FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Tomasky writes: "It's hard to see why Obama should give something to get a win he stands a good chance of getting at no price a few weeks later."

President Barack Obama in Tucson, Arizona, 01/12/11. (photo: Jewel Samad/Getty Images)
President Barack Obama in Tucson, Arizona, 01/12/11. (photo: Jewel Samad/Getty Images)


Will Obama Screw Liberals?

By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

12 December 12

 

If Obama is really considering hiking the Medicare eligibility age, he's off to a bad start with the base. Michael Tomasky on the potentially colossal blunder.

unday afternoon I received an email from Howard Dean. Not a personal one, but nevertheless seeing his name there made me look twice, because I never get emails of any kind from Howard Dean. This one warned me ominously about the looming cuts to Medicare, and while the Deanian digit of outrage was pointed at the Republicans, the email also noted that my voice was needed to ensure that the Democrats stood united against the assault. Translated, this means that liberals are terrified that the White House is about to agree to increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67. I don't personally feel quite as strongly about this as many others do, for reasons I'll get into. But my own views aside, I think the White House ought to know that by all existing evidence, if it agrees to such a deal, Barack Obama will lose liberal support far more quickly, more despondently, and more, if I may put it this way, ferociously and furiously than he ever lost it over the public option.

Here's the talk that started over the weekend: That the White House was ... well, the correct verb is an interesting question here ... contemplating? Pushing? Offering? ... a deal that quickly was dubbed 67-for-37. The Democrats would agree to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from the current 65, and Republicans would agree to hike the marginal tax rate on taxable dollars earned above $250,000 to 37 percent (down from Obama's desired 39.6 percent). Both sides give, both sides get. It looks, to your average person, reasonable. It could be done before the New Year. As we say in Appalachia, Bob's your uncle.

Except that it isn't that simple. As clean and balanced as this might look to the unschooled eye, it would actually constitute a huge win for the Republicans-the party at the table, remember, that is presumed to have little to no leverage here. Why would that be? Because it's a lot easier to change marginal tax rates around than it is to go back in and fiddle with an entitlement rule. Tax rates aren't easy to change, mind you. But entitlement changes are really, really hard and rare. If the Medicare age got bumped up to 67, I can't imagine a force in the future that could bump it back down, what with the deficit-obsessed establishment that we have in this town. So Obama would be giving the Republicans something much more likely to remain permanent in exchange for a thing the Republicans can change pretty quickly the next time they have a president and majorities in Congress.

But that's only the start. It turns out that raising the eligibility age by these two years doesn't really save any money. The economist Brad DeLong explains that spending in Medicaid and other subsidies would have to be increased to help cover the 65- and 66-year-olds who fall through the cracks.

Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, made this points and others on Chris Hayes's MSNBC show over the weekend. Tanden is a powerful figure in Washington progressive circles, and CAP is close to the administration-a formula that usually means that a person in Tanden's position would be sheepishly imploring viewers to see both sides of this complicated question. That she did not shows, well, that she has backbone (and she worked on Obama's campaign!), and it reflects just how unhappy Obama's base, even his establishment base, would be.

Those troublesome 65- and 66-year-olds, of course, raise not merely a fiduciary question, but a moral one. What about the people who fall through the cracks and are stuck without insurance for two years? And that raises the Really Big Issue here, which is what really has liberals climbing a tree: a Democratic president, fresh off a convincing reelection, is going to be the guy to take a huge bite out of the social safety net? You've got to be kidding me.

And so, we're hearing it, or I'm hearing it, from some quarters already. He's going to sell us out. He was never that liberal anyway. He said back in 2009 that he wanted to do big entitlement reform, so why shouldn't we take him at his word? And so on and so on. Liberals, or at least some liberals, have already returned to the normal crouch position of anticipating the not-at-all theoretical day that Obama sells them out in one beat of their bleeding hearts.

For my own part, I'm not there yet. Matt Yglesias wrote last week that cutting a deal with this element is conceivable provided Obama gets in return something health-care related, and something that covers those 65- and 66-year-olds who risk getting caught in the cracks. Such a deal, depending on its particulars, wouldn't be insane. But this too would be politically difficult. Raising the eligibility age to match the increasing Social Security retirement age (67 in 2028 under current law) could make sense provided the Affordable Care Act has been fully implemented and the new health-care exchanges are up and running, so people can buy into those at affordable rates. But Republicans, of course, are still looking for ways to kill off the ACA. And governors aren't setting up the exchanges. Signs aren't encouraging that the Republicans would bargain in good faith on this point, but at least in policy terms, a rationale would exist for going to 67.

But for Obama to accept a 67-for-37 kind of deal would be madness. Especially before January 1, when the tax rates go up. It's hard to see why Obama should give something to get a win he stands a good chance of getting at no price a few weeks later. (I doubt the Republicans can afford politically to let all taxes go up, so they will be eager for a deal-almost any deal-very soon.)

Obama faces enormous establishment pressure to consummate a deal-from Wall Street, from much of the mainstream media, etc. I'm more willing than most liberals to concede that he has to take that pressure seriously. But he might also keep in mind that two thirds of the public, including a hefty majority of Republicans, opposes going to 67. And he might also remember his voters. The market might not care much about lower-income senior citizens, but he was elected to do just that.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+26 # CAMUS1111 2012-12-12 15:29
But Obama is not and never was a liberal. It is a type of racism (unintended and semi- or unconscious and probably without malice)that assumes that our first afro-american president must be to the left. Why do we assume he will not try to sell liberals out for his place in history that he truly wants?
 
 
+1 # America 2012-12-13 05:34
Quoting CAMUS1111:
But Obama is not and never was a liberal. It is a type of racism (unintended and semi- or unconscious and probably without malice)that assumes that our first afro-american president must be to the left. Why do we assume he will not try to sell liberals out for his place in history that he truly wants?


I find this statement offensive. Camus you are bringing in the race card. Why jump to this ridiculous conclusion. It is YOU who are doing the stereotyping. Knock it off will you. You may analyze Obama's ideology based on his track record and the writer may be doing this and never uses the race card in his piece.
 
 
+16 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-12-13 09:48
The question asked by this article is, "Will Obama screw liberals?" The simple answer is, with no consideration of his race, is YES. And that goes for the whole of the Democratic party. They are bought and paid for and they will harm us with no empathy or compassion. Get ready for austerity.
 
