Obama renews calls for slashing Medicare, Social Security

I'm Watermark

I'm Watermark

Diabetic
"President Barack Obama continued his closed-door meetings with congressional leaders Wednesday and Thursday, seeking to work out a budget deal that will slash more than a trillion dollars from social spending over a ten-year period.

In these meetings, Obama made clear that he is seeking to make deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the core social programs that date from the 1930s and 1960s.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama met with the House Republican Conference and on Thursday afternoon he met with House Democrats, followed by a meeting with Senate Republicans.

In between his meetings with members of Congress, Obama found time to give a speech before 75 major campaign donors, including Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, who paid $50,000 apiece to take part in a fundraiser by Organizing for Action, a non-profit committee supporting Obama's legislative agenda.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a representative of the nominally liberal wing of the Democratic Party, echoed Obama’s insistence on slashing entitlements Thursday.

“If we can demonstrate that it doesn’t hurt the poor and the very elderly, then let’s take a look at it,” Pelosi told the press at the Capitol. “Because compared to what? Compared to Republicans saying Medicare should wither on the vine? Social Security has no place in a free society?”
She added, “If the goal is to strengthen Social Security, if the goal is to strengthen Medicare, if the goal is to recognize the importance of Medicaid and how we make all of these initiatives fiscally sound … then we’re ready to have that debate.”

Pelosi’s arguments are entirely fraudulent. The claim that cutting social entitlements will “strengthen” them, once the stock-in-trade of the far right of the Republican Party, is nothing but a sophistical justification for the dismantling of these programs. The reality is that Pelosi, like the rest of the Democratic Party, supports the evisceration of what remains of the social reforms of the previous century.

The Democrats are seeking to present their agreement to slash entitlements as a response to Republican “intransigence” and a concession to the Republicans in exchange for adopting measures that would raise tax revenues from the rich. In fact, whatever revenue increases may be passed will have a negligible impact on the wealthy and will be more than offset by cuts to corporate taxes, which both parties say they support."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/16/budg-m16.html

Brilliant. Gotta love those Democrats.
 
Cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security ?

how time flies....it seems like only yesterday he and his cronies denied all this.....I just can't keep up anymore...
 
Sycamore said:
"President Barack Obama continued his closed-door meetings with congressional leaders Wednesday and Thursday, seeking to work out a budget deal that will slash more than a trillion dollars from social spending over a ten-year period.

In these meetings, Obama made clear that he is seeking to make deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the core social programs that date from the 1930s and 1960s.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama met with the House Republican Conference and on Thursday afternoon he met with House Democrats, followed by a meeting with Senate Republicans.

In between his meetings with members of Congress, Obama found time to give a speech before 75 major campaign donors, including Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, who paid $50,000 apiece to take part in a fundraiser by Organizing for Action, a non-profit committee supporting Obama's legislative agenda.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a representative of the nominally liberal wing of the Democratic Party, echoed Obama’s insistence on slashing entitlements Thursday.

“If we can demonstrate that it doesn’t hurt the poor and the very elderly, then let’s take a look at it,” Pelosi told the press at the Capitol. “Because compared to what? Compared to Republicans saying Medicare should wither on the vine? Social Security has no place in a free society?”
She added, “If the goal is to strengthen Social Security, if the goal is to strengthen Medicare, if the goal is to recognize the importance of Medicaid and how we make all of these initiatives fiscally sound … then we’re ready to have that debate.”

Pelosi’s arguments are entirely fraudulent. The claim that cutting social entitlements will “strengthen” them, once the stock-in-trade of the far right of the Republican Party, is nothing but a sophistical justification for the dismantling of these programs. The reality is that Pelosi, like the rest of the Democratic Party, supports the evisceration of what remains of the social reforms of the previous century.

The Democrats are seeking to present their agreement to slash entitlements as a response to Republican “intransigence” and a concession to the Republicans in exchange for adopting measures that would raise tax revenues from the rich. In fact, whatever revenue increases may be passed will have a negligible impact on the wealthy and will be more than offset by cuts to corporate taxes, which both parties say they support."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/16/budg-m16.html

Brilliant. Gotta love those Democrats.
Click to expand...
As a tax worshipping Marxist, this must really offend you.
 
Sycamore said:
"President Barack Obama continued his closed-door meetings with congressional leaders Wednesday and Thursday, seeking to work out a budget deal that will slash more than a trillion dollars from social spending over a ten-year period.

