The President doesn't want anything to do with the SS report

[bigtree]

He's letting them hang out there without one word of approval for the product of the work he asked them to do.

there's this from White House spokesman Bill Burton:

"The president will wait until the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work before commenting. He respects the challenging task that the co-chairs and the commissioners are undertaking and wants to give them space to work on it. These ideas, however, are only a step in the process towards coming up with a set of recommendations and the president looks forward to reviewing their final product early next month."

Sounds a lot like rejection to me. There's a lot of folks saying that it's his commission and he must approve of what they've come up with, but he assembled a bipartisan group with differing ideas and ideologies. It makes no sense to expect him to agree with everything they proposed. Hell, even members of the commission are attacking the report.

The President and our party will cherry-pick the recommendations and discard the nonsense. Watch and see who takes the bait. My guess would be the usual suspects. It doesn't look to me like the President is going to be among the fans of this commission's report, despite all of his spokesperson's fine words about the hard work they're doing.

[bluestateguy]

1. Many presidents have chartered commissions and then repudiated the report

LBJ and the Kerner Commission

Clinton ignored a commission report on SS and Medicare too.

And let us not forget Baby Bush ignoring the Iraq Study Group report and forging ahead with the troop surge

[bigtree]

3. all excellent points, bluestateguy

much appreciated perspective

[Hannah Bell]

14. clinton's episode with the intern got in the way of the "gravitas" needed to push through

social security defunding.

[laughingliberal]

63. Yes. And his point guy on that is now a co-chair of the commission. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Clinton cut a deal with Gingrich to slash Social Security

Was that not based on the commission report?

[SugarShack]

41. Do nothing till 2029 or raise or remove cap. removing would double benefits up to other countries!

[jaxx]

2. Wait for the final report......sensible.

Instead of going off like a rocket about what 2 out of 18 think, and accepting it as the gospel, not taking the bait? That would be a first!

[SarahB]

4. ahhh... silence....

This president is SO good at silence...

How about fighting???

[WorseBeforeBetter]

9. Sit back and let Republicans frame the debate...

just like health care "reform"!

[SarahB]

13. Yes ! It works SO well!

We'll win the next election for sure!

[laughingliberal]

65. That's what I was thinking! I keep remembering August 2009 & teabaggers taking over the debate.

When do we fight? If they get a report out, the plan is to vote on it in the lame duck session. That's a window of a few weeks.

[bigtree]

20. I think he's smarter to let the participants fight it out among themselves before the final report

They're already squabbling among themselves about the final contents.

When he gets the final product, we'll see what he supports and what he'll fight for.

[pacalo]

46. You'd have a legitimate gripe about silence if Obama weren't out of the country

right now. As I mentioned in a previous reply to you in another thread, the cabal gave its announcement to the press at a time when they knew he would be at a disadvantage. It was a deliberate attempt to make Obama, since he'll be making the final decisions, look bad.

Edited to add: the cabal burned Obama with their timing of their press conference because Obama is overseas & cannot give an adequate response until he gets back. I just can't hold his "silence" against him, considering that he's out of the country until Sunday.

[laughingliberal]

81. Have we no one in the administration or party who could say that? If that's true, where is the...

outrage? Can you imagine if a commission had preemptively released a report Bush would not like while he was out of the country. It would have led the news cycle every day until he returned.

[Hawkowl]

74. Silence is leadership 101

Right? Or am I getting Orwell mixed in with my reality? Truth is lies?

[SidDithers]

5. K&R...nt

Sid

[Scurrilous]

6. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[autorank]

7. I'm all for political common sense

He can turn on his own commission all he wants. In this case, please burn and dispose of it.

The commission is full of shit (with 5 exceptions)!

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Obama's already said that Social Security slashing is on the table

And he appointed the two most notorious SS slashers to co-chair the commission. I'm not thinking he's against their proposals, are you?

[SarahB]

11. Wait... are you saying he APPOINTED 2 people,

who the easily accessible record SHOWS have always been for SS cuts? No way!!!

[HughMoran]

12. "I'm not thinking ..."

:thumbsup:

[bigtree]

17. It's easier and more believable to conclude that republicans will embrace the tripe

. . . and that he intends use that republican support for the cuts to run against in his reelection campaign.

We see what we want to see, I guess. As the first responder to this thread pointed out, it wouldn't be the first time a President rejected a report he commissioned.

[SarahB]

19. Because time has proven that Obama always thinks 5 steps ahead?

C'mon, really?

[bigtree]

22. He did something similar with republicans as Senator, bait and hook stuff . . .

But, I must be boring you with the details . . . carry on.

