So Obama has supposedly offered to put SS and medicare on the negotiating table, whats your opinion?

Everything should be on the table.

If he can spin it to look like the evil republicans want to destroy medicare,(how hard can it be), as we know it, they will go down in flames. There are a lot of old people who depend on these programs or who are getting close to needing them who are conservative. It’s going to be interesting for sure. I think the repubs are in a box, an uncomfortably small box. They put on a good poker face.

Sure Medicare/Medicaid and SS should be on the table, so should the federal subsidies of state welfare programs.Everything should be on the table, including all of the ridiculous research and experimentation (such as shrimp on treadmills and the addicting of primates then the drying out of primates to name a couple) and the federal aid to countries such as Mexico and China (tell them to take it off of our tab, at the very least!).

I think the Commander in Chief, and the congress who control the military expect young men and women to risk their lives in support of this country. Yet those same politicians (who all know that SS/Medicare are unsustainable—have known for the last generation—keep shoving the burden onto our children) aren’t willing to risk even their careers to fix a problem that needs fixing. We’ve made promises that we can’t keep, and no one in Washington will call a spade a spade.

God, what I wouldn’t give for some actual leadership.

@tedd Thanks for posting a relevant question. The devil is in the details as always but my general perception is the President is trying to lead by being the pragmatic person that he is. Even he himself cannot deny the realities of the day and is willing to play ball. As far as the risk for his political future is concerned, let’s hope the American people would have cooler heads and cease having the “But what about me?” syndrome and see that this President is trying to be President of every American, not just his supporters.

First the $4 trillion is over ten years. That means it is actually only $400 billion/yr leaving us with a $1.3 trillion annual deficit. Even if all of this comes from spending it still only amounts to a 10% cut in the budget. The last I heard Republicans have said they are looking at increased government revenue just not tax hikes. Generally things like increased fees or reduced tax beaks or subsidies. I believe the number was in the $1.6 trillion range or about $160 billion per year. That would mean a $240 billion/yr spending cut or about a 6% budget cut. Since Obama has increased the budget by about 25% since he’s been in office a 6% budget cut seems insignificant. And I’m not sure why anything in the entitlement spending would need to be touched, to get to these pathetically low numbers.

@Jaxk You are assuming that the annual deficit will be maintained at 1.3 trillion, which is incredibly false. President Obama would have to pass a new stimulus bill every year, and cut nothing to even come close to maintaining a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit on an annual basis.

And everything I’ve heard is that Republicans are refusing any change to the tax code, including changing loop holes and fixing things that shouldn’t be already (like subsidies to oil companies). Not only tax hikes on the richest in our country.

But please, continue ignoring facts and fear mongering.

To assume that this is some problem brought about by Obama is ignorant. This problem has been growing since Ronald Reagan came in and gave the highest tax bracket a 50% tax cut and then increased spending on the other end. No president or congress since has had the balls to fix the problem, and regardless of Obama’s stimulus spending to try and avoid another Depression, we were headed this way already.

And since I’m now assuming you’re looking at federal bills on a per year cost rather than total cost (since its 4 trillion over 10 years, a paultry 400 billion). I’m assuming you now are looking at the stimulus bill under the same scrutiny, since it is also a 10 year bill. Meaning instead of 700 billion, its actually a paltry 70 billion per year.

@tedd

Sorry but the numbers are the numbers. Here we are more than two years after stimulus, after TARP, and Obama has proposed another $3.7 Trillion budget. There is no new Stimulus or TARP in that budget, just ongoing spending. And to date He has cut nothing.

I’m not ignoring any facts, if you have some I would be interested. If however, all you’ve got is trying to blame this spending on everyone else, I’m not.

@Jaxk
1) Please link me to this budget proposal and keep in mind a few things
-The Budget Proposal is the start of a negotiating step, no President puts down exactly what they wan because they expect that in negotiations it will shift from what they have put down to start with. For example, President Bush when working with a Democratic controlled congress put down proposals with unreasonably low totals, expecting the Democrats would bargain with him to a higher number.
-The last federal budget passed under President Bush was $3.1 trillion dollars, and the federal budget has increased to the tune of no less than a few hundred billion dollars per year for the last decade or so, and the percent increase (~5%) has been going on for pretty much the existence of our nation.