In these meetings, Obama made clear that he is seeking to make deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the core social programs that date from the 1930s and 1960s.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama met with the House Republican Conference and on Thursday afternoon he met with House Democrats, followed by a meeting with Senate Republicans.

In between his meetings with members of Congress, Obama found time to give a speech before 75 major campaign donors, including Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, who paid $50,000 apiece to take part in a fundraiser by Organizing for Action, a non-profit committee supporting Obama's legislative agenda.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a representative of the nominally liberal wing of the Democratic Party, echoed Obama’s insistence on slashing entitlements Thursday.

“If we can demonstrate that it doesn’t hurt the poor and the very elderly, then let’s take a look at it,” Pelosi told the press at the Capitol. “Because compared to what? Compared to Republicans saying Medicare should wither on the vine? Social Security has no place in a free society?”
She added, “If the goal is to strengthen Social Security, if the goal is to strengthen Medicare, if the goal is to recognize the importance of Medicaid and how we make all of these initiatives fiscally sound … then we’re ready to have that debate.”

Pelosi’s arguments are entirely fraudulent. The claim that cutting social entitlements will “strengthen” them, once the stock-in-trade of the far right of the Republican Party, is nothing but a sophistical justification for the dismantling of these programs. The reality is that Pelosi, like the rest of the Democratic Party, supports the evisceration of what remains of the social reforms of the previous century.

The Democrats are seeking to present their agreement to slash entitlements as a response to Republican “intransigence” and a concession to the Republicans in exchange for adopting measures that would raise tax revenues from the rich. In fact, whatever revenue increases may be passed will have a negligible impact on the wealthy and will be more than offset by cuts to corporate taxes, which both parties say they support."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/16/budg-m16.html

Brilliant. Gotta love those Democrats.
Click to expand...


The democrats are starting to act like republicans and the republicans are starting to act like democrats.

Bottom line, they both suck.
 
What's new? The president said a year and a half ago everyone must make a sacrifice. In the case of Medicare and Social Security there's plenty of fraud, overbilling, duplicate billing and unnecessary billing that can be applied to the programs to cut billions, if not trillions, in cost. Means testing of both is also a reasonable and fair solution.
 
Howey said:
What's new? The president said a year and a half ago everyone must make a sacrifice. In the case of Medicare and Social Security there's plenty of fraud, overbilling, duplicate billing and unnecessary billing that can be applied to the programs to cut billions, if not trillions, in cost. Means testing of both is also a reasonable and fair solution.
Click to expand...

Sure. Review them, don't cut them.

But if you want to save money, nationalize health care and the sports industry, stop subsidies/bailouts and collectivize the PS, delegate more responsibility to localities, and slash the defense budget. There are plenty of ways to do this.
 
Anyone who doesn't already know by now that Obama WANTS to cut SS and Medicare can't be paying attention.

Obama Does Want to Cut Medicare and Social Security Benefits

When President Obama first openly put cuts the Medicare and Social Security benefits on the table during the debt ceiling negotiations many of his defenders went full 11th dimensional chess. The claimed Obama wasn’t so much putting these on the table because he wanted them cut right now, but to prove he was the more sensible adult in the room when Republican rejected this grand bargain. On this one point I agree with David Brooks and think we all just need to take Obama at his word. From David Brooks:

"According to widespread reports, White House officials talked about raising the Medicare eligibility age, cutting Social Security by changing the inflation index, freezing domestic discretionary spending and offering to pre-empt the end of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a broad tax-reform process.

The Democratic offers were slippery, and President Obama didn’t put them in writing. But John Boehner, the House speaker, thought they were serious. The liberal activists thought they were alarmingly serious. I can tell you from my reporting that White House officials took them seriously."

There is no super secret plan to trick Republicans or play the media. The administration has been totally honest when it has repeatedly state Obama wants the large austerity package possible.

Obama put cuts to these programs on the table because he wants to sign a package with cuts to these programs. His stated goal is a large deficit reduction package that is mostly spend cuts with very few tax increases. The only way he can get that without making major cuts to the Pentagon is by cutting the social safety net. If Obama actually wanted an equally large deficit reductions package that was mostly tax increases, he could easily already gotten that by vetoing any extension of the Bush tax cuts. He only wants to reduce the deficit if it is mostly through cuts.

The truly historic importance of what is happen right now can’t be repeated enough. It is a Democratic President who is the driving force now behind cutting Medicare and Social Security. It is a Democratic President who feels that deficit reduction during a recession and keeping tax rates near historic laws are both much more important policy goals than protecting Social Security and Medicare Benefits.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/20...to-cut-medicare-and-social-security-benefits/

If you want to take the country to the right .. you need to get a democrat to do it.
 
