General consensus on "The Deal"?

[ObamaKerryDem]

Yay, nay, or somewhere in between? I myself have very mixed feelings at this point though I feel it could've been much worse. But I have my doubts about it getting through the House..

What are your thoughts?

[MBS]

1. well, at least it's more likely that we'll avoid default,

and that's a good thing.
But (1), as you noted, we're not totally out of the woods yet . (A Talking Points Memo headline this morning: "Waiting to Exhale"
and (2) This is just the beginning of the fight, bot short term ( Remember, the budget for FY 2012 (which starts in October) hasn't been passed yet! So expect more s___ ahead)
and long term. We HAVE to raise revenues, and, above all, end the tax cuts for incomes over $250k! It's just plain fiscal prudence (not to mention fairness).
(3) Honestly, I'm heartbroken by the amount that Dems (and our country) had to give up to please the far right.
I'm trying to take the long view and hope that this will be politically good, or at least OK, for the Dems (see http://craigcrawford.com/2011/07/why-obama-won-debt-deal/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/did-obama-capitulate--or-is-this-a-cagey-move/2011/07/31/gIQAhJXGmI_story.html?hpid=z2); if nothing else, given the makeup of Congress right now, especially the House, the Dems really are stuck --certainly, nothing is likely to change- until we can get the right-ring maniacs out of Congress in 2012. I really, really hope that people begin to see that the Republicans are the party at fault here, but, judging from the polls, it looks like that's far from a given.

But Katrina van den Heuvel pretty much captures my mood this morning.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/from-the-debt-debate-to-the-coming-hostage-revolt/2011/07/30/gIQAZrDclI_story.html. Excerpts:

In the melodrama that is consuming Washington this hot summer, featuring the spectacle of how much Tea Party Republicans will be able to extort for agreeing not to blow up the economy, the values and priorities of most Americans were early casualties. That reality will drive — no matter what the resolution this week — new, independent citizen mobilizations challenging both Republican zealotry and Democratic cravenness.
The debt-ceiling debate has lasted long enough for most Americans to start paying attention and to realize just how divorced both parties are from basic common sense. With the economy faltering and 25 million people in need of full-time work, most Americans want Washington focused on how to create jobs and get the economy going, not on slashing spending for the rising number of poor children while sheltering tax havens for millionaires.

Equally inexplicable is the president’s apparent eagerness to negotiate with a legislative faction willing to hold the entire economy hostage — and one prepared to extort concessions in backroom deals that it could not achieve in any normal legislative process. Negotiating with fiscal terrorists only encourages them. . .
. .. It is astonishing how out of touch these plans are with what people seek in these tough times. The vast majority of Americans want Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid protected, not cut. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly three-fourths of Americans oppose cuts in Medicare. Majorities reject raising the eligibility age for Medicare or cutting the Social Security inflation rate, two reforms President Obama has apparently embraced. For Americans, the most popular reforms to deal with the deficit are increased taxes on those making more than $250,000 (72 percent), hedge fund operators, and oil and gas companies.. . .. In the August recess, the heat legislators encounter back home won’t come from the weather alone. The Tea Party captured the populist anger in 2010, representing a small fraction of the population. In 2012, legislators in both parties may just encounter a populist uprising that represents an American majority.

[MBS]

2. Decent analysis in today's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/us/politics/01assess.html?_r=1&hp

Headline pretty much summarizes it:
"After protracted fight, both sides emerge bruised"

[MBS]

3. Also see this DU post--

Poster is right. Our priority should be to GET THESE PEOPLE out of congress in 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1628941

Also see this right-on-the-money analysis of the Tea Party, by John Dean (who KNOWS). I think it's brilliant.
http://verdict.justia.com/2011/07/29/the-tea-party/
DU discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x617662

[Mass]

4. The GOP called Obama's bluff and won. This is all there is to it.

When you see moderates like Hoyer or Matt Miller or reasonable people like James Fallows mad at this deal and at the president, it tells me all I have to know. That Katrina is unhappy is no surprise. She would have been unhappy with most anything that could have passed the US Senate in 2010 anyway. But that moderates are just as unhappy tells us what we need to know.

