Tomorrow, Obama will NOT call for raising Medicare eligibility to 67, will threaten veto

[jefferson_dem]

tomorrow, President Obama WON'T call for raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, per WSJ http://on.wsj.com/n1hk0F

Pres. Obama will threaten to veto a supercommitte package that includes bennie cuts for Medicare but no tax hikes on rich, adm officials say

Obama's plan will inc $1.5t in tax hikes (800b from letting bush rates expire) 1t in war savings, 580b in mandatory program cuts

http://twitter.com/#!/samsteinhp

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Will he actually do that? Veto? nt

[gateley]

4. CAN he actually do that? At this point, or does he have to

wait until Congress passes it?

I thought that the Committee was the Word Of God -- do you know? Thanks.

[Inuca]

25. Of course he has tp wait for it to

be an actual bill (= passed by Congress) before he can veto it. But he can issue a veto threat whenever he wants.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. "Any bill I sign must include... a public option"

You'll excuse those of us who'll wait for action before forming an opinion.

[ProSense]

5. Wait

"Any bill I sign must include... a public option"

...didn't Congress have to pass the public option?

This anecdote doesn't work.

"You'll excuse those of us who'll wait for action before forming an opinion. "

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

6. And

Obama said he wouldn't sign a bill unless it had a public option. Seems pretty clear to me.

[ProSense]

8. Again

"Obama said he wouldn't sign a bill unless it had a public option. Seems pretty clear to me."

...that's the opposite of the current situation. This is more a situation like the foreclosure bill: Congress passed something that has severe negative implications, and the President vetoed it.

[boppers]

19. Not what Obama said, anyways.

"I think <foo> must happen, including <bar>."

Obama got foo, without bar. He signed it because he got foo, which was the "must".

[Dawgs]

29. Do you seriously not understand the definition of including or include?

He said that something MUST exist and that it MUST INCLUDE something for him to accept it.

Your pathetic spin might work with uninformed Republicans, but not here.

[boppers]

45. MUST INCLUDE an insurance exchange,

Not: "MUST INCLUDE an insurance exchange, which MUST INCLUDE a public option."

The second "MUST INCLUDE" simply doesn't exist, so dishonest spin chops up what was actually said, to make it say something else.

Here's what was actually said, the whole sentence:
"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange -- a one-stop-shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest, and choose what's best for your family."

By applying your logic to your own words:

"Your pathetic spin might work ... here."

See? Chop out a bunch of words, change the meaning.

[boppers]

18. "must include an insurance exchange"

The bill did.

Taking on words from later sentence clauses is FAIL.

[Logical]

27. Once again your blinders confuse you....

What part of "will not sign a bill" do you not understand?

[jefferson_dem]

7. Oh my...

Dusting off the oldie but the goodie...regardless of it's total (ir)relevance to this particular circumstance.

Whatever.

[ClassWarrior]

9. So the veto is irrelevant to the veto?

:eyes:

Whatever indeed.

NGU.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. a man's word defines his honor. If he has any.

Any bill I sign MUST contain a public option. He also said, by the way, that trying to fix health care by mandating the purchase of insurance was like trying to solve homelessness by passing a law that everyone has to buy a house.
He said those things. He did not follow through. Just stuff he said. Not stuff he meant. This is particularly hypocritical out of those who spout the Bible against gay people, because that book demands of it's adherents a strict set of rules about words and promises, what Political Professionals call 'spin' is utterly forbidden to those who wave the cross, forbidden by the guy hanging on the cross, in fact. Who said nothing about 'sanctity of marriage'. Nothing. He did say 'let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no, for anything else comes from EVIL'. Yes, from evil. So there is no room, JD, to both play 'I said it but...' games and also puke dogma at GLBT people. It is an act of wholesale hypocrisy and stark bigotry, because clearly the Bible is rejected as any form of guide by those who indulge in word games in which 'Yes' means 'No' or in which one's word is otherwise asterisked and footnoted for actual meaning.
And by the way, it is ironic as hell to hear you call the public option 'dusting off an oldie' considering the President's entire anti equality policy is based on 2000 year old writings by a Roman tent maker named Saul. Talk about an oldie! Talk about dust! Maybe the dust is the reason all that stuff about honest words and exacting speech are hard for Obama to notice?
'We follow the Bible, by which I mean we demand that you do, while we do whatever the fuck we want.' That is not a religion, that is a set of self promotional devices wrapped up in the bloody shroud of Jesus.

