If you have "no place to go," come here!

President Fuck You's debt presser: The shorter version

Gotta quote the whole thing, it's so great:

“[OBAMA] I tried repeatedly to surrender to the House GOP, but they wouldn’t take even my most abject surrender. I have summoned them back to the White House tomorrow morning in another attempt to force them to accept it. If worst comes to worst, and they will not accept my surrender, I am prepared to accept theirs, but I really don’t like it, and will use the opportunity to campaign against Democratic values in the next election.”

[I think I hurt myself laughing.]

NOTE Via Mark Thoma.

No votes yet


Submitted by jawbone on

raising Medicare age to 67. Among other crappy deals for us the people.

Oh, I forgot: We're an "interest group."

All those unemployed, under employed older people holding on by their fingertips until they turn 65 would be shit out of luck. Two more years without insurance. Interest groups.

I thought I heard on NPR this morning that Obama said Pelosi had agreed to doing so, but I can't find that in a transcript of Obama's Friday 5PM announcement. He was making the point that he'd made all these great offers to Boehner.

Maybe Boehner is just a bit more savvy politically and realizes that even if Obama offers it, if the Repubs agree they will have a shitstorm on their hands with people furious about raising the Medicare age.

Obama is most likely to the right of Boehner, if so!!!

It was an early segment on today's Weekend Edition.

Was anyone listening? Did I misremember, hear things wrong?

Can't get replay until noon.

BUT -- if it is true that Pelosi has agreed on that, that does it completely. NO MORE DEMS.

From the transcript:

Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.

In addition, what we sought was revenues that were actually less than what the Gang of Six signed off on. So you had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they’ve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes -- tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.

So let me reiterate what we were offering. We were offering a deal that called for as much discretionary savings as the Gang of Six. We were calling for taxes that were less than what the Gang of Six had proposed. And we were calling for modifications to entitlement programs, would have saved just as much over the 10-year window. In other words, this was an extraordinarily fair deal. If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue.

But in the interest of being serious about deficit reduction, I was willing to take a lot of heat from my party -- and I spoke to Democratic leaders yesterday, and although they didn’t sign off on a plan, they were willing to engage in serious negotiations, despite a lot of heat from a lot of interest groups around the country, in order to make sure that we actually dealt with this problem. (My emphasis)

Submitted by jawbone on

agreed to his cuts, but...the snippet used made it sound as if the Dem leadership sure would agree....

Keep up the calls to these weasels. Once the cuts are made, they will NOT BE CORRECTED.

And Obama thinks he can still pull some kind of bargain using cuts to SocSec and Medicare/Medicaid.

LINK to NPR segment.

Submitted by Lex on

How bad is it when Paul Craig-Roberts is waaaay to the left of our supposedly "progressive" President?

A paleo-conservative veteran of the Reagan administration can point out that the "entitlements" are funded and the wars/DoD budget is what's not. And while Medicare/caid might need some funding tweeks to hold up under the weight of the Boomers who don't have pensions and retiree health benefits like their parents, the only issue with Social Security is every president since Reagan raiding the trust fund.

But our glorious, progressive President remains blithely ignorant of reality while he crams the neoliberal austerity measures that have destroyed every country they've ever touched down our throats.