --

AND, these aren't people we ELECTED to make these decisions at any rate!

They're the right wing group Obama put in place!

[noise]

59. The commission

(as sold to the public) is intended to do the leg work for the House and Senate. In effect, the commission is going to take the blame for House and Senate votes to reduce SS benefits. Or should we believe this is all a spoof? Just an very public think tank project that will have no effect on House and Senate conduct?

[lamp_shade]

60. Precisely. I laugh and shake my head at all the doomy-gloomy-sign-the-petition posts.

[defendandprotect]

69. And are you still laughing over health care deform ... you know . . . .

the single payer system -- MEDICARE FOR ALL -- that we didn't get?

76%+ of the nation backed single payer/government run health care --

Pretty hard to believe it didn't happen -- with only the corporate health care

industry being against it! Corporate bribery -- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[DonCoquixote]

62. OK, I understand you, but here is why you are wrong

Yes, on many levels, this is that "Chess' game that people misquote, get your enemies to act extreme, so that they can be exposed. It is how Obama won the election, but it makes for poor politics, why? Because McCain and Hillary had a sense of shame; they really did NOT want to be looked at as Tea party types. As much of a bastard as McCain was, even he was even freaked out by Palin, as the story is finally coming to light.

However, what Obama fails to see is that A) while he is playing Chess, the Tea party plays hardball. Even if Alan Simpson was to deliberately act in such a way as to make an ass of himself, the Tea Party, and their allies in the Media, would see black where there was white. Let me put it to you this way: even if Alan Simpson was some sort of "spy", whose Mission was to infiltrate the GOP and make them look terrible, it would fail, because the tea party does not need facts. They will interpret the least word you give them into a library of evidence! A Dr. Who episode stated the problem well, roughly paraphrased, the line is :

"The Very Powerful and Very Stupid are alike in that, instead of adjusting their reality to fit the facts, they adjust the facts to meet their reality, which is very bad if you happen to be one of those facts."

Sadly, this reality problem is not just a GOP issue. No, I am not going to call all the members of the far left "retarded" as many of them do have earnest intent, and are folks I would rather have in my foxhole than any Blue Dog. However, there is a contingent that never, ever liked Obama from the first second, because they thought he was too much of an intellectual, rather than some "Blue collar" boy that could spit out sound bites, the way Bill Clinton or Dennis Kucinich could. It's one thing to say Obama is playing too much chess and not enough hardball, but, the same crew that still insists Nader did not put Bush in the White House, the same one that called Kerry "Herman Munster" and sat home in 2004 because Howard "YEE-HAW" Dean screamed his way out of the nomination, is the same one that frankly does not care about winning elections. They are perfectly willing to see the GOP take 2012, hoping that after some apocalypse, they will finally get everything they want, exactly how they want it, with a side of extra large French fries and Marijuana on the side!

And all of this dances around the issue, that the real villain in all of this is congress, starting with those Blue Collar Blue Dogs that have implemented much more GOP legislation than any GOP ever could.

[WinkyDink]

63. And R. Gibbs has no power; Rahm has no power. You miss the point, re: OBAMA.