The coming social disaster as best I can figure

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...for a three day re-election campaign.

No, it's for the Secret Service fleet.

[classicman]

not even close to it. They have focused squarely at SS. They have no other ideas that do not directly impact THEIR income/power/cronies.

[glatt]

Merc, It amuses me that in post 59 you say the President doesn't control fiscal policy, and then 2 minutes later in post 60, you blame the President again for the economy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Merc, It amuses me that in post 59 you say the President doesn't control fiscal policy, and then 2 minutes later in post 60, you blame the President again for the economy.

The Demoncratic majority and a Demoncratic President had the opportunity to do pretty much anything they wanted. And it amuses me how they still want to blame thier failures on Bush. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama Rhammed a boondogle Stimulus Bill with the war cry of "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!"; how'd that work out for them? I don't just blame Obama, I blame all three of them.

[TheMercenary]

[quote=classicman;756249]Bullshit - The R's have repeatedly stated No tax increases - PERIOD. I think I'm safe inferring that would mean that they are "off the table."[quote]I don't think they all think like that. I would hope that at least Obama would have considered the recommendations of HIS Debit Commission proposals.... He did not, and he has showed that he is no different from the Repbulickins.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/news...down/index.htm

What military/defense/pentagon spending cuts have they proposed?

Not proposed, agreed to. $350 Billion in cuts agreed to in the latest round of the Debit reduction agreement.

http://www.businessinsider.com/defen...rillion-2011-8

What has pissed me off the most about the R's is that they have not balanced one fucking thing they want to take away from the bottom with anything at the top.

I agree there has to be a balanced approach. They can start by lowering the tax rates and elimination of the loopholes and deductions. Flaten the tax schedule out and make sure everyone pays thier share.

[TheMercenary]

Obama proposes cuts to Medicare and Social Security...

WASHINGTON -- In his jobs speech before Congress Thursday night, President Barack Obama appeared to call on congressional Democrats to cut Medicare, a politically toxic proposal that undercuts a previous Democratic campaign strategy.

Obama pushed to cut Medicare during the debate over raising the federal debt ceiling, urging lawmakers from both parties to accept a "grand bargain" that involved cutting both Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_954840.html

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You certainly wave the banners every chance you get.

If stating that the Bush era tax cuts be allowed to expire and that those in the upper income brackets pay more in taxes then they now do is "waving the banners of class warfare," so be it.

However, actual class welfare would consist of things like nationalizing all the big corporations, including agribusiness, confiscating the bank accounts of anyone above a certain income and so forth. Take a look at what happened under various communist regimes beginning with Russia and get real.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Agreed. But there is a difference between the rhetoric out of the Obama re-election speeches he is giving now and where the problems lie for a real world long term solution.

And the same is true of the various right wing candidates. The country is polarized and no would-be leader is offering a viable solution that I can see. America is suffering from an absence of leadership, imagination and innovation, and it couldn't be happening at a worse time for the country. Pouring all this vitriol on Obama while ignoring most of the sins of the right, is taking partisanship to the point of the absurd.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Define "wealthy". But again I agree.

For the sake of the argument I was making, "wealthy" would mean any person or entity who can afford to make very generous donations to both sides of the aisle to ensure that their particular agenda will be carried out, regardless of election outcomes.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have no problem with that. We need a net, not a crutch. And what we have now is a crutch.

Oh, bullshit! What we have now allows those at 125% below the poverty level to barely scrape by. Most places have a two year or longer wait for housing vouchers. If you are homeless, you step to the end of the line like everyone else. In my county, elderly people whose income is less than $1000/mo from social security get a grand total of $10 a month in food stamps. County public transportation for seniors and disabled who need a ride to their doctor appointments has been cut by 40%.

With the continued cuts in Medicaid reimbursements, no doctor in my town any longer accepts new Medicaid patients. People are forced to travel 20 miles to the town of Dolores (well-named) to get treatment at a low income rural clinic. How they get to Dolores is beyond me - maybe they hitch hike. I could go on and on. You need to step out of your ivory tower and take a look at the real world.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

False on so many levels...

Please read the report that I quoted from the CBO. "Spending will be at its lowest level in 40 years."

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why should I defend something that I do not believe will happen?

This question is so disingenuous, it scarcely deserves a response. You have stated repeatedly that you are in favor of cuts to social programs. You need to stand up for this opinion or stop repeating it. I can say that I'm in favor of taxing the upper 5% in wealth at 99% and closing all their tax loop holes, but since that probably won't happen, I don't have to explain my reasoning.