 
+8 # 666 2012-12-14 07:49
I can't help but be struck this week by stories about how both parties are turning on Americans: the Koch/GOP war on unions in michigan, and obama's likely willingness to sell out (sell off?) the great society. If anyone ever needed further indication that both parties are really serving one master, this would seem to be proof positive!
 
 
+3 # CAMUS1111 2012-12-13 12:57
@America--you really need to take a class in reading comprehension since you obviously had no clue as to what I was saying.
 
 
-4 # America 2012-12-14 19:39
I quoted YOU CAMUS1111. You brought up the matter of race.You are making the statement that most people think black people are assumed to be liberal. I am saying take it OUT of the conversation as the writer never made that reference.
 
 
+27 # WestWinds 2012-12-13 08:33
There is no "trying" to it; he HAS been selling out the Left, all the way back to the FISA vote. Obama was a DLC-er before he ever hit the Senate and their policies are corporate and very Bush. What is flooring is, now the Left wants to put Hillary Clinton in; what's the difference? She is a Bushite war hawk and her track record shows it. Elizabeth Warren yes, Hillary Clinton no. Better yet, Jill Stein: Not a corporatist and has a Green New Deal just waiting for us. This Green New Deal is everything we want including Single Payer/Medicare for all, Clean Energy, no more war, and tax/tariff incentives to return manufacturing to America. Shall we drag along the bottom like slaves for another decade or two, or do we have the courage to do something different? Insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing, and Hillary Clinton is the same thing! Obama... he's a lost cause and always was. I'm sorry I voted for him in his first term, but I didn't make that mistake twice; I voted Stein. I did something different, and I'm not sorry. I'm only sorry others didn't do the same and we could have slipped the rope on this whole mess.
 
 
+21 # Richard Martin-Shorter 2012-12-13 10:18
This is the defining point of Obama's legacy. He will either be remembered as one of the most progressive leaders since FDR, if he uses all the leverage he has, to fight against the Republicans and their rabid destruction of society, or he will be remembered as the biggest betrayer of public trust since the founding of the country.

If his actions determine the latter legacy, then why should anyone who believes in progressive values ever vote for a Democrat again? It would not be a "waste" of a vote, to vote Green or other Progressive choice, if the only difference between D & R is the rate at which they will destroy our society, prostituting themselves for campaign cash.
 
 
+117 # universlman 2012-12-12 15:43
To save money, we should extend Medicare to more age groups not less. Medicare is as close as we can get (except for Medicare "Advantage") to a universal program and the most effective way to reduce medical costs.

Forcing seniors to pick through an array of provate plans (Medicare "Advantage") with all sorts of costs and bennefits is a poor way to serve people many of whom are on a fixed income and have no idea what will happen next to them medically. Why not just put everyone on a single payer system and our costs will fall to the levels found in every other industrialzed nation AND our mediocre outcomes will improve. Afre we going to continue mucking around with this issue for ever?
 
 
+28 # WestWinds 2012-12-13 08:34
Why not put everyone on Single Payer? Because it does not serve the greed of the corporations, that's why.
 
 
+26 # MainStreetMentor 2012-12-12 15:57
Yes ... he will. But, the outcome he will produce will again be the lesser of two evils (had Romney been elected). The sad thing is: the Citizens of the United States, as an entity which were pulverized via the financial rapes of Wall Street (enabled and encouraged by the Bush/Cheney kakistocracy), can ill afford a continuation of that "beating". Obama's "compromises" are sometimes indistinguishab le from capitulations.
 
 
+8 # isafakir 2012-12-13 05:42
he wishes he were ronald reagan but can't be because he identifies with his progressive mother so he pretends the one but does the other. capitulation is his middle name.
 
 
+9 # WestWinds 2012-12-13 08:35
Yah, and if Stein had been elected, we would be getting Single Payer/Medicare for all.
 
 
+40 # Califa 2012-12-12 16:23
Will Obama screw liberals? Sure, why not. That's what he has been doing for the past 4 years and will continue doing so for the next 4 years.
 
 
+35 # Susan W 2012-12-12 16:45
And look what happened when he did--he got reelected. Why should he give a damn now about what they think.
 
 
+19 # LML 2012-12-13 05:10
Yes, he did, yes, he will, and no he doesn't give a damn.
 
 
+2 # David Heizer 2012-12-13 17:12
Only because his opponent was such a freakshow disaster. I'm sure he's talked with his pollsters.

His efficacy (and ability to leave a 2nd-term legacy) will decline steadily over the next four years. He needs to retain broad-based public support if he wants to forestall lame-duck status as long as possible.
 
 
+7 # RLF 2012-12-13 07:02
Exactly! They are "F#*king retards" remember his pal saying?
 
 
+29 # dbriz 2012-12-12 17:15
The answer depends on how one defines "liberal".

He is most assuredly going to screw progressives.
 
 
+5 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:03
Quoting dbriz:
The answer depends on how one defines "liberal".

He is most assuredly going to screw progressives.


You're unfortunately correct. "Liberal" has been redefined and shoved well to the right, resulting in its becoming a synonym for "right of center", a lot of these DINOs are the majority of commenters on RSN. But the funny thing is that they would still like to be perceived as caring, socially responsible progressives. Sorry, one cannot support Obama and be mistaken for a socially responsible caring person. That's just not compatible.
 
 
0 # LML 2012-12-20 18:06
Actually he is going to screw everybody who does not belong to the 1%
 
 
+26 # Toribeth 2012-12-12 22:59
Obama never stood his ground during the first four years of his presidency so we waited and hoped that during the second four years, he would stand up for the suffering Americans. Prices of food and utilities keep going up as we are being squeezed into dire poverty. Obama is in a position now to stop the madness. The Oval Office is obviously sound proof since he does not hear the anguish of the baby boomers, the elderly and the children.
 
 
+5 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:26
He hears it all. Why oh why do you all assume he gives a shit? All he wanted was your vote. Now that he got it, you're dead to him, just like his first term.
 
 
+20 # tm7devils 2012-12-12 23:32
What I would like to know is: did we elect a democrat in the last election - or is there a 'shadow party' that I don't know anything about?
 
 
+8 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:27
It's called the DLC. It's the thing that took over the socially responsible and supposedly caring Democratic Party.
 
 
+24 # balconesfalk 2012-12-13 00:19
If he really wanted to make history he would step up and say that the health care act must not be called Obamacare but Medicare-for-Al l. That would simplify the health care initiative so that everyone could easily understand it. It would do the most good for the most people. That is what Americans--not just liberals or progressives--r eally want.
I mean, really, would Social Security have lasted this long if it had been called FDRicurity.
 