2) The current budget would be including stimulus spending that was set to be spent this year. The Bill was passed back in 2009 after Obama took office, but it was not all charged at that moment, some of it was meant to be doled out as much as ten years later in 2019. The various expenditures would be added to each years budget, not strictly the 2009 budget (if that were the case nearly 1/5 of all spending in 2009 would’ve been stimulus spending).

3) I would say he’s trying to cut things right now. He put together the bipartisan commission of former senators (2 Republican and 2 Democrat) who came up with a balanced budget plan that among other things; Cut military spending, raised some taxes, closed tax loop holes, cut entitlements, cut discretionary spending, etc. And by even suggesting that entitlements such as SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are on the table in the current debt ceiling negotiations…... he has shown more balls than any of the last 4–5 presidents.

4) Lastly I never blamed the spending on anyone. You did by coming in here and preaching to us all about how Obama is the evil spendasauras rex. My question was 100% asking what people thought of Obama proposing we cut/reform entitlements in some fashion. You’ll notice in reading my OP that I don’t use the words blame, attempt to blame anyone, or even really go into the details of what got us into our current situation.

@tedd

Despite your screaming I haven’t blamed anything on anyone. I merely mentioned the facts that our spending does not shrink. In February of this year Obama submitted his $3.7 trillion budget for 2012. In fact it continues to grow every year thereafter. If there is some reason that you believe spending would pull back after Stimulus is done, it certainly is not reflected in Obama’s budget.

The current budget/revenue negotiations have been kept secret. No one (to my knowledge) is able to discuss what spending cuts or revenue enhancements have been proposed. The Democrats have said the Republicans are refusing to entertain any tax hikes. We don’t know what that means without specifics. The Republicans have said They may entertain some revenue enhancements. We don’t know what that means. Obama has said everything should be on the table and we don’t know what that means. Nonetheless, we’re yelling at each other that the other side won’t give. Until we get some proposals from these guys no one knows what that means.

Frankly I’ll wait to see what they propose before saying anyone has balls.

@Jaxk It has come out through various aids that Obama has put SS and medicare/caid on the table. I’m sorry but that takes balls. What’s his name put them up with that Republican budget idea, turning medicare to a waiver program, and I said he has balls too. Mentioning touching those things is political suicide, even though it needs to be done… so doing so takes balls.

And how about a challenge, why don’t you show me the last time in US history the budget for a year was less than the year before it.

I’ll wait.

Everything should be on the table, but we should not seek even more tax breaks and corporate welfare for the most fortunate among us, who have gotten all the breaks over the last few years, while trying to balance the cost of government and the additional tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the poor, the children and the elderly. We still have the largest GDP of any country on Earth. We aren’t so poor we have to abandon the most vulnerable among us to further coddle those who are doing extremely well.

@tedd

Nice try. You’re the one that said:

“You are assuming that the annual deficit will be maintained at 1.3 trillion, which is incredibly false. President Obama would have to pass a new stimulus bill every year, and cut nothing to even come close to maintaining a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit on an annual basis.”

I merely showed you that he was continuing the spending throughout his term and beyond. The massive stimulus, etc. was not a one time shot but ongoing spending. And just for the record mentioning that SS, etc. is on the table takes no balls at all. Actually putting together a plan to deal with it takes balls. He hasn’t done that and I doubt he will.

@ETpro

What additional tax breaks are you talking about. We are suggesting that taxes don’t go up. That’s not an additional tax break. And while you are all complaining that Republicans don’t want tax hikes, can someone tell me what spending cuts the Democrats have either suggested or agree to. So far I’ve heard nothing other than complaints about not raising taxes.

If you listen to what Obama has said, it is all about tax hikes. Even the $4 trillion is now over 12 years and the target for 10 years has dropped to $2.4 trillion. He has been adamant the the Bush tax cuts will expire and it is painfully obvious that his entire plan is to raise taxes. I guess that’s his version of compromise.