Your reply is a cop out and you know it.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

This is an inditement of the current administration.

Now, I have lost all patience with you. You wouldn't read any material that doesn't support your agenda if your life depended on it.

[TheMercenary]

Good enough.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress?

.

[TheMercenary]

Obama's plan.

[Lamplighter]

Source: ModernHealthCare.com
Public doubtful on prospects for cutting deficit, Kaiser poll finds
By Jessica Zigmond
Posted: September 23, 2011 - 1:00 pm ET

The American public has considerable doubts that the
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction will be able to draft a proposal
to cut $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit that Congress would pass,
according to a Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll.

“When asked about specific areas where the supercommittee might recommend cuts,
more than half the public says they would not support any reductions to spending
on Social Security (58%) or Medicare (51%),” the report noted.
“Almost half (46%) say the same about Medicaid,
while 38% would support minor reductions and just 16% want major reductions in Medicaid spending.”

When GW Bush created the Medicare Part D Drugs program,
it was "not funded" and so is now a significant part of the US deficit.
Republicans are adamant they will not raise taxes.
Democrats are adamant they will not cut Medicare.

I have a proposal that just might pass muster in this present day Congress,
because it would not raise taxes, and would lower Medicare costs for years into the future.
I'm convinced this one "little" change could drop Medicare drug costs significantly:

Change that part of the Medicare Part D Drug program law that forbids
Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug manufacturers.


My wife and I use a non-profit Medicare provider (Kaiser Permanente)
We have seen the non-Part D drugs get lower in price,
but Part D drugs are being gouged.

For example...and these are Kaiser prices
' a vaccine that was 11 cents/dose is now $172
' an asthma inhaler that was $19 is now $132
' an hormone replacement that was $65 is now $215.90

[classicman]

Wholeheartedly agree. Well said/written/posted.
Limiting the Gov't from negotiating is removing the largest advantage the largest purchaser has. How stupid is that? VERY.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

Wholeheartedly agree. Well said/written/posted.
Limiting the Gov't from negotiating is removing the largest advantage the largest purchaser has. How stupid is that? VERY.

Not if you are Big Pharma.

Putting your lobbying dollars to work benefits the companies, the law was written to specifically benefit the drug companies. Now, some will loudly protest that reducing their profits will stifle drug development, that changes like the one Lamplighter proposes will reduce their profits and everyone who owns a share of xyz pharmaceutical company will be (mis)informed that the government is trying to steal your money! Or, that the income redistribution revolution has begun, they're stealing YOUR MONEY!

I agree that the provision forbidding the government from negotiating is FUCKING STUPID. It is a gold plated invitation to abuse, just as the no-bid contracts were in the Iraq/Gulf war. More bullshit.

[Pico and ME]

It is proof positive who actually runs our government, wouldn't you say?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

It is proof positive who actually runs our government, wouldn't you say?

Well.

You bring up the very heart of the matter.

As class warfare-y as it sounds, "they" have the money and "we" have the votes.

Money buys influence, both on Capitol Hill and in the hearts and minds of the populace, especially in our media. Money can't invent truth, money can't create a different arithmetic. Money can, and often does, distract from the truth. Money can buy words, lots and lots and lots and lots of words. All kinds of words, true words and false words.

Make no mistake, false words can be just as effective as true words, sometimes more so. I read a lovely little story about LBJ today. As the story goes, during his election campaign, he told his staff to put the word out that his opponent has sex with barnyard animals. When his staffers pointed out that this wasn't true, LBJ was reported to have said "Make the bastard deny it." Words have power.

Words have power, but only so far as they cause our votes to move one way or another. Not just our votes but the votes of our lawmakers at every level. It is possible to vote in favor of one's interest, it is easy to vote against one's own interest. Voting's hard, and it is imprecise. And it's ongoing. These laws don't just get made every four or six or two years, they're happening all the time. But it's extremely difficult to keep track of what's going on, even the public stuff. I'm not even talking about actual corruption, which exists, but is... beyond my capacity to investigate, fact check, discuss, expose, etc. *sigh*.

But you do have your vote. You have your intelligence. You have your voice. You, and I, have our opportunity, nay, our obligation, to be informed citizens so that our elected representatives actually represent *US*.