The President Obama Gamble: That Republicans Want To Turn Social Security Into A 401(k) and ...

[TomCADem]

...Medicare into a voucher program.

We know this. We all accuse Republicans of doing this with plenty of quotes from Republicans that this is what they want to do. But do we believe it? Or, in our heart of hearts, do we think that Republicans are really being honest with the American people in expressing concern about the debt and deficit?

"Don't call my bluff."

President Obama was offering Republicans significant cuts in Social Security and Medicare in return for tax increases at a 1 to 4 ratio. The Grand Bargain that many liberals were pissed about. He also pushed for a "Big Deal" that dwarfed what the Republicans were asking for. You see, Republicans wanted Democrats to play the role of the tax and spend liberal, and simply oppose Republican demands to cut spending, then Republicans could grudgingly agree to something like the McConnell plan white-flag plan, which would have been hailed as a compromise and responsible governing by the Republicans.

But, President Obama raised the stakes. He put Social Security and Medicare on the table in return for tax increases, and dared the Republicans to follow through on their rhetoric about the debt. The Republicans thought he was bluffing. President Obama told Eric Cantor not to call his bluff. But they tried to, but President Obama did not back down, and even today noted that he was willing to make painful decisions about Medicare and Social Security in return for revenue increases.

Now, the Republicans don't really give a crap about the debt. They want to turn Medicare into a voucher program (Ryan plan) and Social Security into a 401(k) (Bush plan). They do not want simple benefit cuts or tax increases that would make these programs solvent. They want to end them. President Obama knows this. We simply say we know it, but we don't really believe our accusations.

Well, in the most recent meetings with Boehner, President Obama doubled down on his Grand Bargain. He talked about painful cuts to Medicare and Social Security as late as this morning. John Boehner blinked, because he knew he did not have the ability to rally his caucas to support such a plan, because they hate Medicare and Social Security. They wanted to do the cowardly thing and pass a Constitutional Amendment that would mandate such cuts.

So, this is why you have John Boehner flip flopping and saying that no deal was close, then now claiming that President Obama, not he walked away from the talks.

Now, would have President Obama have followed through and supported such cuts if Republicans suddenly agreed to the tax increases in return for cuts in entitlements. Yes, which is why it was so believable.

But, Republicans cannot swallow such a package. They also would rather hide behind a constitutional amendment, rather than cutting social security or Medicare, unless the could end it through the misdirection of an amendment. This is why Boehner is flip flopping during his news conference. He can't explain why he walked away from a deal that appeared to give Republicans what they claim they want: Deficit reduction. They don't really want that. They want to shrink government, not make it more solvent. Starving the beast or drown it in a bathtub.

[emulatorloo]

1. Good analysis - you've nailed where the Republicans are at and why they would never

Make a deal that involved tax hikes

[TomCADem]

4. The Republicans Thought They Could Ride The Craziness Of The Tea Party...

...Remember Mitch McConnell bragging that President Obama should urge Democrats to accept a revenue free deal to cut the debt, because the Tea Party is crazy?

Well, President Obama's gamble, and it was a big gamble, was that Republicans boxed themselves in, so they could not accept what they told the American people they wanted: a large deal to cut the deficit and debt.

The Republicans are once again walking away from a deal, because as Boehner complained in his letter, the President continues to insist upon revenue increases.

I think Boehner realizes he was boxed in, which is why he was urging his caucas to accept a compromise behind closed doors. But, publicly, he is still reciting the anti-tax talking points even as we slide into default.

[KittyWampus]

2. The Ratio was actually closer to 1 to 1. Unless you believe the rumors. But I think you got the dyna

dynamics.

[CBHagman]

3. And I'd add that...

...when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, they didn't pass a balanced budget amendment. Suddenly their hair's on fire to do just that. :eyes:

[The Big Vetolski]

5. Uhhh...not necessarily. Did it ever occur to you that Obama put

Social Security and Medicare on the table because he WANTED to cut them? And expected the Republicans to go along? Given who his financial backers and his Cabinet are, that's the simplest explanation.

I don't like Obama. Because I'm a traditional Democrat. But I don't think he's INSANE. The Republicans are insane. Driven batshit crazy, at least in part, because of the color of Obama's skin. If we had the technology, Obama could offer fair skies, temps in the seventies, and a light shower every night after midnight and the Republicans would still say NO!

They have been captured by their own propaganda. And the Tea Party is the Monster to their Frankenstein.

[TomCADem]

6. I'm a Traditional, Life Long Democrat, Who Proudly Voted For President Obama

Unless you are referring to traditional Democrats in the 1800s and early 1900s who supported slavery and the Ku Klux Klan in which case, then I am not a traditional Democrat.