[SarahB]

23. Yeah, I'm bored with the Republican majority in the House.

:eyes:

[awoke_in_2003]

59. right on...

he did the same thing with public option- oh, wait

[bigtree]

61. no

He joined a bipartisan commission as Senator, got them to reveal their inner selves and then stepped away from the panel and campaigned against them and their recommendations. I found the account during the presidential election from one of the republicans bitching about how they'd been 'betrayed'.

Your version follows the curious (but predictable) narrative of those critics who can't wait to see this President and party 'taught a lesson'.

[awoke_in_2003]

64. No, I am one of those critics...

who would like to see him do the same thing as president. I guess he only had "jedi power" as a senator.

[Marr]

86. Oh, right. More three-dimensional chess, then.

:crazy:

You know, everytime I've seen someone bend over backwards to interpret Obama's actions as part of a brilliant scheme to outmaneuver Republicans, insisting things are not as they seem... it's always turned out to be exactly what it seemed.

[HooptieWagon]

45. Bingo!

[HughMoran]

10. Congresswoman on Rachel suggested it wouldn't get "a single vote" in her committee

They have a looooooooong way to go before this proposal is ready for prime-time. At that point it might get 5 votes.

[dflprincess]

50. Except Pelosi promised an up or down vote on the recommentdations

during the lame duck session. No committees, no debate and probably a voice vote.

[liberal N proud]

15. No President would cut Social Security and expect to run for a second term

I doubt that Obama would be any different.

[ProSense]

16. The problem is

that every one with a keyboard thinks they're smarter than the President and qualified to run the country or lead Democrats to victory.

I'm sure they'd have had some advice for FDR on how to strengthen his proposals and not lose a single seat in any mid-term.

Does anyone wonder why people have to go back at least six Presidents to LBJ or further back to FDR to try to find a basis to criticize this President? Most of the critics can't use Clinton cause most of what Obama is doing or needs to do runs counter to what Clinton did. Some of them would rather forget Clinton.

[SarahB]

21. What???

Really?

[ProSense]

24. What really? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Well, Obama hired the DLC to run the country

The DLC has run our Party in 7 Congressional election cycles. Out of those 7, only once did we emerge with a majority, and that was only in one house.

Howard Dean ran 2 Congressional election cycles. We emerged from both with both Houses.

I may not be as smart or qualified as Obama, but I think I'd reach a different opinion on who to hire and who to throw under the bus.

[ProSense]

26. "Howard Dean ran 2 Congressional election cycles. "

That produced a lot of the blue dogs who opposed the President's agenda.

[MannyGoldstein]

First off, what part of his agenda did they oppose

As far as I can tell, they shared the same agenda.

Even if they did oppose his Democratic agenda, they opposed it less than the Republicans who win whenever the DLC has the reins.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. First off, what part of his agenda did they oppose

As far as I can tell, they shared the same agenda.

Even if they did oppose his Democratic agenda, they opposed it less than the Republicans who win whenever the DLC has the reins.

[ProSense]

28. LOL!

"Even if they did oppose his Democratic agenda, they opposed it less than the Republicans "

The blue dogs voted against health care reform. They didn't pretend to vote against it, they actually voted against it.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. But most voted for it.

All Republicans voted against it.

I rest my case.

[ProSense]

30. .

Point

[laughingliberal]

67. LBL/DF. nt

[madfloridian]

44. Baloney. Dean said they should stand for Democratic values...

even in red states. He urged them to speak out and tell people what Democrats stood for. I am tired of the tales that Dean caused the blue dog outbreak. It was Rahm and Chuck Schumer who did that.

We are in crisis in this country, and we need honesty not spin.

[ProSense]

48. He might have said it

but they abandoned health care reform and lost.

[madfloridian]

53. They did,, he did not.

I am tired of the misplaced blame.

[ProSense]

72. Look,

it was great to have the majority while it lasted, but some people seem to want the blame to be confined to only those Democrats they hate. That's not always the case.

[laughingliberal]

69. I know. This 'Dean was responsible for the Blue Dogs' meme has been showing up lately.

Capitalizing on the short memories of the American people is no longer the exclusive purview of Republicans.

[ProSense]

71. Dean was partly responsible. He

helped to recruit them.

DEAN: The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect. Therefore, it's very clear, that even a Pro-Life Democrat who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue is a huge improvement over the person who was there before. So, are there some Democrats I would not support? Yes—and No I'm not gonna tell you who they are. But there are not many. Most of the Democrats who are Pro-Life—are very very good on a lot of other issues and I don't want to exclude people like that from out party.

link

That's from Dean, not my memory. He supported them, but he had no control over how they would eventually vote. Some voted against health care.

[laughingliberal]

73. Dean may have recruited a few but I seem to recall Rahm recruited many of them.

And Rahm was the one who was always there beating up the progressives and telling them they had to make nice with the assholes. I'd like ONE example of when this administration EVER came down on the Blue Dogs and told them to play nice with progressives.

