House Dems Scramble After Obama Insists On "Grand Bargain "

[Poll_Blind]

What the hell is going on? Earlier today White House sources basically said "Yes, Social Security and Medicare are on 'the table', but don't worry, we're not trying to strike some 'Grand Offer'". Whelp, that's out the window now, and the 'Grand Bargain' is on!

Before you read these snippets, think about all the other wonderful expansive, in-a-hurry legislation we're grateful for today like...oh, The Patriot Act. Stuff like that.

From HuffPo:

WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday evening, many lawmakers were surprised to find out that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts would be on the table for a grand compromise between the White House and Republicans over raising the debt ceiling.

They had been speaking out against changes to the programs for months, arguing entitlements should be left out of the debt limit deal entirely and berating Republicans for making cuts to programs a part of their 2012 budget proposal.

But by Thursday morning, most House Democrats refrained from directly criticizing the president for planning to include entitlement programs in negotiations. Instead, they settled on another position: Changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are permissible so long as they shore up the programs to be stronger later. Cuts to beneficiaries will not be allowed. And while it is unclear what specific changes the president is proposing, so far, there seems to be no reason for concern.

It wasn't a total reversal -- Democrats maintained that they would not vote for a final deal that makes cuts to beneficiaries of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Still, few objected, at least publicly, to the line in the sand on entitlement programs disappearing, or to the fact that it was the president who washed it away.

"When you say Social Security is 'on the table,' it's been on the table all the time," Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Huffington Post. "In the Biden talks we talked about whether we ought to do something like raising the caps. If you raise the caps it's a whole lot different than raising the retirement age."

You NEED to read this whole article to get a sense of the lunacy. And, as I predicted in another thread, they'd been working out these negotiations on SS for weeks and just got around to telling us now. And from the article, Nancy Pelosi says that Social Security and Medicare have their own table! I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing but why the fuck couldn't we have the Bush Impeachment Table, again?

Is President Obama so desirous of a second term that he would force a shitty "grand deal" so none of this comes up again during the elections? That, IMO, would be a pretty mind-bendingly fucking egotistical thing to do. I'm not saying he is, just wondering why the fuck he has to rearrange society by Sunday. He really wants the Republicans to be happy. Just what kind of goddamned deal is being struck here?

PB

[ClarkUSA]

1. More rightwing spin from AOL/HuffPo? The Progressive Caucus DEFENDS Pres. Obama's SS stance. -->

Read FACTS here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/07/992157/-Progressive-Caucus-DEFENDS-President-Obama-on-his-Social-Security-Stance

[Poll_Blind]

2. You keep repeating that in different threads like it's some talisman against reality.

Wake the hell up. Do you think everyone on this board is missing the fact that you're cookie cutter pasting that everywhere and anywhere you can? We might as well add a check box to DU posts for you so you don't have give yourself carpel hitting CTRL-V.

PB

[ClarkUSA]

3. It's a fact that bears repeating, considering the amount of misleading MSM whore shit-stirring OPs.

[Poll_Blind]

5. Simple question, yes or no. Is Social Security on 'the table'? Yes or no.

PB

[ClarkUSA]

8. Pres. Obama in his SOTU said he'd cut costs and fraud but not benefits. Nothing has changed.

Were you not paying attention?

The actual story is that the President will not slash SS benefits. Where are the appropriate headlines to this effect?

"There is no news here," Carney said. "The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

Let's not take the bait. Wait for actual information, before assuming the worst, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=702658&mesg_id=702658

FYI: the WH has already pushed back and denied Fred Hyatt's right-wing WaPo Business Section spin.

[Poll_Blind]

14. Where's your Yes or No? Carney ain't your spokesperson. How about you say it?

PB

[ClarkUSA]

17. NO!! As Pres Obama and the WH has said, SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ARE NOT ON THE TABLE.

Get a clue.

Sorry, one push poll question does not fit all choices. I made my choice.

:)

[Poll_Blind]

23. That, and the 59 minutes until your editing period expire, satisfy my request.

Because just like last night when I was told by no less than three "folks" that Social Security couldn't possibly be on the table at all, and that the articles were all fabrications, you will be proven wrong, possibly as soon as Sunday evening. But I doubt it'll all get wrapped up that soon.

Obama is making deals with the Republicans on Social Security and they will bend him just as easily as they have bent him in the past.

PB

[ClarkUSA]

28. I'm interested in the facts, not your empty negative speculative rhetoric about Pres. Obama.

[gateley]

15. I think the key word is "benefits" -- if they can cut costs I'm

for that (and it should have been done long ago) but it's the benefits that are the cause for concern.

That's the impression I got from Pelosi today -- the word benefits jumped out at me. I think I get the distinction, finally.