Obama allowed blackmail to become an institutional tactical technique, and nothing will be done during the next year. I have tried until now to keep an open mind, given the stupidity of the GOP, the ambient racism, and the economic difficulties, but this the the extra drop. I will work to reelect Markey and beat Brown, but as MA is a safe state, I will sit this one. Which is worse is that Obama is trying to tell us that the GOP did what we told them to do with our emails. Really? I could be ready for: this is not what we wanted but we have to do that to avoid default. I cannot accept being lied to by a president that promised to change politics.

I know Kerry will vote for this, but I would hope he will express his disagreement loudly (I doubt it), and hope Markey will vote against it.

[Inuca]

6. I understand your frustration

and it is probably the forst time that I am also mad at Obama. How much of it is rational and how much a got reaction to the fruatration I feel and sense of outrage at these idiots and know-nothings that put everybody's back to the wall, I don't know, too early to tell...

Here is a comparative analysis I just came upon, puts things into some kind of persepctive. What each side wanted, what they got, what they had to give up http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-got-what/2011/07/31/gIQAZDDUmI_graphic.html?hpid=z1

[Mass]

8. At least, he saved Medicaid for a while, and hopefully Pell Grant.

(though there still could be in the commission recommendations).

But Medicare is on the chopping board. Why?

I think the fact that no democratic leaning columnist, from the most moderate to the left, is happy with this deal and the way Obama led this negotiation tells us a lot.

For a few good news (or at least not so bad news) here is Kevin Drum, who a few days ago, was taxed an Obama hater by some people on GDP

And what’s the less-bad news? There are a few noteworthy angles: (1) if the trigger kicks in, Medicaid and Social Security would be walled off and protected, and while the domestic cuts could affect Medicare, the cuts would be limited to Medicare providers, not beneficiaries; (2) triggered cuts for the 2012 fiscal year are practically non-existent, so it won’t hurt the economy in the short term; (3) a surprising amount of the overall deal targets the bloated Pentagon budget, which makes more painful domestic cuts less necessary; (4) there won’t be another debt-ceiling fight until 2013, giving the GOP one fewer hostages to grab for a while*.

At least those are a few things to be happy, but I wished the WH did not try to make us believe this is a good deal. Be honest. This would help swallow the pill. Let's just say I will not go on GDP today.

[karynnj]

13. I was very surprised that they protected Medicaid - not Medicare

Medicare has its own funding - and it is not running a deficit now. It is true that long term, it is not completely solvent, but there is no reason to deal with that by cutting it now. (I also thing the "cuts are to the providers" is disingenuous. If the remuneration, already pretty low, is lowered, there may be some areas (or some specialties) where they refuse Medicare patients.

The only thing I can think of is that it is intended to be strategic. Just as Daily Kos blasted the trigger from how our side looks - "wanting to cut defense and raise taxes" going into the election. It may be that the Republicans see that cutting anything in Medicare is politically difficult. (Good strategy, probably not, but where on this has our strategy been anything but bad? )

I hope to stay away from GDP today, but will likely break down and go. I agree that spinning something obviously bad is not a good idea - you just look like you are afraid to tell the truth.

My biggest concern - more than the awful provisions - is that we have rewarded the RW for holding hostages and they will do it for everything now.

[Inuca]

15. Your last sentence

That's what has kept me MAAAADDDD and my blood pressure high (literally, I am afraid) for these last few (more than a few actually) days.

Also, I may be naive and pathetically stupid, but I am loyal by nature, and I feel bad to feel so bad about what Obama has done. Because I am afraid that, for whatever reason (not because he "means bad", I still do not think that at all), he fucked this thing up royally. Possibly in an irreversible way in terms of support, election, etc.

