Tweet
Compromiser-in-Chief is at it again.
An 8/7/2012 NYT article said of Obama: “He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, …”
And according to an AP interview on 8/25/2012:
Obama also offered a glimpse of how he would govern in a second term of divided government, insisting rosily that the forces of the election would help break Washington’s stalemate. He said he would be willing to make a range of compromises with Republicans, confident there are some who would rather make deals than remain part of “one of the least productive Congresses in American history.”
[...]
If Republicans are willing, Obama said, “I’m prepared to make a whole range of compromises” that could even rankle his own party. …
But, Joe Biden promises there’ll be no cuts to Social Security during a second Obama term. Hmmmmm.
UPDATE: BTW, FDL has a signature campaign, Hold The Obama Campaign To Its ‘Guarantee’ of ‘No Changes’ To Social Security.
18 Comments
… and you believe him?
Obama is getting all the negative Cred I can give him but if he wants more who am I to argue.
I think its time we start drug testing the President.
Reading this I post I am finding it hard to call Obama the Lesser Evil anymore Wigwam.
How certain is Obama that the Republicans will continue to not take Yes as an answer?
For a lot of folks around here (NC), the fact that he is still making the offer and has gotten no Republican negotiations is dramatic evidence of the strategy of Republican obstruction in the Congress. They think he’s calling out those who are willing to make deals to show themselves before the election. And they argue that puts those dealmaking Republicans in a box–admit they are ready to deal and lose Tea Party and uber-conservative Republicans in the base or stay silent and lose swing voters. We’ll see in November whether that gambit works.
Whether true or not, taking politicians’ statements at face value is never a good idea.
Both wings of the uni-party have the same problem: how to get credit from the 1% for cutting SS and Medicare and shift the blame from the 99% onto the other wing. It ended in a stalemate last time. Thank God. May he spare us yet again.
The difference is that these programs remain the third rail of American politics. That’s why the Republican deceptions on Medicare and the Democratic Kabuki of the Simpson-Bowles (we know who really was in charge) commission.
Republicans are trying to carve out an exception for their over-60 constituents in any proposal they make.
Democrats have floated lots of balloons, enlisted the aid of the AARP, and both Democrats and the AARP have been blistered with the very immediate response from seniors.
So what you are going to hear all this week is about how Republicans are going to save Medicare and Social Security. Same in two weeks from the Democrats. But the Republicans need cover from their base by privatizing it–big base ideological commitment that trumps self-interest. Democrats need the cover of not having any alternative. A Democratic blowout in November strips that cover away; a Republican blowout like 2010 slams the door and the lame duck session is on.
But….what the lame duck session does, any succeeding Congress can undo but only if the wrath of the voters is much larger than we saw at the height last fall of the Occupy movement (and the Occupy movement is still out there as a base for a protest movement). That’s the juice in the third rail. Do Democrats dare test it? We will see.
But for our part, instead of fixating on the politics, we should be getting folks ready to say a loud No the moment the ugly duck raises its head.
So much for the Obamabot’s assertion that he’ll be more progressive if he wins in November.
I always thought he was going to go back to “Republicans are awesome” Obama. I’m just surprised he let it slip early. Perhaps he’s feeling cocky. He shouldn’t. He can still lose.
Obama apparently has quite a large deficit between registered voters and likely voters in recent polls as they begin to monitor this factor. By about 7 to 9 percent, which is much larger than the normal gap according to Silver. You don’t suppose he’s having trouble motivating people to want to vote for him? Maybe he’ll have to bury all that compromise talk and gin up his big progressive lies to win again. Like you say, he could quite easily loose to the “more effective liars.”
I fucking love it!
…
I’ve never understood those who claim that Obama’s willingness to destroy the lives of thousands of Americans is a GOOD thing, because it supposedly gives him some tactical advantage.
“Obama wants to cut Social Security, but the Republicans won’t agree! He’s proving they’re not serious!”
What’s more important, that a “Democratic” President is visibly campaigning for the destruction of the New Deal and the ruin of American lives…or that the Republicans are being accused of being “not serious”/”obstructionists”/”partisan”?
I mean, people ALWAYS hate “politicians”, so Obama’s “tricking” the Rs into losing the “high ground” matters less than the piss I’m about to take, in the long run.
But having the keeper of the FDR legacy spit upon that legacy and say that being willing to trash those programs is the sign of his being “the adult in the room”? Vile beyond vile. JMO.
Agreed!
He thinks that is the winning tactic.
After all, what are the people on the Left going to do? In Obama’s mind, we have no place to go. So by going ever further to the right, he thinks he can pick up some extra votes from people in the middle (and, of course, get more corporate money too).
wigwam–
Reference “Both wings of the uni-party have the same problem: how to get credit from the 1% for cutting SS and Medicare . . . it ended in a stalemate last time. Thank God. May he spare us yet again.”
Touche.
Blue
None of the assurances by the uniparties means a whit, IMO.
Ryan’s plan purportedly exempts seniors age 55 and older (Social Security and Medicare) from any reforms. Problem is, he’s proposing raising the age of eligibility at the same time. See excerpt below from Paul Ryan’s Roadmap: Outlined:
Medicare
Eligibility Age Increased from age 65 to age 69 1/2. . . .
Medicare recipients age 55 and older may be covered by current traditional Medicare at Social Security Retirement Age.
Social Security
Increase SSRA to age 67 one year early, then phase increase to age 70.
55 and older – No change to their benefits at Social Security.
But, of course, the Democrats’ proposal (Catfood Commission’s–Bowles-Simpson) is not an improvement. It doesn’t even “pretend” to grandfather those age 55 and older, from Social Security reform. Most white papers I’ve seen, state that the main “reforms” recommended by this proposal would affect everyone who wasn’t sixty (60) years old by December 31, 2011. (This report was issued in December 2010)
Here’s a link to Bowles-Simpson’s The Moment of Truth. Social Security is covered in Chapter V.
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
Highly recommended.
Blue
And he wonders why contributions and enthusiasm is down. If it were for MSNBC and the rest of the media cheerleaders he wld be down by 20 points.
Isn’t the Paul Ryan tactic giving Obama enough political cover?