 
+3 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:29
The only people he wants to do good for are his financiers on Wall Street and in the Big Oil Companies and Big Pharma, etc.
 
 
+4 # BKnowswhitt 2012-12-13 00:23
Doesn't anyone here understand that the elderly must pay their fair share - I mean that's only reasonable for the debacle of the last what now 14 years all because of 9/11 two unnecessary wars an economy that the new greedy america recently created. What an F'N joke millionaire Obama included. What a shame .... Shame on them all ...
 
 
+14 # RHytonen 2012-12-13 09:58
Quoting BKnowswhitt:
Doesn't anyone here understand that the elderly must pay their fair share - I mean that's only reasonable for the debacle of the last what now 14 years all because of 9/11 two unnecessary wars an economy that the new greedy america recently created. What an F'N joke millionaire Obama included. What a shame .... Shame on them all ...


"The Elderly" - and by that I mean the retired who have to live on ONLY SS, b/c corporations (really, ALL employers) systematically destroyed their ability to save by the statistically DEMONSTRATED stagnation of wages, increased periods of unemployment, and upward wealth/income consolidation LEGISLATED into effect over the last 60 years.

Glaring Examples: the erosion of the successful 92% TMR (which CREATED the middle class consumer economy) down to 34%,numerousoth er reductions of taxes on extreme unearned wealth, and the Gramm/Leach/Bli ley "Finance Modernization" Act that repealed Glass Steagall.

There were also numerous de facto corporate coups tolerated; like creating derivatives, "hedging" risk, corruption of regulators and nonenforcement of loophole abuses, safety and environmental regs, and antitrust.

It appears to me the working seniors have shared ALL the pain. "Balance?" would mean some VERY extreme and ruthless PAYBACK - and Fast. We're dying soon - in constant worry; actual, statistical Sub-FPL poverty, after a lifetime of nothing but work.
 
 
+18 # FactsFirst 2012-12-13 00:25
If he does that, he will not have Rhom Emmanuel to blame this time. It will be on his shoulders, and he should be ready for his base to turn stone cold. If that even matters to him. Seems all we accomplished with the billions spent on the campaign is that Romney was kept from serially raping the U.S. Obama at least will be selective.
 
 
+4 # Richard Martin-Shorter 2012-12-13 10:31
That's a good point, and indicates to me that the part of the .001% that isn't blinded by their own greed (as the Kochs, Adeleson, and Murdoch appear to be) is really pulling his strings to destroy as much of the society possible, but slowly, in order to maximise the amount bled from us without destroying themselves.

In the eyes of our shadowy masters, it's a tuning problem. They want the cattle to still be there forever, while they suck out as much blood and treasure as possible. Romney would have destroyed the feast by being too heavy handed. Obama is just right to continue the torture of our society forever. Who says that torture doesn't work? Clearly it does for the ownership class.
 
 
+6 # JSRaleigh 2012-12-13 12:41
Quoting FactsFirst:
If he does that, he will not have Rhom Emmanuel to blame this time. It will be on his shoulders, and he should be ready for his base to turn stone cold.


He doesn't need "his base" anymore. Besides, you CAN fool SOME of the people all of the time.
 
 
+18 # Dave45 2012-12-13 00:33
Mr. Obama spends part of his presidential time sitting around trying to decide whom next to assassinate. Does anyone really think a few seniors "getting caught in the cracks" is going to bother him?
 
 
+4 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:30
Quoting Dave45:
Mr. Obama spends part of his presidential time sitting around trying to decide whom next to assassinate. Does anyone really think a few seniors "getting caught in the cracks" is going to bother him?


but, but, but... he's "the lesser evil"... isn't he????? LMAO!
 
 
-8 # bsmith 2012-12-13 00:44
Not really sure why folks would go as far as to say BO wasn't a liberal, that's retarded! Sure he hasn't help Wall Street accountable for all of its agregious transgressions (Elizabeth Warren will not be having any lienency with them now...), took a bit to publicly announce his stance on gay marriage (anyone reading the news lately, seems the SCOTUS will be looking into that one...), hasn't ended Afghanistan (but did end Iraq and has a clear goal for Afghan...), really the only thing he promised during his first election he hasn't made good on is immigration and ill bet well be hearing about that after mid terms in a couple years.

With all of the other catastrophes he's handled valiantly I'm willing to cut him some slack and still call him a Liberal and put him on the side of the "good guy".

Now this whole medicae thing. I'm 30 and have insurance through my wife's employer so I'm not going to act as if I know anything about this really. But I'll wager that if BO said anything about MC co sessions to Boehner it was just a ploy to give him some meat to toss to the rebub followers he controls and to get some lubrication in their joints. I may be wrong though.
 
 
+1 # Michael_K 2012-12-15 15:13
That's pathetically laughable! I diagnose an acute form of Stockholm Syndrome!
 
 
0 # bsmith 2012-12-13 00:49
Plus as a 30 yr old with ins. It does seem that the age of coverage needs to be tweaked a bit. I mean in 65 when Medicare was created in the US a male died at 66.8 and a woman at 73.7. Now(as of 2008) for a male it's 75.5 and 80.5 for females. 8.7y for M and 6.8 more for F.
What's 2-5 years going to do??

Please, let me know cause honestly I don't.

Just seems as if it was this way (65y old inception of MC coverage) for so long that is the reason raising the age a bit is labeled sacrelidge.

I'm all for universal healthcare too as a person who has been living with type 1 diabetes since the age of 13, I can hardly imagine not having insurance and retaining the standard if life I currently enjoy. Seems like MC and UH are the same, perhaps they should be unified in order to create a cheaper pool somehow???
 
 
+13 # neddycat 2012-12-13 08:38
For office workers raising retirement age by a couple of years probably won't matter too much. But for people who do physical labor - they are probably starting to have trouble with their bodies by their 50s, and adding two years to their working lives would be difficult. I've even heard it called a "death sentence" for some.
 
 
+11 # wrodwell 2012-12-13 00:56
I get the sense from this article that deep-down inside, liberals and progressives are fearful that in some way, shape or form, the Democrats will cave in to the Republicans even though they supposedly hold the upper hand. Maybe it'll eventually be a good thing as it will start people thinking more seriously that our present political system is too far gone and corrupt to expect anything positive from it. It also might get people thinking about finding another way to get the democratic process to actually work for most Americans. Why not do away completely with the political class as it mostly serves the wealthy and is mainly interested in self-preservati on. The drama queen syndrome regarding the so-called fiscal cliff is a prime example. Then, after that situation gets bungled in faux compromise, there'll be more dramatics when the debt ceiling problem again raises its ugly head. And so on........
Enough already.
 