[Inuca]

18. Speaking of GDP

DON'T click on the link http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001694/-President-Obamas-message-on-the-debt-agreement?showAll=yes&via=blog_1 you have been warned. Very depressing. :cry:, not even sure the :cry: is for, many things... it includes the "black and white-ism" of the extremes. I understand that people are upset and disappointed. I am too. But some of the stuff I read in that thread in the few minutes I spent with it are... impossible to describe.

[Mass]

19. I am not going, but I suspect that this describes what I think.

This deal is bad. Why does the WH insist in telling us it is good!!!

BTW, we had the first Democratic defection in the Senate: Menendez.

[Inuca]

20. I agree, they

should not tell us it's good, it's irritating. They should simply say it's the best that could be achieved. Not necessarily true, I don't know; but better than calling it "good". I guess Obama cannot put out a video pushing the idea that "it's not as hoorible as it may seem" :-(.

[Inuca]

5. Somewhere in between

and tired and frustrated and mad.

To add to MBS's good list of readings http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-deal-that-found-the-lowest-common-denominator/2011/07/11/gIQAde9TmI_blog.html A deal that found the lowest-common denominator Ezra Klein I won't paste an excerpt because it all ties together. (Almost) understandable synopsis of what is in the deal and its implication short and medium term. The titel tells much of the story. One important thing that I got out of the article is that the defense cuts that are part of the trigger are VERY drastic, meant to "hurt" as much as tax increases (hope he is right). OK, I chamged my mind :-), here are a few paragraphs:

Confused? That seems to be the point. Boehner is misleading his members to make them think taxes are impossible under this deal. But make no mistake: The Joint Committee could raise taxes in any number of ways. It could close loopholes and cap tax expenditures. It could impose a value-added tax, or even a tax on carbon. The Congressional Budget Office would score all of this as reducing the deficit under a current-law baseline. The only thing that wouldn’t reduce the deficit is going after part of the Bush tax cuts. That means they’re likely to go untouched in this deal.


That’s actually good news for...people who want to raise taxes. The Bush tax cuts will still be set to expire in 2012, which means that if Democrats get some revenue as part of this deal, they’ll be able to get more revenue if Congress gridlocks over the Bush tax cuts in 2012.



But that’s really a technicality. Boehner is promising that he’ll oppose any deal that includes revenue, and unless he decides to break his promise next year, that means the House is unlikely to pass any deal that includes revenue. So that leaves us with three options: 1) there’s no deal and the trigger goes off, 2) the Democrats agree to $1.5 trillion in further spending cuts alongside zero dollars in tax increases, or 3) Republicans agree to revenues.

[whometense]

11. Oops

Sorry - you beat me to it on the Ezra Klein angle. I'm a little confused after reading it about what exactly allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would do to people making under $250,000, but this seems on balance to be one place where inaction would be a positive good.

[karynnj]

14. If the tax cuts expire, they expire for everyone

The dilemma last year was that the Democrats were unwilling to let all the tax cuts expire. Therefore they needed a bill - and even when we had the House and 59 Senators, we could not do this. We could have let all of them expire - but then we would have had none of the stimulation we got and the unemployment payments would not have been extended.

[Inuca]

7. Thanks for starting this thread! N/t

[Mass]

9. Here is Jared Berstein's post. While he is no more inside, it may be a closer read to the truth than

the media.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/lousy-negotiating-skills-are-not-the-problem/

If your conclusion is that Democrats got rolled because the President is a lousy negotiator, I disagree. Not on his negotiating skills…as someone said in comments, I wouldn’t want him in the auto showroom with me when I’m bargaining for a better price. I disagree that better negotiating skills would have made a big difference. The problem goes much deeper.