What next? Just what do we cave on next?

[ProSense]

76. Not possible

"I'd like ONE example of when this administration EVER came down on the Blue Dogs and told them to play nice with progressives."

...since I'm never invited to their discussions. Still, many of them voted against the President's agenda and lost. So that says something.

[laughingliberal]

79. "Still, many of them voted against the President's agenda and lost. So that says something. "

And yet, we continue down the path of looking for more ways to join the Republicans in continuing the same failed economic policies they've foisted on us for decades.

[ProSense]

80. "And yet, we continue down the path "

We?

The problem is believing that the blue dogs who lost were die-hard Democrats. The problem is believing there are none left in Congress.

The problem is that the more than 300 Democrats in Congress are not a progressive caucus.

[laughingliberal]

82. "We" as in Democrats, specifically the ones we elected to speak for us who do not seem to want to.

It was, after all, the President who said he would continue looking for areas to work with the Republicans. The only way I know of to work with Republicans is to agree with them and give them everything they want. I have not seen them negotiate in good faith, ever.

I don't want to work with Republicans. I want us to move away from their failed policies that have destroyed poor people and workers and are now moving up the scale decimating the middle class. When do we decide we've compromised enough?

[countrydad58]

42. They couldn't do any worse!

[ProSense]

51. Right

anyone of them could have stepped in and saved the country, they're just complaining about it until the right opportunity presents itself.

[countrydad58]

58. Saved?

This fucking comm he established,if acted on will destroy America!

[ProSense]

68. " This fucking comm he established,if acted on will destroy America!"

Drama much?

They have no power.

[countrydad58]

70. Then why did

Obama waste taxpayers money? Why did he appoint the 2 assholes as chairman?

[awoke_in_2003]

60. No, we just have to go back...

at least 6 presidents to find one that actually behaves like a democrat.

[dkf]

31. Very few people are serious about keeping this country solvent.

They would rather live their lives making no hard decisions and leave others to cope with chaos after they die.

[Lord Magus]

32. Perhaps the people LEAST serious about doing so are...

...the morons who produced this report.

[dkf]

36. There is no painless way to deal with a deficit.

I'd actually be curious to see what a pure Democratic solution looks like alongside a pure Republican one.

But what bothers me is when one side thinks all the pain will occur on the others favorite programs. If I don't see that I will personally have to experience some pain, I can't take any of it seriously.

[Lord Magus]

38. These clowns include TAX CUTS in their "deficit reduction"!

Not merely making permanent the Bush tax cuts, but cutting taxes even further for the millionaires, as well as slashing corporate tax rates. This despite the fact that their baseline was supposed to be Obama's position of extending the existing tax cuts only for income under $250k and letting the top tax rate revert to 39.6%. Cutting taxes only increases the deficit.

Not to mention that it's stupid to even be focusing on deficit reduction at all right now. Economic recovery has to be the top priority, deficit reduction should come once the economy has already recovered. We saw during the Great Depression what happens when you reverse the order: recovery ends and the economy gets even worse than was before. That's what happened in 1937 when FDR made the mistake of trying to balance the budget before the Depression ended.

[dkf]

49. They cut marginal tax rates but limit deductions.

The overall changes increases taxes by $961 billion over 10 years. Moreover it gets rid of deductions that poor people can't use. Lastly it increases taxes on capital gains and dividends to ordinary income. Really it's a pretty progressive idea.

[Lord Magus]

62. Taxing capital gains and dividends as regular income...

...is about the only thing I can get behind in this.

But why not scrap those deduction (or at least the ones that only benefit the rich) and not cut taxes?

[defendandprotect]

56. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit ....

MIC -- wars -- warmongering -- weapons building -- these all are directly

connected to bankrupting our Treasury!

[laughingliberal]

93. I'm fairly certain we can deal with the deficit without doing it on the backs of the poor, the sick,

the elderly. I'm tired of financing the tax breaks for the wealthy.

America: welfare for the rich, self reliance for the poor.

[defendandprotect]

33. Yeah .... looks like the chess game again .... ?

Remember this is the man who trampled universal health care by acting

for his private health care sponsors -- in concert with Baucus -- also heavily

sponsored by health care industry --

Obama made back room deals with Big Pharma -- "no negotiation" by Medicare on drug prices.

And with health care industry -- PRIVATIZATION and no single-payer option --

[Safetykitten]

39. Tune in for "Chessmasters!" If you don't get it, you really fucking get it.

[gulliver]

34. Hope he blocks it and says, "Good thing Dems are running...

...things, eh voters?"

[dkf]

37. Well he can always come up with his own solutions.

More power to him.

[Canuckistanian]

35. There's no final report yet

As Burton says, they haven't finished their work.

It's perfectly proper for Obama to withhold comment until that happens.