The Ryan budget included 1 trillion in tax reductions for corporations and high income earners and 2 trillin in cuts to thinks like education, Pell grants, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security…

Also, in state after state where Republicans control the legislature nd the governor’s mansion, they are cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, in some cases actrually producing the budget crisis that then must be fixed by cutting education, buting public sector unions, laying off state workers, teachers, police and firefighters.

Regardless of the public announcements politicians make, you can tell what they really want to do by watching what they actually work to accomplish.

@Jaxk There is no debating with you. You have it made up in your mind what is right and wrong before you come to the table, and it seems largely determined by their political leanings unfortunately.

@ETpro and @tedd

We can continue throwing darts at each other but it seems painfully obvious that what we’re doing isn’t working. I was hoping the jobs report would have better news but it didn’t. With only 18,000 jobs created we are slipping backwards and unfortunately unemployment ticked up again. It is striking to note that half the jobs created over the past year or so were created in Texas. Now I know Texas is a big state but it would seem appropriate to look into that. I know you all want to put a happy face on Obama’s performance but shouldn’t we at least question whether this stagnant economy could be better. Shouldn’t we at least look at places that are performing better and see what’s different. Doing the same thing over and over is unlikely to have much success. But of course that’s only my opinion.

@Jaxk Why don’t you look into what most of those jobs are sectored in (which you will find to be technology), and then find out who pumped billions of dollars into technology research about a year and a half ago.

Not to mention when you have a state that has really really low regulation, of course companies will flock to it…. companies that would otherwise be in violation of regulation and would rather just do bad things to the Earth and the Public for the sake of profits.

But that’s another argument all together.

@tedd

Not wanting to pick this apart but I suppose we can always find reasons for not creating jobs. Yes regulation is a heinous burden that has been driving jobs overseas for years. No point in looking at regulation to determine what works and what doesn’t, just keep passing more. The public you seem to think has been harmed by this is still flocking to Texas and leaving places like California. And the last time I was in Texas, I don’t remember it being an environmental cesspool. Of course what do I know, I still eat meat and Twinkies.

@Jaxk You’re talking to the guy who spent $50 on meat for the 4th of July….. For himself. (but twinkies are gross as sh*t)

It’s not a cess-pool no, but you are more likely to get companies that for instance, take advantage of their customers, or abuse their employees by overworking/underpaying, or for example… Texas has more illegal immigrant workers than every other state combined, because they don’t have regulations to make sure companies are following the rules. The Federal government a few years ago made a huge bust at a major Tyson Chicken (the largest chicken producer in the country) factory, where hundreds of illegal immigrants were working with full knowledge of management.

Failure to regulate doesn’t necessarily mean they’re letting companies dump toxic waste into the drinking water.

@Jaxk wrote, ”...it seems painfully obvious that what we’re doing isn’t working.” Now there’s something we both agree on. As usual, the Devil is in the details as to what we change so things are working. As you very well know, Presidents don’t write new legislation. The House and Senate did pass some jobs legislation that the president wanted between 2008 and 2910. In The Republican minority in the Senate tried to stop every single jobs initiative, but they couldn’t muster the votes needed to kill a few bills, so some progress was made despite the GOP’s determined efforts to destroy the economy in hopes that it would fall on Obama’s Head.

In the 2010 midterm election, the GOP ran on a platform that was very simple and easy to understand, “Jobs,Jobs, Jobs!” They somehow forgot to mention that they meant killing jobs—or at least jobs here, since the Tea Party Republicans swept into Congress and gave the GOP control of the House, they have tried to get rid of the jobs at NPR and Planned Prenthood. They fought viciously to save the tax credit for corporations that off-shore US jobs. They have been very busy on social war issues they knew could never pass the senate, and would get vetoed by the President if they somehow did get through the upper chamber. They have done NOTHING remotely related to creating jobs. What little they did that related to jobs was aimed at killing them. And using the debt limit as a suicide bomb, they are insisting they get a huge new package of job0killing measures or they will blow the government’s credit rating into the dumposter.