Skip to main content

View Diary: Let the GOP balance the budget (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Give it up, Chris: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW

    It's not a "backfire." THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN 2012. There is no need to appease the T-Pubs on Social Security. The Republicans don't give a shit about Social Security one way or the other. And they clearly don't seriously give a shit about deficits.
      This whole thing is a political game and Obama is playing to lose. Offering up chained CPI is Democratic suicide.
      There is no way in hell that I'll vote for a candidate or party that supports this.

    •  And yet Thugs run the House and most States. (0+ / 0-)

      And, since politics is as much about the next election as the last, the D Senate seats up that will decide partisan control are in the red States, it does not matter that Ds won more than a million vote margin over Thugs in the House.  Nor can the D Senate majority work its will bc of a little thing called spineless capitulation on the filibuster - which BO had nada to do with.

      And, of course, you do know POTUS is not a dictator.

      I understand the desire for a 'do nothing' policy.  We do not get the luxury of doing nothing.  If we do nothing, Thugs win. Beyond the fact that appropriations must be passes, the voters expect things to be done.  If nothing is done, in the short term, enough voters will either buy the Thug lies (remember 2010, 'Where are the jobs!"?) or simply not vote on the belief that nothing will change.  And in the long term, more and more voters will continue to become every more cynical about politics and governance and Thugs will win.  

      That is why this is deemed necessary by BO, imo.

      And that it is intended to be a backfire is demonstrated by its being contingent on tax increases.  The elites are in love with deficit peacock-ism.  To the extent that only long-term debt is considered, there is some merit to concern, which both feeds their fear and makes them look reasonable.  BO is trying to take the deficit off the table as a legitimate issue or failing that (most likely) position Ds as both the adults and party of fairness.  

      It may not work.  It may be misguided.  But fact-free screeds and rants devoid of critical thinking and even the barest acknowledgment of self-fallibility will not help and just waste bandwith and energy.  

      And make us look as juvenile and irrelevant as the 'get government outa my Medicare' crowd.

      •  Why the fuck do you think people in Red States (0+ / 0-)

        vote for fucking Democrats?

        Ever?

        Because of Social Security and Medicare.  The safety net is the only reason we get Democrats out of states like Montana.  

        Repeating OFA talking points is not an argument, it's just an admission that you haven't got one.  

        Two stacked Commissions designed to recommend SS cuts, five years of the President saying he supports cuts, and you still insist he's just a liar who's playing games and being deceitful about his objectives.

        It makes you look like a thirteen year old with a crush.

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:42:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I repeat since you seem not the read: (0+ / 0-)

          "It may not work.  It may be misguided.  But fact-free screeds and rants devoid of critical thinking and even the barest acknowledgment of self-fallibility will not help and just waste bandwith and energy.  

          And make us look as juvenile and irrelevant as the 'get government outa my Medicare' crowd."

          When you learn this lesson and stop insulting me, I might again respond.  As of now, all you've done is prime me to dismiss your position.  The opposite of what you ostensibly intended.

      •  "It may not work." It seems that if the (0+ / 0-)

        President's apparent 'plan' doesn't work would mean that thousands of disabled, veterans, and seniors will be subjected to dire hardships, if not an early death, is completely acceptable to you??  It makes it appear that you are sufficiently wealthy enough that SS won't constitute at least 50% of your retirement and ambivalent to the needs of those less fortunate than you.

        The very fact that the President officially offered up what amounts to cuts to SS makes every Democrat fair game to being described as wanting to not only cut SS, but dismantle it by their political opponents.  The polls have demonstrated time and again that the American public does not want ANY cuts to SS.  Yet, here's the President offering to do just that.  You know that the Republicans WILL hang this around the neck of every single Democrat running for office.

        The Republicans have also clearly demonstrated that any compromise offered by a Democrat is a non-starter.  They demand and fully expect full capitulation to their wishes.  By compromising at some middle point between current policy and what the Republicans want only moves the country further to the right.  This will lead us to the abolishment of not only SS and Medicare, but anything else that might have a chance to help someone that's not of the 1% sooner than later and no chance of reversal.  How many times have Democrats said, we'll give a little on this and when we get back in power, we'll fix it.  They never have.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site