[countrydad58]

40. Reality Bites!

He owns it ! EOM!

[madfloridian]

43. He doesn't get away with saying nothing. Too many people are hurting.

He needs to speak out clearly and firmly.

Chess don't work this time.

[Hawkowl]

75. He should have spoke up LAST MONTH

Before the party he leads got its fucking ass kicked!! He needs to stand up and LEAD. I have never seen a weaker president in modern times. Jimmy Carter looks like a roaring tiger by comparison.

[JackRiddler]

47. This is not yet the report.

This is the advance leak of a draft by the co-chairs, who wish to ram it through, or open the Overton window in advance of a "compromise" that gets them most of what they want.

When the report is issued, in December, then you'll know what Obama's position is.

[madfloridian]

52. No, he needs to take a stand right now.

He can't just let this slide.

[JackRiddler]

54. Oh, but I agree.

I was merely correcting the OP.

He won't now, and we probably won't like it when he does on the actual report.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

57. I get that

I'm speaking to those who want the President to come out today and reject or accept the recommendations that were 'leaked'. Also addressing the folks who insist they know what his response will be.

[coti]

77. "Then you'll know what Obama's position is." What the hell, though? Is it a secret

or something?

Can't he just talk straight and lead?

Isn't it a bad sign when his own supporters feel like they have to speculate about what his REAL position is?

[bigtree]

90. according to reports

the commission dropped this on him by surprise. He's overseas doing important diplomatic work. He shouldn't be expected to drop everything and be manipulated into responding before the final report is even released. This is just a deliberate leak meant to pressure him. He'll respond in his own tim and on his own ground.

I don't know why anyone believes he'll go beyond what the Democratic caucuses will accept. That should mean that most of the nonsense in the report is a non-starter. But, folks can believe whatever they want to about this President. I just don't automatically assume the worst.

[old mark]

66. I certainly expect him to make a statement when he gets back here...

if he decides to return.


mark

[coti]

78. LOL nt

[Tatiana]

83. The co-chairs deliberately leaked this "draft" to ambush the administration and put them at a

disadvantage.

I don't see a point in releasing anything that isn't from the full committee. The problem is, they are having a hard time getting the 14 others to agree to much of the Republicant recommendations. So, the two very conservative co-chairs decided they would try to frame the narrative to their liking... and it looks like they've succeeded.

Of course, the President should have expected something like this from the likes of Simpson and Bowles. It was a mistake appointing them to co-chair this catfood commission in the first place. And, due to the President's Asian excursion (of which the timing looks pretty suspect, to me), now we have everyone discussion the two co-chairs' ideas, instead of whatever the final product of the commission will be.

[laughingliberal]

84. I have a hard time believing the President didn't know what he was getting when he appointed...

Simpson and Bowles to co-chair the commission and Bruce Reed as executive director.

And if this was an ambush somebody should have called them on how inappropriate it was.

[Tatiana]

87. Logically, he should have known.

But then you listen to the 60 minutes interview where he continues to insist that he will reach out to and compromise with people who have stated their #1 goal is to make sure he is a one-term President. He also admits that he expected more Republicant cooperation when he first took office.

So I think there is a level of naivete and/or outright stupidity regarding the President's approach to working with Republicant/conservatives.

And since when has this administration called the Republicants out on ANYTHING? We should have paid attention when Obama said he thought the Republicants "were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years..."

[yurbud]

85. I think it's wishful thinking on your part

[bigtree]

92. no, strategic thinking

No Democrat is going to willingly carry that tripe into a re-election campaign. Not this White House. Believe it when you see it. No point in assuming the worst, even though so many have made that their cottage industry.

[yurbud]

95. then why bother to appoint the commission in the first place?

[ipaint]

88. Obama put this whole commission in motion, picking 2 co-chairs that

guaranteed this type of right wing outcome.

He owns it. 100%

[bigtree]

91. he owns the presidency right now

. . . and like our legislators, he has every opportunity and ability to reject the objectionable proposals in the report and craft his own approach along with our Democrats in Congress.

The only 'outcome' that's occurred is that a divided commission has leaked findings from a report that have been labeled DOA by Democratic legislators. Nice of folks here to try and wrap all of that nonsense around him when he clearly has a choice whether to reject or accept the recommendations. He certainly doesn't deserve to be told what he'll accept.

[ipaint]

96. He took an idea pushed by billionaire asshole pete peterson

and made it happen. He put this whole ball of shit in motion and he owns it. I don't care what he accepts or rejects, he put us all and social security in danger when it didn't have to be and the people overwhelmingly don't want it to be.

He is 100% responsible if anyone touches social security.

[laughingliberal]

94. Yep. He birthed this baby. CFC was created by him & Bowles and Simpson were his appointees. nt

[B Calm]

89. Obama wanted bipartisanship and this is the result!