[ClarkUSA]

20. That has always been the key word but shit-stirrers have always try to hide that distinction.

[gateley]

36. I'm not sure they realize the distinction -- it never dawned on

me that there are different facets and that some cuts could actually be beneficial. It was hearing Pelosi, then Howard Dean, that helped me to understand it better.

We hear "cut Medicare costs" and we think "cut benefits". Or at least I did. :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

37. You're too kind. I am under no illusions.

Glad you're on board, nonetheless.

[ClarkUSA]

22. dupe

[bemildred]

4. I've heard this before, "grand bargain" == "screw the little guy". nt

[ClarkUSA]

6. You do know that the phrase "grand bargain" is Poll_Blind's opinion, not Pres. Obama's words, right?

[bemildred]

9. You must be some sort of moron if you think anybody invented that recently. nt

[ClarkUSA]

10. You must be some of moron if you think I said that. nt

[bemildred]

11. You said it came from Poll Blind.

I can assure you it's a trite phrase.

[ClarkUSA]

13. And it did. See the OP text. But I didn't say Poll_Blind invented the phrase, did I?

[bemildred]

16. I didn't say shit about Poll Blind either, did I? nt

[ClarkUSA]

19. I didn't say shit about anybody inventing anything, did I?

[bemildred]

21. No, you want to argue about nomenclature, whether "grand bargain" or "grand compromise" is correct.

[ClarkUSA]

24. I just exposed your strawman fallacy. Moving the goalpost now?

:rofl:

[bemildred]

26. Pflugh! Nothing happens. nt

[Poll_Blind]

27. Actually discussing the content of the OP is anathema to them.

Just look at the dancing in this thread from last night. Discussing the OP is like Kryptonite to them. Everything has to be diverted to something else if it doesn't go directly to an ad hominem.

PB

[bemildred]

29. But you used the wrong word!!! nt

[Poll_Blind]

31. LOL, tell me about it.

:rofl:

PB

[ClarkUSA]

34. That's the "grand bargain" we must make. Oh the drama!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

32. The fearmongering OP headline is AOL MSM whore shit-stirring HuffPo spin. Clyburn is right.

No amount of speculative fearmongering will change the facts, although Obama's opponents in the MSM and elsewhere keep trying.

[bemildred]

33. Yeah, heck, nobody should be fearmongering around here, eh?

:sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

35. Especially when the fearmongering is pure speculation that completely ignores the facts.

FACTS:

Nothing has changed since President Obama's SOTU address, wherein he stated his intention to cut costs and fraud but not benefits.

The actual story is that the President will not slash SS benefits. Where are the appropriate headlines to this effect?

"There is no news here," Carney said. "The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

Let's not take the bait. Wait for actual information, before assuming the worst, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=702658&mesg_id=702658

FYI: the WH has already pushed back and denied Fred Hyatt's right-wing WaPo Business Section spin.

[bemildred]

38. So, BEFORE it changes is the right time to let your views be known, right?

Just in case anybody has forgotten what they said in the past?

[ClarkUSA]

40. Before what?

[bemildred]

41. Well, I think we have wasted enough time on this, have a nice day.

See you on some other thread no doubt.
:-)

[Poll_Blind]

18. Uh, since you can't be bothered to check the linked article apparently...

...those exact words appear, respectively, in each of the articles' titles. Not my wording. If you actually follow through, you'll see the words "grand offer" are mostly likely White House spokesman Jay Carney's.

PB

[bemildred]

25. Now you've done it.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

39. Now you want to argue about nomenclature.

:rofl:

[Tx4obama]

7. See, there was NOTHING to get into a tizzy about.

Excerpt

But by Thursday morning, most House Democrats refrained from directly criticizing the president for planning to include entitlement programs in negotiations. Instead, they settled on another position: Changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are permissible so long as they shore up the programs to be stronger later. Cuts to beneficiaries will not be allowed. And while it is unclear what specific changes the president is proposing, so far, there seems to be no reason for concern.

It wasn't a total reversal -- Democrats maintained that they would not vote for a final deal that makes cuts to beneficiaries of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Still, few objected, at least publicly, to the line in the sand on entitlement programs disappearing, or to the fact that it was the president who washed it away.

"When you say Social Security is 'on the table,' it's been on the table all the time," Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Huffington Post. "In the Biden talks we talked about whether we ought to do something like raising the caps. If you raise the caps it's a whole lot different than raising the retirement age."

[Poll_Blind]

12. The deal ain't done till it's done and I've lived long enough to hear politicians sweet talk...

..their way into the money they want.

Hands off of Social Security, Period.

PB

[gateley]

30. I think the key distinction is "benefits" which is what I got

from Pelosi's statement, anyway.

Earlier I heard Jared Bernstein say there was room for savings, in prescriptions drug costs, for example. Stuff like that I'd support because it could only benefit the recipients (and if it's an option, why the fuck wasn't it done long ago?). But benefits? No wiggle room there as far as I'm concerned.