Of course, I agree that the problem is much deeper. But that Berstein cannot tell us that Obama has good negotiating skills (remember, he was in the inside until a few months ago and has been trying to support him) should tell us a lot. But I imagine in GDP he will become another Obama hater.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/a-few-more-comments-on-the-pending-deal/

$1 trillion in cuts in discretionary spending over 10 years

What does that mean? It refers to the non-entitlements in the budget: defense and non-defense programs where dollar amounts are appropriated every year. On the non-defense side, it’s transportation, education and training, child care, housing assistance, health research, energy.

From a jobs perspective, a lot of infrastructure and investment in stuff like clean energy comes out of this part of the budget.

–A bipartisan committee (6 R’s, 6 D’s) must identify another $1.5 trillion in cuts; entitlements and tax increases can be on the table, though Speaker Boehner claims his R’s will not countenance any new revenues, and I’m prone to believe him. Assuming the committee agrees on the cuts, it reports out by Thanksgiving and their proposal gets a fast-track procedure—up or down vote by the end of the year.

–But if the committee fails to report out or Congress won’t enact their cuts, a spending-cut-only trigger kicks in, with cuts split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. This sequester, as it’s called, would exempt “Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side” according the White House.

Those are welcome exemptions, but man, I don’t see how you get $1.2 trillion (that’s the savings required if this part triggers) after you’ve already taken $1 trillion out of discretionary and still maintain those exemptions. I predict they’ll be a lot of pressure to violate this part of the deal.

[whometense]

10. UGH.

Did anyone read Ezra Klein's post? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/democrats-will-lose-now-but-they-can-win-later/2011/07/11/gIQARfWOlI_blog.html

It's literally the only thing I've read in the past month that gave me any hope.

What slays me the most, aside from all the obvious candidates, is how essentially stupid the whole argument is. It's been proven time and time again that many of the social safety net programs SAVE MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN THAN THEY COST. Ugh. Stupid AND blind.

For a breath of fresh air: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x604977

[Blaukraut]

12. To paraphrase E. Cleaver:

It's a Satan Sandwich, not even with sugar on it. This supposed deal is a travesty, and there is no sugarcoating it - at all. The Rethugs have mastered the art of extortion. Not too difficult, considering the willing target. Obama is a terrible negotiator. I've posted elsewhere that he is risk averse and has a pathological need to compromise. This goes beyond post-partisanship, imo. He is an intelligent person, so you would think that after having been railroaded several times, he would learn his lesson. Apparently not. I'm not ready to concede that he actually has very few convictions other than ensuring his own political survival and legacy, but I'm headed in that direction.

No Democrat has EVER allowed the Big Three to be touched. That was always something the R's would attempt half-heartedly, and the Dems would shoot down loudly and proudly. Not anymore. Obama has made the impossible possible.

No mixed feelings here, nope. Sure, it could have been much worse - SS and Medicaid could also have been on the chopping block. And make no mistake: Medicare cuts that are targeted only at providers WILL trickle down to beneficiaries, as well. Tax increases will not be part of the so-called Super Congress's recommendations. Why should it be? No incentive at all, if by simply waiting it out, the cuts-only triggers will come into play. The defense cuts are a sticking point still - the only positive piece for our side in the trigger. So knowing Obama, they will be reduced so the R's in the house can vote for the Satan Sandwich.

The best option would have been for Obama to raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th amendment. Yes, he likely would have been impeached and/or taken to court but he would have come out as the winner, the economy wouldn't have been dealt another blow, and the Democrats would still be able to campaign as champions of the Big Three.

[Mass]

16. Josh Marshall has a good list of problems and things that could have been worse/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/the-four-big-problems-with-and-four-silver-linings-around-the-debt-limit-deal.php

And here is a good post by Jim Fallows on the same issue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/more-reading-to-bring-good-cheer-debt-ceiling-dept/242890/

[Mass]

17. Matt Yglesias of what will be cut if the trigger is pulled

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/01/284818/what-gets-cut-if-the-debt-commission-doesnt-agree/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+%28Matthew+Yglesias%29

A majority of the deficit reduction in the plan being proposed to resolve the debt ceiling crisis is supposed to come from the recommendations of a special commission. And to create an incentive for the commission to write a proposal that passes congress, there’s a “trigger” mechanism leading to automatic spending cuts if the commission proposal isn’t adopted. Half of those cuts come from defense, and half come from the non-defense side. But the sequestration mechanism “would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.”