 
+5 # WestWinds 2012-12-13 08:46
It's not the system, it's the people running it. They are all too susceptible to bribery. We need to get rid of the money in government (the K Street lobbyists) and penalize people like the Koch brothers for their treacherous involvement in our government. Anyone who buys influence needs to be put away for life as a danger to society.
 
 
+11 # wwway 2012-12-13 00:59
Every time a budget situation comes up Democrats cave. What is given up by the middle class is harder if not impossible to undo while tax breaks for the rich and tax loopholes and benefits go to the corporations are either never on the table or what they give up is so slight it can be re-negociated for more concessions by the middle class. Americans have been gobbling up the social lies from the rich the last 30 + years and they haven't figured out just how screwed they are by doing so.
 
 
+7 # Rich Austin 2012-12-13 01:07
Here is what Congressional Democrats should do: They should meet with Obama and order him to hold the line. If he doesn’t, Democrats in Congress will be toast in 2014, 2016, & 2018, particularly so if the GOP fields candidate that some would call “right centrist” (as opposed to sociopaths like Ryan and Tea Party DeMint - once removed).

If he fails to do right by us, in 2016 Obama could just cool his heals (maybe even teach neoliberal economics at the CIA-influenced University of Chicago) while his Congressional flunkies get tossed to the curb and thereafter forced into other deceptive fields of wealth gathering.

Hear us Durbin, Warner, Bingham, Baucus, and Conrad?
 
 
+4 # WestWinds 2012-12-13 08:49
This is no threat to the Democrats. The Democrats and the Republicans are the Right and Left wings of the Corporate Party; a shadow party. The only real change being offered is the Green Party, but people are so trained like monkeys to only recognize the two party system, this is what is keeping US in line; not Obama who has and will ignore anything the Left has to say. When do people wake up?
 
 
+3 # RHytonen 2012-12-13 09:24
BAUCUS? The Hired Assassin of the Public Option? you must be crazy. The only worse CORPORATIST REPUBLICAN in the "Democratic Party" than Baucus is Manchin.
 
 
+14 # giraffee2012 2012-12-13 01:27
If Obama goes for the 67 - I will eat crow for all the support and "faith" I had in the words that have come from his mouth for the last year+.

OB - don't do it. If you give into the Repugs/TP at all - we'll go down so fast ... and your legacy will not be what it could have been.

Progressives/liberals - and even Republicans who are against the 67 will surely put your reputation in the toilet forever
 
 
-1 # WestWinds 2012-12-13 08:50
So what?
 
 
+2 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:33
Quoting giraffee2012:
If Obama goes for the 67 - I will eat crow for all the support and "faith" I had in the words that have come from his mouth for the last year+.

OB - don't do it. If you give into the Repugs/TP at all - we'll go down so fast ... and your legacy will not be what it could have been.

Progressives/liberals - and even Republicans who are against the 67 will surely put your reputation in the toilet forever



What do you want to bet that HE is the one who suggested it to the Rethugs, in the first place? Why do you people always assume Obama is on your side? He isn't!
 
 
+13 # Banichi 2012-12-13 01:43
As a senior who just turned 65, I don't even know if any deal Obama makes would knock back my Medicare, which I just got - though I have been assured that won't happen. But Obama's record of capitulations over his first term - in direct contradiction of what he campaigned on in 2008 - was and is a dismal sign that he is not and never was a liberal or took his promises to his constituents seriously.

I am left with a sick feeling that he will once more give away to the Repugs what they want in exchange for what he thinks will keep the citizens who voted for him quiet even if we really get screwed in the process. I see no reason to trust him since I voted for him as the lesser of two evils this time.

One thing that occurred to me as I have read this and other articles, is that while his base of voters have been hoping that he will step up and address their interests - since he does not have to worry about being re-elected now - whether he addresses those interest or not, he does not have to be so concerned about whether THEY will vote for him again, either. And so far, his 'legacy' is not going to be anything to be proud of, what with Guantanamo, the NDAA, and various giveaways.

So far, I'm not impressed, and since I haven't seen any sign of bankers going to jail yet, what has changed?

We should all stay tuned and vocal.
 
 
+16 # Rick Levy 2012-12-13 02:30
If Obama pulls off this Medicare change, it will be an unimaginable sellout.
 
 
+3 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:33
Quoting Rick Levy:
If Obama pulls off this Medicare change, it will be an unimaginable sellout.


Well, then you don't have a very good imagination, 'cause he already spent 4 years selling us out!
 
 
+9 # brenda 2012-12-13 02:58
If the medicare eligibility age is raised to 67, then how in the hell are the people who are in the 65-66 age group going to get decent health coverage? And yes, I know that Obama is really a centrist, Democrat, as he always said he was. What I'm trying to say is that in order to get the budget approved by congress it seems like there has to be some sort of compromise. Can the congress hold a knife to Obama's budget with a medicare sacrifice in the spotlight.
 
 
+7 # isafakir 2012-12-13 05:39
this president and his surrogate are the ones who called us quoting their exact words "fucking idiots" when we lobbied him not to drop health care reform, and locked liberals out of the white house until he needed us to get reelected. this is the president who gave away a massachussetts senate seat the whole house in the worst defeat in democratic party history in order to shut up the best speaker in history and turned their backs on recalling the worst governor in history. he appointed two enemies of social security and the new deal including economists whose track record is zero in understanding the economy while locking out those economists who've predicted accurately every change in the economy. he hates liberals in his bones and loves by his own words ronald reagan who damaged democracy in america more than any president in history. so yes he is going to betray us, again, and again , and again. he basically in his bones wishes he were ronald reagan and hero of the south.
 
 
+4 # balconesfalk 2012-12-13 09:33
"... wishes he were ronald reagan..." Yep, I believe that, ever since the interview during the 2008 primary when RR was the only president Obama managed to recall. Then he dissembled by terming him "transformation al"--you have nailed it, how he really feels.
This time I fear that the "transformation " will be a neglect to preserve, a chipping away at, one of the most beneficial institutions Americans have enjoyed. Instead of Medicare For All it will become Medicare for fewer.
 
 
+1 # ghostperson 2012-12-15 19:24
I have always considered Obama what used to be called a moderate Republican. Clinton too.
 