Now, do I think that President Obama necessarily wants to cut Social Security and Medicare? No, but he does want to make them solvent, and he understands that Republicans want these programs to bleed red ink so that they can justify their arguments to end them.

As for his financial backers, I am proud to say that I donated to his campaign in 2008, and I am doing so again this year. I think he has done a great job given the situation the world is in, and the corrupt corporate media that we are faced with that pushes the narrative to Blame Democrats and Give Republicans a free pass. Finally, for all the implications about his "financial backers," Wall Street is now tasking its Republican servants to gut the Consumer Protection Agency, and refuse to confirm any appointee to head the agency. So, do I think that he is simply doing their bidding? Obviously, no.

I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that a Republican President would only be marginally different or that a more "progressive" President would have more success with the current Congress.

[The Big Vetolski]

11. Crap. Mostly, anyway. Here are the details, responding to your

sentences in turn.

First, no, I am not a supporter of slavery. I am a traditional Democrat in the context of the New Deal and the Great Society.

Second. Yes, I do. Otherwise, he never would have put those issues on the table in the first place.

Third. We have something in common. I, too, gave money to Obama in 2008. So did Goldman-Sachs. More the fool, I.

Fourth. What the hell is the difference as far as my life is concerned? Better come up with a good answer, for there are millions of Americans who are asking the same question. And a REAL progressive President would have FOUGHT! Harry Truman tried to get national health care, and failed. But he TRIED. He also vetoed the Taft-Hartley Act, and was overridden. But he TRIED.

Obama doesn't try, unless he wants to assassinate or bomb someone. I have a very serious problem with that. How could a Romney possibly be worse? Not that I'd ever vote for him, but really, how?

[TomCADem]

12. How Could A President Romney Possibly Be Worse? Seriously?

1. He has said he would have signed the Ryan plan that turns Medicare into a voucher system.
2. He has signed the Cut, Cap, Balance pledge not raise the debt ceiling unless the Grover Norquist Amendment is passed by Congress.
3. Romney denounced President Obama's bailout of the auto industry, and would have simply let the companies go into bankruptcy without any federal supported restructuring, which would have forced liquidation. If we had a President Romney, then we would not have a GM or Chrystler.
4. Romney opposes the lifting of DADT.
5. Romney condemned an Iowa Court ruling striking down an Iowa Defense of Marriage Act, while President Obama's administration is not defending DOMA.
6. Mitt Romney strongly supported and donated to Gov. Walker during the latter's campaign to limit public employee collective bargaining: He said, "Wisconsin is in desperate need of a leader like Scott Walker."
7. Mitt Romney is strongly against campaign finance limits, and was against McCain Feingold.
8. Mitt Romney signed Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax pledge in 2007.
9. Romney favors making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent.
10. Like Scott Walker, Romney receives heavy support from the Koch brothers.
11. Romney has criticized and attacked Financial Reform, and has expressed willingness to repeal Dodd-Frank outright.
12. Romney has pledged to repeal Health Care Reform.
13. On Iraq, recall that back in 2008, Romney claimed that he would never support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
14. On the Supreme Court, who do you think Romney would appoint? Someone more liberal than either Kagan or Sotomoyor?

How can Romney possibly be worse? Perhaps you should ask public employees whether Governor Walker is any different from a Democratic Governor. I remember some folks making the argument that Al Gore was no different than George Bush, but learned the hard way just how different they are. Finally, can you imagine the current House with a Republican President, and a Republican Senate? They would see it as a mandate to repeal the NLRB. They could also manufacture another debt crisis to do what they really want to do, turn Medicare into a voucher program and Social Security into a 401(k).

I recall some folks pushing the idea that liberals should not turn out for Democrats in 2010. Well, we saw the sucess of that, so I always wonder when people push the idea that there is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats.

I remember back in 2001 when folks were pushing the idea that Dubya was a "compassionate" conservative aka non-scary conservative. Well, how did that turn out?

So, please, feel free to make the case that things would be no different under a President Romney.