So what’s left? Here are Matt Cameron’s calculations:



Basically the “education, employment, and training” category of spending is going to get the largest share of the cuts. The State Department will also be really hit.

[Inuca]

21. Mark Knoller (CBS) tweets

WH saddled VP Biden with the dirty job of pressing frsutrated Dems to vote for the debt limit bill some of them regard as a sell-out.

After meeting with House Dems, Biden said "they expressed all their frustration." He said he'd be frustrated too, in their place.

Biden says he told Dems the debt limit deal has :"one overwhelming redeeming feature:" the issue can't come up again until 2013.

Biden says getting the debt limit out of the way till 2013 "has nothing to do with elections."

Biden seems to have played a key role in all this. He is probably not a happy camper either.

[ObamaKerryDem]

22. My feelings on this are still very mixed..

On one hand, it solves the immediate problem (avoiding default). And, very, very importantly, it leaves alone SS and Medicaid and the beneficiary side of Medicare. And Pell Grants. And it cuts Defense Spending, giving at least another big thing for the wingnuts to cry about (even though they win, for not at least, regarding taxes..). This is all very good, especially since, as Barney Frank (very aptly, I think) put it, the GOP has engaged in a form of extortion in the thuggish way they went about this whole thing.

On the other hand, to have it touch Medicare at all, in any way, is a problem for us. Not only does it inherently complicate a campaign issue that was basically handed to us on a silver platter previously by the GOP, but it gives us a huge PR problem--or at least significant one--with a core element of our base. Even if it doesn't actually touch benefits, if enough people THINK it does..that is very, very troublesome. Plus, as others here have already pointed out, the door could be opened to actual cuts with this, which is also of course a thing to worry about. Not good. The committee thing also makes me nervous. We saw how well that worked with HCR..*cough, cough!*

But to see so many GOPers (most recently Mitt Romney..) come out hard against this shows me that there must be some plus side at least to it. But there are still too many "sticking points" for my taste. Plus the fact that I will believe this actually passing the House when I see it happen on TV. I still rather doubt that.

Still holding out at least some hope for that 14th amendment..

We are, unfortunately, really feeling the side effects of losing the House (and those seats in the Senate..). And it sucks. :(

[Mass]

23. it leaves alone SS and Medicaid and the beneficiary side of Medicare. And Pell Grants

Actually, it does not. The commission can recommend to cut them. It is just the trigger that spares them, but at what cost.

[ObamaKerryDem]

24. Oww. :( See that's exactly what makes me nervous about this..

..the commission. I cringed the moment the President brought that up/confirmed it in his remarks last night..

Full disclosure: I funded my entire Undergraduate education (tuition wise, at least..and even then, qualifying for a full award, I still needed loans for other associated expenses..) via Pell Grants. Even though I personally am past the stage of qualifying for them, I know that so many other students/potential students are in need of them to realize their dreams and goals and it both sickens and saddens me to know they could be denied that chance. Why, it's almost as though the GOP doesn't want an educated public...oh wait..

So "The Big three" ARE still subject to commission cuts as well? I keep hearing different things about that..

Bottom line: This could've been worse, but it could have been far better, too. I keep trying to find the silver lining and while there is some there, the risks are nauseatingly great.

:(

[Inuca]

27. A side comment about Pell grants

Until a couple of years ago I knew close to nothing about them, though I worked in higher ed for many years. But I am now working at a community college, at a huge proportion of our students fund their studies through Pell grants. Which is of course a good thing. BUT I keep hearing stories of students gaming the system by registering for courses and then dropping them after they got the full Pell grant for the term. And they can do this a number of times, the system allows it. I do not know the details, I am not directly involved with financial aid in any way, but I know it happens quite a lot, it's considered a problem. And I doubt that this specific in any way to the college I work. Again, I have no idea what percentage of students are doing this, butit is non trivial by any means.