 
+12 # Charles3000 2012-12-13 06:41
Quoting Universialman: "Medicare is as close as we can get (except for Medicare "Advantage") to a universal program"...We have essentially five types of medical care systems in operation in the USA. The one that may be best liked and most efficient it totally single payer and totally "socialistic". It is called VA Health Care. The government owns all of the facilities, everyone is employed by the government and medicines are purchased in bulk at negotiated prices. Its a pretty good system. Ask any vet.
 
 
+5 # RHytonen 2012-12-13 09:40
Quoting Charles3000:
Quoting Universialman: "Medicare is as close as we can get (except for Medicare "Advantage") to a universal program"....


Medicare Advantage was dropped because its claims of efficiency (and eventually coverage) turned out to be nothing but a foot in the door for ever-increasing subsidy demands, which actual Medicare recipients have to pay for. It became WAY more costly than Medicare and pproved to provide nothing more than traditional Medicare in the way of actual health care results, just a way of scamming the Medicare fund for some to get free or low cost health club memberships.
 
 
+3 # tbcrawford 2012-12-13 10:50
Thanks for pointing out Medicare Advantage was a scam forcing lower income medicare folks to pay for the extra perks!
 
 
+12 # walt 2012-12-13 06:58
If Obama were to cave to the Republicans on Medicare, the losses for him and the party would be serious and far-reaching.

What he should do now is call the Republicans' bluff. If they are so concerned about Medicare costs, why not go for a national health plan for everyone and get corporate, profit-making, medical insurance out of the picture completely? It would also put "Obamacare" on an even better track and help all Americans, not just seniors.

But the sad reality is that the Republicans are just what they have been for decades, namely interested only in business and profit for their backers, so let's not count on their support. Besides, they wouldn't want America to be "socialized" like those civilized countries anyway!
 
 
+3 # cwbystache 2012-12-13 08:01
The title brought to mind the best graffito I'll probably come across--decades ago now, in a rest room on the Oregon coast. It seems no less appropriate to our time:

Nixon and Agnew
in '72
why change Dicks
in the middle of a screw?
 
 
+5 # fredboy 2012-12-13 08:12
If Obama caves after all we did for him, he'll mark a new chapter in political history.
 
 
+2 # moafu@yahoo.com 2012-12-13 08:19
I submit this posting as a Democrat. I urge you to read a copy of The Amateur by Ed Klein. Just the facts....no rhetoric or emotional language about this man in the oval office. You will see that he took advantage of many in Chicago area (including Oprah) and then "screwed them".

He will do whatever it takes to the Liberal community to further his personal plans !

His redeeming quality seems to be his care and love for his children. In the political arena - just the opposite.
 
 
+1 # Luis Emilio 2012-12-13 11:31
Praised By Chaney! No thanks!
 
 
+4 # Sensible1 2012-12-13 08:36
If Obama lets the Republicans take anything away from the gains he has made, even as we are still paying for the Republicans obstruction and still paying for all of the Republican's unpaid expenditures over the last eight years befor Obama took office, he is only going to encourage a new round of a do nothing "no" congress. Let them be the ones to cut medicare, social security, and increase taxes for the mi9ddle class; why shoud Obama help them.
 
 
-3 # Vern Radul 2012-12-13 08:55
If he wins the presidency in November 2008?

Yes.
 
 
+4 # Vern Radul 2012-12-13 09:03
A lot of people seem to think Obama "caves" to Republicans.

He does NOT "cave".

When someone continually and repeatedly goes along on everything with someone else he "claims" to be opposing, it's not "caving".

It's the plan. The INTENTIONAL plan.

But even though he promised transparency there are still some people who are still unable to see through him.

Why do you think he's always grinning?

A Trip Down Memory Lane With Senator Obama

"The only bills that I've voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate, were introduced by Republicans or by George Bush."

-- Senator Barack Obama @ 2min 18sec

Video of him saying it:
http://antemedius.com/content/trip-down-memory-lane-senator-obama

He suckered the people who voted for him. Intentionally. The grinning is him laughing at them
 
 
+5 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:34
Quoting Antemedius:
A lot of people seem to think Obama "caves" to Republicans.

He does NOT "cave".

When someone continually and repeatedly goes along on everything with someone else he "claims" to be opposing, it's not "caving".

It's the plan. The INTENTIONAL plan.

But even though he promised transparency there are still some people who are still unable to see through him.

Why do you think he's always grinning?

A Trip Down Memory Lane With Senator Obama

"The only bills that I've voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate, were introduced by Republicans or by George Bush."

-- Senator Barack Obama @ 2min 18sec

Video of him saying it:
http://antemedius.com/content/trip-down-memory-lane-senator-obama

He suckered the people who voted for him. Intentionally. The grinning is him laughing at them



EXACTLY CORRECT!!!
 
 
+4 # RHytonen 2012-12-13 09:18
MainStreetMento r, You're getting what you deserve, not having voted -as we did and will- for what we REALLY wanted: Jill Stein. Non corporatist, true liberal values. See jillstein.org/i ssues and be surprised that the Green Party is NOT a single-issue anomaly. If the 40% who DIDN'T vote had done so... Remember these values polled over 70% - tax the rich, true punishment for Wall Street banksters, No KXL, Single Payer, NO corporate election money..etc.
 
 
+5 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 17:36
Of course, but that's just logical. These miscreants will always reply with the brainwashed zombie mantra: "third parties cannot win national elections"... real math geniuses!
 
 
+5 # BradFromSalem 2012-12-13 09:19
When I read what Obama has actually said regarding compromises in Medicare, it really came across as a negotiating challenge. He noted he would listen to altering the age of eligibility, but from what he has seen that would cost more. If he holds to that line, then Boehner has no chance of actually raising the age.
What I am afraid does have a likelihood of Obama agreeing to is, means testing.

I wish that was a good choice, but it is only worthwhile if we get rid of the debt ceiling crapola, restore unemployment benefits, and pell grants. Means testing is oddly enough the usual Republican punt when they can't win an argument. But what it really does is to add layers of bureaucracy at additional cost with no benefits along with a clear path to a two tier health care system for elderly.
I really hope that someone can come up with the bone to throw the Republican dogs, since one is necessary to get legislation passed.
 
 
+1 # Luis Emilio 2012-12-13 12:50
BradFromSalem:

The bone is that there will be no cut to the military.
 