Obama .. like Clinton .. is looking to get paid.

The Secret: Why Obama Really, Really Wants to Cut Social Security

Some of you may be amazed that a Democratic President has, for many years, been so insistent on cutting Social Security. He’s made you believe he is “giving in” for the sake of “compromise,” but in fact, he is as right-wing-ruthless as the Republicans, when it comes to cutting benefits to the middle-and lower-income groups.

It’s no compromise. He actively wants cuts. Further, this self-anointed “friend of the middle class” could hardly wait to raise FICA, the most regressive tax in American history.

So what motivates this right-winger in left-wing clothing? Here’s a clue:

Bill Clinton’s $80 Million Payday, or Why Politicians Don’t Care That Much About Reelection
On December 21, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law ensured that derivatives could not be regulated, setting the stage for the financial crisis.

Just two months later, on February 5, 2001, Clinton received $125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave for the company in New York City. A few weeks later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New York.

The dirty secret of American politics is that, for most politicians, getting elected is just not that important. What matters is post-election employment.

It’s all about staying in the elite political class, which means being respected in a dense network of corporate-funded think tanks, high-powered law firms, banks, defense contractors, prestigious universities, and corporations. If you run a campaign based on populist themes, that’s a threat to your post-election employment prospects.

In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris.
As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors.

In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.

---

Because the vast majority of deficit spending benefits the 99.9%, cutting the deficit widens the gap — exactly what the rich want.
Before the past election, I urged readers to vote for Obama as the better choice between two really bad choices. My opinion was Romney would have been a greater disaster for America than Obama.

That said, Romney at least, could point to some pre-politics accomplishments. Although he hated the underclasses, he did build Bain Capital, and he successfully led the Salt Lake Olympics.

And what were Obama’s pre-politics accomplishments? He was a “community organizer” (whatever that is), and he . . . er, ah, was sort of a lawyer, briefly.

So, how did Obama rise though the ranks to attain his position, despite having few accomplishments. As a Chicago-style politician, he understood the way to success is to do the bidding of the moneyed class. He was trained to do as he was told.

I’m a life-long Chicagoan. I know how Obama came to be a state senator, a national senator and the President. Big money backed him, because he was dependable (for them) and now, he wants big money to reward him retires from the Presidency, by building a large Obama library in Chicago and by making him “Clinton-rich.”

That is how it’s done, and those who don’t understand these facts, continue to argue economics, when the real argument revolves around the income/wealth gap.

The words “rich” and “wealthy” are not absolute terms; they are comparative terms. Many years ago, someone making $50K per year was fabulously wealthy, because most people made less than $5K. Today, $50K is middling.
If I asked you, “Is someone making 20,000 naira per year, wealthy?” your first question would be, “How many naira does the average person earn?” Wealth is defined by the gap.

Not only does the income/wealth gap define wealth, but the wider the gap, the wealthier and more powerful the rich are. So the rich are not interested in absolute dollars; they are interested in comparative dollars. They are interested in the gap.

You can widen the gap by giving the rich more money or by taking money from the poor. Cutting Social Security widens the gap, as does cutting food stamps, cutting Medicaid and increasing FICA payments — all Obama proposals and initiatives.

For the sake of his wealthy supporters, Obama’s goal is to widen the gap, so he will be “Clinton-rich” after he leaves office.

To understand today’s sequester arguments, forget about the lie that the debt is “unsustainable” or that the government is “broke” or that the government, like you, “should live within its means.” Those claims all are misdirection from the real issue.

The real issue for politicians, left and right, is how best to curry favor with the rich. The rest is just to brainwash you, the public.

Don’t pay attention to what Obama says. He doesn’t want to “compromise.” He doesn’t want to “save” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He doesn’t want to lift the middle class.

He wants to please the wealthy by widening the gap. And if you’re real generous, he’ll invite you to dinner in the White House, with him and Michelle.

How do I know? A dear friend of mine was quite generous, and recently had that very dinner. I guess his contribution was pretty good, but for a few bucks more, he might have had Obama cut food stamps.

Hmmm . . . I wonder how much it would cost to get the National School Lunch Program eliminated. Those kids are too fat, anyway.
http://econintersect.com/b2evolutio...ma-really-really-wants-to-cut-social-security
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top