[The Big Vetolski]

15. First, I never said things would be no different under a President

Romney, only that they would be no worse. I meant overall. To illustrate, I'll go down your list point by point. Remember, I'm a working class, heterosexual white male supporting three other people on 32K/year adjusted gross income. I freely admit that colors my perspective. So,

1. Obama appears willing to go in that direction, which is unacceptable to me. Obama would allow it to happen more slowly. So he's not much better. Besides, Democrats would actually fight Romney.
2. So Romney took a pledge. So did Obama, not to extend the Bush tax cuts. I no more expect Romney to keep his promises than I do anymore for Obama, who has lied so often it's not funny.
3. I agree with you on this. Point taken, though I think Obama should have just nationalized them.
4. True again, but this is a minor issue to me compared to my standard of living. Don't like that? Tough.
5. I don't care who people marry, but this is an insignificant issue to me.
6. I didn't exactly see Obama taking to the streets with the protesters. His near-silence was deafening. And his buddy Rahm is doing the same thing to Chicago. Obama is a Ryan-enabler.
7. Obama has done nothing on this issue, therefore, there's little difference between them.
8. So what? Obama said he was against health insurance mandates and would close Guantanamo.
9. Permanent tax cuts are a myth because Congress can reverse them at any time. And Obama broke his promise to end them by agreeing to extend them. Again, so what?
10. So what? Obama gets lots of support from Wall Street.
11. So what? Obama's financial reform is weak and ineffectual. Anything short of reinstating Glass-Steagall is unacceptable.
12. Good! The Health Insurance Corporation Enrichment Act of 2010 SHOULD be repealed. Mandatory private health insurance is unacceptable to me. At least give me the ability to opt out. The public option is the minimum acceptable reform; Medicare for all would be better.
13. There is no qualitative difference. Obama promises timetables and then leaves the troops there. Same thing, except maybe Romney is more honest about it.
14. I agree with you there, even though I don't trust Kagan any more than I do Roberts. Besides, Obama should be openly calling for the impeachment and imprisonment of Clarence Thomas.

So, let's see. Over 14 issues, on two Obama comes out ahead, on one Romney does, and the other 11 there is no substantial difference to me.

[PATRICK]

13. That last sentence

is pretty much dead on and one of the reasons for progressive frustration. It is also tied in with seeing the failure of the present administration as bound up with insuring a Republican second act of total destruction. Are there any big answers like voting might make a better difference in some imaginable scenario? If Obama disappeared would the sudden vacuum even find a viable progressive Great Leader or big slates of grassroots candidates to swamp the establishment field in the primaries? Even somehow get a viable national message out even if it echos what the big majority of Americans say and desire? All the voids are filled with people enabled and given permission by the very worst of big business. Out ideas may be true and even vital but there is no political space for them and seemingly no unity or crowds or big voices that can penetrate the inertial force of a failed system.

That IS too much to lay on Obama alone or remove him and let THAT void be filled by the well groomed same old same old= or something more monstrous. Most of our great presidents would not be up the standards of the challenge today. It is hard to imagine although certain things can obviously be done much better with hard lessons from the past actually remembered.
I can believe all the worst or best of Obama and almost forget there is no alternate choice. That is because there is nothing to do except the old stepping up to the plate all over again and getting involved and building against the lunacy of the "old guard". Even though time may have run out for such persistence, that is about all a critic is really left with.

[johnd83]

7. The only hope is moderate

Republicans and Democrats in the house making a compromise. The tea party might as well just be ignored. I just hope there are enough moderate Reps. to get something passed.

[TomCADem]

8. A Moderate House Republican?

I think many people do not appreciate just how radicalized the right has become. Let me put it this way, Senator Tom Coburn is willing to raise taxes, and he is no moderate!

[iamjoy]

9. No, Republicans Want Us to Default

The Republicans do not want to raise the debt ceiling. they want us to default. This is a win-win for them. President Obama is trying to negotiate with suicide bombers. Sorry to make the terrorism analogy. Perhaps I could say they are willing to cut the baby in half.

If we default, they get everything they want. Here's the spectrum from worst to mildest
1) Republicans whose personal financial situation will actually improve by the nation's economy getting worse - and they care more about their personal profit than they do this country or its people
2) Republicans who are so eager to get President Obama out of office that they don't care how many people suffer for it. The American people are collateral damage.
3) Republicans who don't think the Federal government should be doing these things anyway but can think of no other way to achieve their goals. They are willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater (pardon the cliche). If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the government will have no money to spend on all but the bare minimum.
4) Either #2 or #3, except these Republicans are genuinely troubled by the fact that Americans may suffer, but they see it as short term pain for long term benefit. Kind of like when a parent makes a kid take piano lessons or do something else the kid hates but that is ultimately for the kid's benefit (you'll thank me for this later)
5) The ones who don't think it would do any harm to our country (even in the short term). They just don't believe anyone will really suffer. I find it hard to believe any public figure is this dumb. Most are probably just saying it to promote their view (see 1 - 4). It may be include some of your neighbors and other everyday folks who are just uninformed.

So you see, President Obama and the Democrats can't win because the Republicans are quite willing to let the American people suffer.

[emulatorloo]

14. This is very difficult for the "LOUD" DU'ers to grasp.

[shanti]

10. grover nordquist's work

yessiree