 
+3 # Vern Radul 2012-12-13 09:34
Bob Woodward:
............
"This is a confidential document, last offer the president -- the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain.... what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare."

Document here: http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward

...............

Barack Obama, October 24, 2012:

Obama laid out an astoundingly ambitious second-term agenda in an interview published Wednesday...

"It will probably be messy. It won't be pleasant," Obama told the Des Moines Register's publisher and its editor by telephone. The daily made the exchange public after the White House dropped its insistence that it be off-the-record.
...
"I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I've been offering to the Republicans for a very long time...

"We can easily meet—'easily' is the wrong word—we can credibly meet the target that the Bowles-Simpson Commission established of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and even more in the out-years...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-vows-debt-cutting-grand-bargain-immigration-reform-142348400--election.html
 
 
+4 # Vern Radul 2012-12-13 09:36
They knew when they voted for him that he would do this.

This what obama supporters approved and voted for. They won. They got what they wanted.

Along with his murdering of innocent children in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and his material support of the terrorists attacking civilians in Gaza, and now his economic terrorism against Americans.

The President of the United States is a terrorist.

Anyone who voted for and is supporting the President of the United States is a terrorist sympathizer and supporter.
 
 
+5 # dkonstruction 2012-12-13 09:41
Phil Ochs nailed this one almost half a century ago in his song Love Me, I'm a Liberal, but sadly most still have not learned the lesson....

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

(to be continued)
 
 
+5 # dkonstruction 2012-12-13 09:43
Part 2....

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal


and, Jello Biafra helped bring this one much more up to date....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGDT7wKvdRk
 
 
+4 # Vern Radul 2012-12-13 10:03
To thosewho voted for him....

How well did hoping for change work during his first term, when he needed you to re-elect him for his second?

You got what you voted for. Deal with it. You won.


And now he's going to give Wall Street control of Social Security, as well as cut TRICARE and Medicare.

ROmeny would have been horrible. Romney would never have a hope in hell of getting away with the things Obama gets away with while people cheer him for doing things they would scream for impwachment for if a Republican tried it.

Obama inherited a huge mess from Obama. So did everyone else.

But he'll be fine. He'll aim high for 2016, for a nice well paying job on a high floor with a corner office on Wall Street from where he can look down and grin at all the starving peasants below, and an SS protected armored chauffeured limo in the basement to get him safely through the crowds at the end of the day.

I suppose you could always hold your nose and threaten to not vote for him for his next term to pressure him if he doesn't straighten up and fly right?

Oh, wait. He doesn't need your vote anymore? There is no next term? You blew your only chance because you couldn't bring yourself to threaten him with withholding your vote when it would have produced some results from him?

He's laughing at you and you're begging him to be nice? You can find sympathy in the dictionary.
 
 
-4 # Rain17 2012-12-13 11:51
I'm sorry but, one way or another, we were probably going to get the Grand Bargain. At least with Obama the worst parts of it are limited. With Romney it would have been a total disaster.
 
 
+4 # Vern Radul 2012-12-13 12:07
With Obama it IS a total disaster.

Give up the excuses.
 
 
-7 # Rain17 2012-12-13 17:34
I'm sorry, but Obama isn't a disaster. And frankly, compared to what he had started with, he has been a good president. I'm not happy with everything he has done, but it's clear to me that you just had unrealistic expectations.
 
 
+3 # Vern Radul 2012-12-13 18:25
Take a look at the shape the country's in.

For any disaster you can always say there could be worse disasters, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a disaster.

To give him some credit though, wall street and weapons manufacturers and the insurance industry would agree with you. And do.
 
 
+1 # Michael_K 2012-12-15 15:18
Even more than a disaster, he's a treasonous murderer who is laughing, knowing full well he will never be held accountable. And this is in large part due to feeble-minded posters who think "he has been a good President"!
 
 
+1 # Michael_K 2012-12-15 15:16
Quoting Rain17:
I'm sorry, but Obama isn't a disaster. And frankly, compared to what he had started with, he has been a good president. I'm not happy with everything he has done, but it's clear to me that you just had unrealistic expectations.


Obama must read drivel like this and laugh his arse off like a hyena! You are an unconscionable enabler of evil.
 
 
0 # bsmith 2012-12-15 19:05
Really???

Quoting Michael_K:
Quoting Rain17:
I'm sorry, but Obama isn't a disaster. And frankly, compared to what he had started with, he has been a good president. I'm not happy with everything he has done, but it's clear to me that you just had unrealistic expectations.


Obama must read drivel like this and laugh his arse off like a hyena! You are an unconscionable enabler of evil.

Quoting Michael_K:
Quoting Rain17:
I'm sorry, but Obama isn't a disaster. And frankly, compared to what he had started with, he has been a good president. I'm not happy with everything he has done, but it's clear to me that you just had unrealistic expectations.


Obama must read drivel like this and laugh his arse off like a hyena! You are an unconscionable enabler of evil.
 
 
+9 # RHytonen 2012-12-13 10:09
I have only one question - Why are we "negotiating" to avert a TOTALLY MANUFACTURED "CRISIS?"

The GOP should NOT be allowed to renege on the price they AGREED TO pay for idological concessions which NEVER should have been given in the first place.

And to even agree there is a crisis is to give inappropriate gifts to a minority that already wields oppressive, corruption-base d power.

We need to get off our sofas and Barcaloungers, and STOP this madness - with extreme prejudice. Our government DOES NOT WORK.
 
 
+3 # Ellioth 2012-12-13 10:11
If Obama capitulates to such a bad deal as this 67 for 37, it's really getting close to revolution time. Why even think about anything less that the 39.5% under Clinton (and a very strong economy). However, since changing the medicare age is really hard, it will likely never be reduced back to 65. Let's see Obama insist that the if the age goes to 67, then the rates go to 39.5 and can never go down unless there is a $500 billion budget surplus for 4 years running (adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars).

But we digress - who is Barack Obama and what does he stand for,really? ElliotH
 
 
+7 # Vardoz 2012-12-13 11:37
This is not a liberal issue. This is a survival issue. We are already 37th in the world for longevity. This will only further hurt the middle classs and lower income people for whom this is so vital. Corporations, Banks, Wall St and the military don't care about people or the health of our economy. We are just objects for exploitation. Raising the caps makes much more sense but those waging an economic war on all fronts. I think Warren would have more of a backbone than Obama. He talked about growing the middle class but is now supporting the TPP which will shrink the middle class and endanger our health, safety and welfare and planet. I think he's a frightened guy who caves to threats from powerful entities. Even Clinton bowed to those at the top by getting rid of welfare putting many at lives at risk while those at the top enjoy boundless wealth. The agenda to extract more from the majority of Americans has been in thw works for a long time and has thus far been sccessful as we are seeing from assualts on unions, our flat lined wages and the huge increase in the cost of healthcare. We as a people are being impoverished by the corporate world and raising the eligibility age is just another piece of the puzzel. I just called my reps and the Obama hot line telling them what I have said above- you should too. 202-456-1111- because trying is half the battle.
 