The point I am trying to make is that maybe there are ways to tighten the Pell grants system to make it more difficult for people to game it. The famous "fraud, waste and abuse" thing. It's real, it's not only a joke or a talking point. And maybe we (meaning liberals in general) should not have a knee-jerk reaction whenever Pell grants, Medicare, etc. are mentioned. I think (hope?) that that's the kind of things Obama has in mind, though so far he was not exactly good at achieving his goals.

Also, beyond the fraud and abuse thing, I think that the democratic "sacred cows" DO have problems. Now or in the not so distant future. And it is better to try to do something about it before a problem becomes a crisis. SO I do not automatically cry foul when I hear about changes to SS, Medicare, etc. Even changing eligibility age to 67 for Medicare which made me cringe big time (still does, I guess...), rationally speaking MAY make sense. There is no denying that on an average people live longer and are in better shape physically for longer (60 is the new 50, or whatever). It all depends on the damned details, for instance do not have a one size fits all rule, it much depends on the kind of work you do and did for most of your life. I always had a white collar job, and lived in relative confort (money always tight, but that's a different story). I will be 60 in a few months. Short of something really bad health-wise happening, I can see myself perfectly well working until I am 67 and staying on my employer's health insurance. But I would like ot know that if something bad happens, I am not left hanging, and I can go on SS and Medicare, even if possibly at a penalty.

Anyway... just some thoughts... it's good to have this bunch of people here that, agree or disagree on the topic, stay sane. My short forays into GD/P and Kos yesterday were not healthy. Not only, not even mainly, because I disagreed with what most of the people said, but the amount and intensity of vitriol was sickening. I may be a liberal, which I am and always will be, but I still think that tolerance of other people's oppinions and other people's faults is at least as important as one's political standing. Insults and idiocy are sickening, whther they come form the right or the left.

[Mass]

29. Sorry, but you are repeating the welfare queens stories Reagan pushed.

These stories, even if true, are so rare that it is shameful for the right to use them to hurt poor people. Can you give us at least a source for that.


Even changing eligibility age to 67 for Medicare which made me cringe big time (still does, I guess...), rationally speaking MAY make sense.

No, it does not. Actually, it hurts the system and it hurts people because they do not go to see a doctor until Medicare (cannot afford it), and then they discover they have a stage 4 cancer. So, no, this does not make sense if you care about people. For god's sake, get rid of the cap. That seems easier. And remember plenty of people do not have healthcare insurance. You are one of the lucky ones if you have one you can afford. If I was not living in MA, I would not be able to afford one (assuming that I find an insurance to cover me given my bout of cancer. And I am only 52). So, no, there is no way that pushing Medicare back to 67 makes sense. What we have to figure out is how to finance it and how to have better cheaper cares.

And, yes, I am ready to respect other opinions. I am not ready to respect some of the GDP posters who want to tell me this deal is good (any deal is good) and post half truth to tell me that. I did not sign for a church.

[Inuca]

31. Are you referring to my comments about Pell

grants? I am not pushing anything, I am just telling something I know from where I work. So I cannot give you any source, and I said that I am not directly involved with financial aid so I do not have any numbers. Just many stories I hear from co-workers, mainly instructors gossiping about their students. Also my husband is taking some courses at the college where I work and heard the same thing from some of his fellow students. If you were not referring to the Pell grants issue, then just ignore my answer :-). And believe me, on the flip side, I heard some amazing stories of people in really bad circumstances that could not have done anything without help from Pell grants, and now are students and working very hard at it, stories of people that started welfare mothers, got the Pell grant and are now teaching at the college, etc. The last thing I want is to hurt these people or make it more difficult for them to get the help they need and deserve. But I guess the key word is "deserve", not everybody does, and there may be a way to fine tune the system so that the deserving are helped and the others not. And by "deserving" I do not mean grade point averages and the like, I mean doing your best (or at least your "good"), which means different things for different people.