[SidDithers]

14. Keep using that false quote...

and we'll keep laughing at you.

:rofl:

Sid

[Dawgs]

30. How is it false? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

32. I note that you got no answer just a wise crack and an emoticon

Devoid of actual meaning.

[SidDithers]

33. Because it's a partial quote, which changes the meaning of the original quote...

Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

Sid

[Dawgs]

34. Nope. Doesn't change the meaning at all.

It's like me telling my kids that 'they must clean their room, pick up all toys and dirty clothes, including making their bed.'. It's exactly the same as, 'they must clean their room, including making their bed.'.

Both sentences have the same meaning. My kids MUST clean their room, which INCLUDES making their bed. The INCLUDES part is NOT OPTIONAL.

[Vattel]

42. Your explanation is very clear, and obviously you are correct,

but I suspect it will fall on deaf ears.

[bornskeptic]

22. No President issues a veto threat by saying "I will not sign..."

because of this:

"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

United States Constitution
Article I
Section 7

President Obama is quite capable of using the word "veto" when that is what he means. I will admit that he chose his words poorly, but
I have a hard time believing that anyone seriously thought that he might veto a healthcare bill which contained 95% of what he campaigned on anyway.

[bluestateguy]

3. We shall see. I am certainly praying for him to do the right thing

That is good to hear, if it turns out to be true.

Due to his sellout on the Bush taxcuts last year, however, we will have to wait to see how much fortitude is behind those statements.

[jwirr]

10. It really scares me when they tell us they are not going to cut SS and

Medicare without one word about Medicaid. Medicaid is the program that cares for the disabled & the elderly who are not eligible for Medicare and it pays for the nursing homes. It also cares for the poor. It is equally as important as the other two. They do not call them the big 3 for nothing.

[dkf]

11. Is that another trillion in war savings or is that the same one everyone was counting on already?

This looks to me like less than letting all the Bush tax cuts expire which is supposed to bring in $3.8 trillion.

Goodness has he actually managed to propose putting us in a worse deficit position than current law?

[jefferson_dem]

12. Full story here -

Obama Will Veto Super-Committee Plan That's All Medicare Cuts And No Tax Hikes

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will veto a comprehensive deficit reduction package if it includes cuts to entitlement program benefits but no tax hikes on the wealthy or well-to-do corporations, senior advisers said on Sunday.

The veto threat is an addendum of sorts to a $3 trillion-plus set of deficit reduction proposals that the White House will make to the congressional super committee tasked with comprehensive deficit reduction. But if administration officials are to be believed, it is now a principle by which the committee must act and it raises the specter of gridlock. Just last week, House Speaker John Boehner insisted that tax hikes should be off the table.

"hat the president is saying is he is not doing if the Republicans are unwilling to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share," explained a senior administration official. "What they can't do is send something to us with the things we propose and without the stuff on the revenue side because we will veto that."

Previewing the president's proposal during a conference call on Sunday evening, the same administration officials confirmed that Obama would not be calling for changes to Social Security payments or a raising of the eligibility age of Medicare -- reforms that he had embraced during talks with Boehner over the summer.

"Because it is his vision and not a legislative compromise being crafted to garner some number of votes in the House and the Senate, it is inherently different from the grand bargain he was working on with the Speaker," explained on official, who left open the possibility that the president would endorse further means testing Medicare.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/18/obama-super-committee-veto_n_969056.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

[YellowCosmicSun]

13. but, but, wasn't this supposed to be the end of Medicare?

:sarcasm:

[vaberella]

15. I was told Medicare was ending months ago. n/t

[Number23]

16. Yep, it was the "end of times" for the 40th time

This man really sucks at killing Medicare and Social Security. :eyes:

[boppers]

20. We have always been at war with Social Security!

Some people will fall for ridiculous shit, repeatedly, all of their lives.

As P. T. Barnum(?) put it: "You can fool some people all of the time".

[polmaven]

24. Yep...

And Social Security too.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Of course he won't call for it - and of course he will threaten to veto.

But when it is 'forced' on him, he will oh so grudgingly comply, and sign away. He was left with no choice, you see. He tried. He really tried.