 
+6 # Rain17 2012-12-13 11:44
The problem here is that the right spent decades planning their agenda. I hear all the anger and outrage over the MI right-to-work law. I heard all the anger over the debt ceiling deal from last year. Do you want to know how we got to this point?

Answers:

1) The right spent the 1970s and 1980s building think tanks like the Heritage Foundation that spit out right-wing policy papers all the time.
2) The right built organizations that focus entirely on persuasion and messaging. The left never built that.
3) The right has "experts" who can go on at a moment's notice 24/7 to a TV show.
4) The right knows how to make their positions seem reasonable to most people.
5) This is why, even when Republicans lose elections, their ideas still manage to win most of the time.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama caves in, but there is a greater lesson here to be learned. The answer isn't anger, but rather organization. The answer is developing a movement with an effective messaging strategy that operates like a well-run corporation. The key is to develop parallel organizations that focus solely on messaging and persuasion.
 
 
+6 # Vardoz 2012-12-13 12:21
Yes- we see that when things really hit home, people are willing to get out there. The people of MI are an example to all of us.
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2012-12-13 17:33
But do you think this happened in a vaccum? This is part of a well-planned conservative strategy that goes back to the 1970s and 1980s. They focused on the long term and spent years advancing their positions. They didn't give up when one or two elections didn't go their way. And, even when they did lose elections, their ideas managed to win because they had won the crucial persuasion war.
 
 
+2 # balconesfalk 2012-12-14 00:18
Rain, I agree with you. But the conservative strategy goes farther back to "The Big Rich"--in the 1920s. A hand full of ignorant, uneducated multimillionair e Texas oil men formed a secret underground religion in which they are the gods.
They have plotted unceasingly ever since to control the government as a "vast, right wing conspiracy," in the haunting words of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The cabal, now termed the neo-cons, appear to have won the hearts and minds of close to half the American people, 47% anyway.
It is almost as if the Republican Party is the South and the elections are the Civil War. Win or lose, it doesn't matter. Somehow they plan to take back the things they perceived given up by virtue of losing that devastating war.
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2012-12-14 16:20
EXACTLY!!!
 
 
+1 # bobby t. 2012-12-13 11:58
Why only 39.5 percent? Why this starting number? Why not fifty percent? Or more as in Ike's time?
Single payer would cost everyone at least fifty percent tax rates. Now I know that some math illiterates in New York City would yell at that statement.
So let's do the math. New York has city state and federal taxes. comes to about fifty percent WITHOUT HEALTH CARE AND COLLEGE AID.
A decent healthcare policy costs about 13-15k a year for a family plan? for a 100k a year salary that is 15% more or sixty five k in expenses. And how about college costs?
In those terrible socialist countries, health and college is picked up by the state and that is why their taxes are so high.
As a retired teacher it kills me how uneducated the America public is, and how words like socialism (sometime we already have in tons of things like free schools, libraries, s.s medicare, and medicaid, fire departments, etc.) scare the uninformed.
And please stop with the Jill thing. Nadar didn't hurt us enough?
We need single payer, but the public option was a good compromise.
And one more thing, a global economy means that many millions are now going to settle for slave wages. That or starve. That is reality for the next ten years. Our educational system failed us, and the "charter" schools stink for the most part. For every good one I can give you ten public schools who are as good or better.
 
 
+1 # RHytonen 2012-12-14 08:22
Quote:
"Why only 39.5 percent? Why this starting number? Why not fifty percent? Or more as in Ike's time?
Single payer would cost everyone at least fifty percent tax rates.

And please stop with the Jill thing. Nadar didn't hurt us enough?

We need single payer, but the public option was a good compromise.
And we didn't GET the public option because we didn't DEMAND single payer.

We didn't DEMAND Jill and we GOT a corporatist. We were suckered by EXACTLY your "Nader" claim.

We need to smarten up and MAKE IT HAPPEN - ALL of it.
-IT HAS TO START SOMEWHERE-
and it can't happen AT ALL without voting your EXACT values, because "compromise' is a tool of your enemies - BUSINESS, more by definition and opportunity than by its design.

Its DESIGN has to be changed and that means Flushing the current system entirely. The Occupy movement has show us it CAN be built from the ground - BUT the police state has to be vanquished first. And yes, just as in the union revolutions in he 20's, it WILL cost blood, unless we PAY the lesser price first - the one you fear. We have to accept that politics - THIS kind- will have to be the entire OCCUPATION of this generation, FULL TIME in the streets.
 
 
+1 # BKnowswhitt 2012-12-13 12:34
How can you run on a healthcare revamp expand medicare as part of the plan that got you re elected and then cut medicare when all you have to do is go off the cliff for a week or so and then they'll have to take your deal or die. You think Bush and the Repukes wouldn't do that. Problem is B Obama is a chicken sh't ...likes to be liked ... too much ...
 
 
0 # Charles3000 2012-12-13 13:38
bobby t is correct. Why just 39.5%? High marginal rates are not for revenue, they are to support pay equality. When the top rate was 90% + companies would be crazy to give big salaries because 90% + would go to the government. We have a big pay inequality problem and high marginal rates in the 90% range would cure that problem.
 
 
-2 # lockerh 2012-12-13 13:51
We can only hope President Obama will remember that he WON the election decisively and that he has "earned capital" (as GWB so falsely put it when he snuck through on the slimmest of victories, based very likely on election fraud in Ohio).

President Obama, we all beg you to keep your promises to us and to uphold the values that got you re-elected, those values are anti-Republican values. (Republican values are really Rape-Public values as we see time and again, not just on the national level with the bogus "fiscal cliff" non-crisis, but also in the sneak attack on labor and laborers in Michigan.)

President Obama, stand strong! You have all the leverage. Your opponents have NO leverage!

Bob Locke
Sacramento CA
 
 
+4 # Vern Radul 2012-12-13 15:45
Exactly. He has all the leverage, and the people have none, because there should be a million or two in the streets surrounding the White House and the Capitol, but there aren't.