About the Medicare: that's why I said that the devil is the details, or whichever way I put in my message. Maybe it's possible to raise the cap (I am not for it, just tring to think about it, pros & cons) as a rule, but make exceptions easy. That's what I was trying to say. That's why I mentioned my case. Not everybody is the same, maybe it's possible to fine tune the system so it tries to address the differences in helath, work history, family situation, etc. I may be naive, definitely a possiblity, but in principle it may be doable. OTOH if we could have Medicare for all, i.e., single payer, I am 1000% for it. We can keep dreaming, can't we :-(?

As to your last paragraph, if you had the impression that my criticism and commenst about disgusting vitriol were in any way referring to you, I am truly sorry, it was ABSOLUTELY not my intent.

[Mass]

33. I knew you were not referring to me, but I posted what I feel today on GDP.

I disagree on Medicare. Why should those who earn more not contribute according to their means?

As for the first part, I am sure you heard stories like that. This said, is it the core of the problem? No. The core of the problem is that way too many people cannot afford college because of cost and the economy. So, sure, we could fix these little things, but this is definitively not what I think we should focus on.

[Inuca]

34. 100% agree with everything above

:hug:

[karynnj]

32. Ditto on raising the Medicare age

If you look back to the HCR debate, one group that many liberals were concerned about was the group from 55 to 65. The plan assigns them the highest rate because statistically they are the most likely to get serious chronic diseases and to have acute problems requiring very expensive hospitalization. The initial Finance plan allowed companies to charge them 5 times the lowest rate. This was changed in committee (Kerry led on this) to 3 - and he was arguing for 2 explaining that even that was a hardship. I think it ended up as 2 via the reconciliation bill, but am not sure. Two points from this:

1) Kerry's point was that many in this age group were people seeking insurance after their companies laid them off. They faced the toughest time getting a new job with medical benefits. So, this is a cohort that is bearing a huge share of the economic cost of this downturn. It was out of this concern that the idea - rejected by Leiberman who said there was no way he would vote for it, of letting people for that age group buy into Medicare. That would have been the least costly way, in total costs for people and the government, to cover these people. That argument would be even truer of people aged 66 and 67.

2) Look at the requirement that the highest rate can not be more than 3 (or maybe 2). Now consider that the cohort of people aged 65 and 66 is added. This raises the average cost significantly. The amount that the oldest group can be charged is limited to a multiple of the least expensive group. Mathematically, this means that costs for ALL groups increase. One thing this will do is raise premiums of many young people, already burdened by student debt and a job market they never expected when they started school. Adding all these people is not good for the HCR bill itself.

An addition point is that liberals may have an unlikely ally in the fight against this. Big Business. For years, retirement packages (early or otherwise) have included medical benefits. These benefits, at least for the companies I know anything about, require people to take Medicare when they qualify for it. At that point their insurance becomes secondary. This change will mean that these companies suddenly acquire a new, unexpected liability.

[ObamaKerryDem]

25. Some hope from the GDP (and the White House web site)..

Regarding SS, Medicaid, etc, at least..:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x731148

[Mass]

26. White House playing on words here. The commission can touch anything...

Proud of the majority of dems in the House that voted NO. Hopefully, my congressman is among them.

Edit:I think he is. http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4459&Itemid=125

[Inuca]

28. Majority?

I watched the vote. I remember it as 95-95 with 4 I think not voting by the time the vote was closed. Maybe these votes were entered later. I remember thinking "that Nancy, she REALLY knows how to count votes :-)"; she had said the day before I think that only half of her caucus may vote for it.

[Mass]

30. A majority did not voteYES, if you prefer.