[Dragonfli]

21. The wording sounds like, If they agree to tax increases medicare will ALSO be cut.

That is what it says isn't it?

He will not go through with the medicare cuts without some tax increases is what I am reading.
He didn't say anything about not cutting Medicare if they agree to some tax increases, the wording is quite clear.

[NorthCarolina]

28. I think you read it right. Of course there are some that would prefer you not notice their big

"BUT"

[Arkana]

39. No, what it sounds like is that he might think about talking about Medicare

if they agree to tax hikes on the rich.

[Dragonfli]

40. God bless you, your wishful thinking is getting in the way of your language comprehension

I only wish I could live as happily naive as you do, keep believing what you must to make you happy.
I don't have the luxury, neither do the other working poor and dissabled.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. What do you think the odds are they will agree to tax increases?

I agree that we should be pushing for tax increases and no cuts. But in Obama's defense, he is calling their bluff on the deficit. He knows they will never agree to cutting taxes.

[Dragonfli]

44. That is possible, past dealings of his have me nervous however, There may be

A compromise on the closing of some loopholes for instance.


On the plus side, he is finally talking tough on tax fairness, I can only hope he will follow the tough talk with the promised veto.

The down side of all of it is if the commission does not come up with something positive Medicaid will be cut anyway (it will affect beneficiaries as fewer will even take them on, a problem already).

[flpoljunkie]

23. More on President's deficit reduction plan from the NYT...

Mr. Obama will call for $1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct. The proposal also includes $580 billion in adjustments to health and entitlement programs, including $248 billion to Medicare and $72 billion to Medicaid. Administration officials said that the Medicare cuts would not come from an increase in the Medicare eligibility age.

Senior administration officials who briefed reporters on some of the details of Mr. Obama’s proposal said that the plan also counts a savings of $1.1 trillion from the ending of the American combat mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.

In laying out his proposal, aides said, Mr. Obama will expressly promise to veto any legislation that seeks to cut the deficit through spending cuts alone and does not include revenue increases in the form of tax increases on the wealthy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/obama-plan-to-cut-deficit-will-trim-spending.html?_r=1&hp

[NorthCarolina]

26. "includes cuts for Medicare BUT no tax hikes on rich"

"BUT", "BUT", "BUT", everyone always has a big "BUT".

[bvar22]

35. Those are the "Weasel Words" ignored by the OP.

It couldn't be clearer,
and THIS is BEFORE the "Compromise".

"Pres. Obama will threaten to veto a supercommitte package that includes bennie cuts for Medicare but no tax hikes on rich,"

The apologists WILL play the word games we have all become so familiar with,
like they are doing upthread with "including".

"Obama did NOT say he would VETO this bill,
he said he would threaten to veto the bill."
Case (and mind) CLOSED!!!

A logical and valid interpretation of this sentence would also be,
"Obama will not veto a bill that cuts Medicare IF it contains a Tax Hike on the rich."

So, if the bill cuts medicare by a $BILLION dollars AND raises taxes on the rich by 2 cents,
then its another "accomplishment" that get added to The LIST.
:party:

[jefferson_dem]

36. False.

Read/Watch the speech at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x617601 Here's one important passage:

This is not class warfare. It’s math. (Laughter.) The money is going to have to come from someplace. And if we’re not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more: We’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor. We’ve got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow. We’ve got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling.

That’s unacceptable to me. That’s unacceptable to the American people. And it will not happen on my watch. I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.

Anyway, there's no need to come back to this thread and say "you were right." What's most important is that the truth gets out there.

[bvar22]

37. No.. TRUE, according to the Rules of Grammar for the English Language.

"I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues ..."

Any way you choose to parse it,
this statement by President Obama clearly confirms that
a cut in Medicare Benefits is acceptable IF accompanied by a Tax Hike on the Rich.


And THAT is his Pre-Compromise position.
I wonder what he is willing to Give Up to get a WIN?

We've ALL seen this movie before,
and it doesn't end well for
the Working Class,
the Retired,
or The Poor.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[theaocp]

38. Much love to bvar.

As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "If ifs were fifths, we'd all be drunk." In-fucking-deed.

[Vattel]

43. It makes no political sense for Obama to propose

any benefits cuts to medicare right now. So I doubt that he will. But will he ultimately sign a bill with such cuts? My guess, and I hope I am wrong, is that he will.