.....................
It is not Obama's fault that even though he promised transparency there are still some people who are still unable to see through him.
...
on July 27[2011]...

At a press conference held by members of the House Out of Poverty Caucus Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), the second most senior member of the U.S. House, was pointed in his criticism of the White House regarding jobs and cuts to Social Security the President put on the table last week.

“We’ve got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that,” Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. “My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this,” Conyers said strongly.

http://antemedius.com/content/it-not-obamas-fault
 
 
+3 # balconesfalk 2012-12-13 23:54
As I read through your comment, Antemedius, I kept envisioning "Ring Around the White House." I don't think this has been done before.
Until Obama realizes that the people who elected him care. We want Peace, and freedom from federal raids on medical marijuana distributors sanctioned in the states where they operate.
And, Yes, you must keep Social Security and Medicare in tact--as cornerstone legislation by our civilized nation. Indeed, we would like to expand, extend and strengthen the program by re-making it as Medicare for All. It's the right thing to do. Its what Americans want.
We, the people, must take a stand--form a Ring Around the White House until President Obama does what the people want--not what John Boehner and Grover Norquist want.
The demonstrations against the Vietnam War had a profound effect on LBJ. Obama needs to be made to feel the pressure.
 
 
+3 # Michael_K 2012-12-13 20:02
You don't understand Obama at all, despite having been subjected to his first term... His "Grand Bargain" is actually a Grotesque Betrayal, and he's proud of it. (he also laughs in your face for being so easy to fool into voting for him)
 
 
+1 # BKnowswhitt 2012-12-13 20:59
Guy on the analysis of high taxes in the rest of the western world but they guarantee healthcare and education. American's are by and large the dumbest population - and dummied down since the 60's and a function of their lower economic status. We can't blame them - they know or they don't know. There are certainly a lot of smart people in this comment arena. How do we do it? How about sit in stand it stall the economy to get attention. How about going state to state and make people aware how the Republican party is redistricting sucessfully in upper midwest michigan, nad wisconsin etc before it's too late .. because they will win back the presidency based upon those actions alone on a state by state basis .. Obama may be holding back to not kill Dems chances in two years and still be what he should be deemed for his tenure as 'The Great Compromiser' .....
 
 
0 # bsmith 2012-12-13 21:58
Antemedius please answer me this, what do you want?
 
 
+1 # RHytonen 2012-12-14 08:33
LOOK at the polls of America on the issues -not on the tactically redefined terminology of others..

Then look at jillstein.org/i ssues and the OCCUPY websites.

There is no question THAT'S what America wants. We need to stop wishing to call ourselves "conservative" or "Moderate"

There is nothing "moderate" about what corporations will do, have done, and are doing; to get ALL your money and lay complete waste to the world just for this quarter's profits.

Don't surround the White House and Congress, and demand "SOCIALISM" and you will GET a dictatorial, Fascist, Feudal Corporatist Police State -

oh, wait - It's already HERE!
 
 
+4 # sharag 2012-12-14 08:49
Obama doesn't care about liberals. He never did. He doesn't have to. Wake up. You got fooled again.
 
 
+1 # moafu@yahoo.com 2012-12-14 19:45
OY....ALL THE RHETORIC ABOUT PRESIDENT SOETERO.....

WHOEVER....LIB. OR CONSERV. ---- READ THE BOOK "THE AMATEUR" BY ED KLEIN

FACTUAL, ACCURATE, AND CAUSES THE MEDIA TO AVOID IT.
 
 
0 # spenel334 2012-12-14 20:16
spenel334 I understand that Medicare has to be for everyone rather than excluding the super wealthy. However, rather than changing the retirement age, can't there be, for example, co-payments according to income? Not requiring any co-payment regardless of income seems overly generous and unnecessary. There might be other places within Medicare where some charges can be instituted for those who can pay.

And my question: There also must be programs that can be cut, aside from so called entitlements. Can someone suggest possibilities?
 
 
+1 # RHytonen 2012-12-14 23:35
Medicare/-aid -50% (Pass HR676, Medicare For All)

Defense- 50% (end contracting)

The OMB has found that in reality, privatization essentially doubles (1.8X) costs.
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11865
 
 
0 # RHytonen 2012-12-14 23:36
"Factual" according to whom - Donald Trump?
 
 
0 # America 2012-12-15 17:30
Obama will cave. look what he did to Susan Rice. They all (including Hillary) used her as a scapegoat then abandoned her. Should have nominated her and fought for her. He made this blistering speech about supporting her for SOS but caved in to the old geezer John McCain and the GOP. He has shown no consistency. His track record is ugly when he switches side he will say his thinking evolved. Though we all were pi----d with his performance last term we backed him and put him back in power. He is already showing that he is a waffler and cannot be trusted.
 
 
0 # Cappucino 2012-12-16 20:58
I knew LONG before Obama was ever elected that this "not-liberal-en ough" game would be played. It's fine for privileged people who have no real stake in the direct results of political policy, I guess. I wouldn't know. My life depends on stem cell research turning into reality. Romney stated for the public record that he would not support it (and I don't mean that he wouldn't pay for it-- he would not allow that research to be done even though drug companies would pay for everything.)Oba ma has always supported it.

I just cannot play the little game. If your life does not depend directly, 100%, on a policy that Obama supports, then go ahead and spend your time and energy that way. I guess. But you need to think about people whose life and health and suffering and death depend on those policies.
 
 
0 # She Cee 2013-02-24 15:42
The question was, "will Obama screw liberals?"

There is no question here.

He is already screwing liberals….at every turn.

Just look at the people he is appointing and look at the backing of things or corporations like Monsanto or Keystone. His hesitation at opposing Keystone surely indicates that he will approve it, Not closing Guantanamo, not supporting alternative energy, drone warfare, supporting more intrusions into our privacy, etc, etc.

Obama, it seems, is all about screwing liberals. And I voted for him twice.
 
 
0 # moafu@yahoo.com 2013-02-25 09:00
TO: SHE CEE,

Just rec'd notice of what you wrote. As a conservative, I really try to keep open mind. Did not vote for him either time....worked against him - AND - his beliefs.

As a Liberal who voted for him, you MUST read "The Amateur" by Klein. It is not filled with emotionally charged epithets. It is a factual account of how he methodically and premeditatedly "screwed liberals" including Oprah herself !!!!!!

In the end. Everyone left and right will be disillusioned with his anti-constituti onal actions.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN