I didn't realize the R's had two of the three seats of power. I must be reading different newspapers than P-town.

Fact is, the Democrats WON'T EVER address the need to trim social programs because they know those are the way to get and maintain POWER politically. It has little to do with helping people so much as it does making people dependent on a program, and then ensuring their own re-election because dependent people don't tend to vote against their own interests.

jhay78;679594 wrote:Yeah, that's true. I've seen some pretty good stuff from Paul Ryan; I'm curious how the House Republicans will respond.

I can already see the campaign ads for 2012 congressional seats: "So and so (insert opponent of Democrat here) voted to throw our elderly out in the streets by making cuts to (or scaling back automatic increases in) Social Security. Vote for me."

Yeah, Ryan has some interesting ideas, especially on the big 3, but I'm not sure if that will translate to broader appeal.

Writerbuckeye;679661 wrote:I didn't realize the R's had two of the three seats of power. I must be reading different newspapers than P-town.

Fact is, the Democrats WON'T EVER address the need to trim social programs because they know those are the way to get and maintain POWER politically. It has little to do with helping people so much as it does making people dependent on a program, and then ensuring their own re-election because dependent people don't tend to vote against their own interests.

So, 1 of 3, 1.5 if you count the Senate in deadlock for the 60 vote rule (which does need really changed). But, does that give the R's an excuse to do nothing and not go forward with the campaign pledge to really cut the budget? Using the excuse, sorry guys, we only got 1 of 3 so we couldn't really put forth ideas is pretty lame.

Though, I am sure senior R's will put forth some real ideas in the next few months, after the CR debate. Until then, I think they are just trying to figure it out.
I agree with your first part of the your last segment. D's don't want to touch the big 3 and that is killing them. But, I don't think it is to keep people on them for votes, I'm not sure they all think that.

Just setting the record straight -- not making excuses at all.

The REALITY is this: even if the House budget proposals cut social programs (SS, Medicare, etc.) in a manner that's needed, there is zero chance in hell it passes the Senate or is approved by Obama. That's not an excuse, it's a fact.

What will satisfy you? If the Republicans propose the cuts and they end up getting killed in conference because there's a stalemate, are you going to say it was excuse making by Republicans to "settle" to get a budget passed that is less harmful than the one Obama is proposing, but doesn't cut what needs to be cut?

Sounds to me like you've made up your mind to blame Republicans if the cuts don't happen -- even though the deck is clearly stacked against them.

I'd also like to hear from you how Republicans get cuts like this through when you've got a Democrat Senate and President opposed to it.

I'll wait for your response...

Until Republicans actually propose said budgets it is just excuses.

Writerbuckeye;679683 wrote:Just setting the record straight -- not making excuses at all.

The REALITY is this: even if the House budget proposals cut social programs (SS, Medicare, etc.) in a manner that's needed, there is zero chance in hell it passes the Senate or is approved by Obama. That's not an excuse, it's a fact.

What will satisfy you? If the Republicans propose the cuts and they end up getting killed in conference because there's a stalemate, are you going to say it was excuse making by Republicans to "settle" to get a budget passed that is less harmful than the one Obama is proposing, but doesn't cut what needs to be cut?

Sounds to me like you've made up your mind to blame Republicans if the cuts don't happen -- even though the deck is clearly stacked against them.

I'd also like to hear from you how Republicans get cuts like this through when you've got a Democrat Senate and President opposed to it.

I'll wait for your response...

If I see a moderate, responsible plan from let's say Ryan, that raises the SS age, moves some numbers around, maybe even partial privatization circa 2005 W plan, I'd be fine with that. On Medicare, serious efforts to eliminate fraud and establish a viable system that lowers costs (reform taxes to pay for it, opt-out options that are viable, etc), I'd be fine with that.
Honestly, really I'd be happy with someone of influence putting forth any plan that is reasonable, regardless of party.

How will the R's pass it? Working across the aisle. If the plan is good enough, they can use the court of public opinion, their PR machines, etc. and guide it through the House and Senate.
If it fails, I'd still say it was a hell of an effort. That is if the plan is good enough of course.

I listen to Morning Joe every morning as I'm getting ready for work, and Joe is just asking for someone, anyone to come forth with a viable plan. If that plan comes forward, I'd get behind it and I could see others too. It is the one thing that Congress needs to do and not just bide time and bicker.

If the Republicans put forth a reasonable plan and guide it through by working across the aisle and it fails then they can and should win by massive margins in the next elections.

If they don't do anything because "well the Democrats wouldn't let it pass anyway" then they're going to have a really tough election time.

Fair enough, although you act like "working across the aisle" is the magic elixir that will automatically change people's philosophies and cure all that ails. It's a nice theory, of course, but the reality is quite different as well we all know (to the detriment of all of us).

Also, I'd be surprised if the PR push works because (1) it's going to be heavily countered by emotional statements that the proposal is out to kill grandma and (2) the media will run story after story about how the proposed cuts will harm the elderly. Not just because it makes for gripping TV, but because it also fits like a glove with how most journalists feel. They'll side with the Democrats if this comes down to a PR battle.

And we all know how PR battles end up when one side has pretty much all the firepower...

Again, not making excuses, just clarifying how the landscape is based on history.

Sure, but it is not like Republicans do not have an avenue to voice their legitimate policies. Across the aisle is really the only way to get things passed, really in the Senate. It may be messy, but is essential and how Congress has been working for decades.

Rebuttal to the points, 1. The R's could easily count with the cost argument, one of the pillars to the midterm wins. They could also use the 80s SS reforms and say this could be like the Reagan-Tip compromises. If they take a moderate tone, they can counter the emotional argument. 2. R's have Fox. It dominates and can easily counter all the other media outlets. Also, R's can go on the other networks and shows and provide counter points, which will be right if the plan is a legit one.

I know the landscape. No one said it would be easy, but it is needed, badly.

What classifies as "reasonable"?

Everybody should (and at some point going to have to) feel the burn by cuts. There will be no reasoning to "reasonable" at that point. People are going to be pissed off left AND right.

The time for appeasement bills is well nigh over. Without appeasing, there will be no such thing as "reasonable".

You act like the aisle is some firmly drawn line that no one crosses. But hell, 65 Democrats voted for the damned Patriot Act today. And that's for an unreasonable terrible bill.

I'd imagine Republicans could garner at least that much support for reasonable budget cut proposals.

If the Republicans don't even try to propose things they believe in what incentive is there for me to vote for them?

CenterBHSFan;679726 wrote:What classifies as "reasonable"?

Everybody should (and at some point going to have to) feel the burn by cuts. There will be no reasoning to "reasonable" at that point. People are going to be pissed off left AND right.

The time for appeasement bills is well nigh over. Without appeasing, there will be no such thing as "reasonable".

Yes everyone has different definitions of reasonable but I think we all know what he means. Things like completely eliminating the EPA, FDA, DOE, etc are not reasonable. Meet in the middle and propose cuts and reform. That's how you get to the end goal.

I agree with writerbuckeye, Medicare/SS is simply still the holy grail for the DEMS. For the time being they are going to hold on to the antiquated notion that it works and is a good government program - that likely isn't going to change in the next couple of years, or even the next decade. Regardless of how moderate and reasonable suggested changes to the programs are, it is going to be next to impossible to get the DEMS to go along with it. It is going to take a generational shift and the U.S. facing default to really change. For God's sake we sent "relief" payments to current recipients (out of money we don't have) to make up for the lack of COLA increase.

Ok, so if you take that you cannot have Medicare, SS, Medicaid reform, then all discussions about lowering the debt/ eliminating the deficits are pointless. It is kind of hard to cut the debt and balance the budget when you can't touch 80% of the budget.

All I'm asking is for a plan, someone to put forth someone serious. Then, we can go from there.

Plan? Death panels. I'm being tongue in cheek obviously but we can't afford the current entitlements. It isn't even politics, it is math, and very simple math at that. How in the hell can we pay pensions or other benefits for 30 years of retirement (plus spousal benefits) for workers that worked 30 years? It doesn't make sense. It never did. We can either swallow the medicine now - even partially would help, or kick the can down the road. The DEMS won't do it, too many special interest groups under their "big tent" philosophy, the GOP probably won't address it either because they need the elderly vote. It is going to take a bigger financial crisis than the "2007 going forward" recession. Again, likely a risk of default or hyper-inflation matter that will kick us in the proverbial rear end.

Death panels?

P-town: Fox is NOWHERE near a balance to what exists on the other side. Fox News brings in about one-sixth of the viewership of the major networks combined -- and they are the ones that still get BY FAR the biggest news audiences. Throw in what will be heard on every radio station that carries AP or NPR (which is about all of them) or the NY or LA Times news services, and you see how weighted it is from the left.

All of that will be used to drown out what little bit Fox can say.

Manhattan is correct about those programs and the Democrats. Those programs epitomize everything the Democrats stand for, which is why I don't see them compromising, no matter how "reasonable" or "moderate" the cuts might be.

But pants is right: until the Republicans actually put forth a proposal, it's all conjecture at this point.

If the Republicans don't come across with a proposal that really helps address the problem, I'll be very unhappy and disappointed.

ptown_trojans_1;679737 wrote:Ok, so if you take that you cannot have Medicare, SS, Medicaid reform, then all discussions about lowering the debt/ eliminating the deficits are pointless. It is kind of hard to cut the debt and balance the budget when you can't touch 80% of the budget.

All I'm asking is for a plan, someone to put forth someone serious. Then, we can go from there.

Very true. I'm sure if you could ask Ronald Reagan today, he'd say he missed a golden opportunity to scale back the deficit in 1981 when Sen. Domenici of New Mexico had bipartisan support to reduce SS COLAs. Instead, RR stuck to a campaign promise not to touch SocSec, and deficits resulted. Of course, he also knew from Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign the political costs of talking about SS reform.

Writerbuckeye;679814 wrote:P-town: Fox is NOWHERE near a balance to what exists on the other side. Fox News brings in about one-sixth of the viewership of the major networks combined -- and they are the ones that still get BY FAR the biggest news audiences. Throw in what will be heard on every radio station that carries AP or NPR (which is about all of them) or the NY or LA Times news services, and you see how weighted it is from the left.

All of that will be used to drown out what little bit Fox can say.

Manhattan is correct about those programs and the Democrats. Those programs epitomize everything the Democrats stand for, which is why I don't see them compromising, no matter how "reasonable" or "moderate" the cuts might be.

But pants is right: until the Republicans actually put forth a proposal, it's all conjecture at this point.

If the Republicans don't come across with a proposal that really helps address the problem, I'll be very unhappy and disappointed.

I will be disappointed as well. Republicans have (sort of) the political winds in their favor, so now is an opportune time for reasonable, yet aggressive, action on entitlement programs. Putting these decisions off will spell doom down the road. And if Obama and the Dems veto or vote against dealing with the deficit this time, hopefully they will pay the political consequences in 2012.

My fear is that if you try to take the reasonable and likeable path it will end up being one step forward and two steps back. I guess that is why I questioned what is considered "reasonable".
Reasonable also must be realistic and drastic enough to have noticeable realistic results, not just fluff.

The budge is a joke and so is Harry and Barry .... Clueless and incompetent to be any type of a Public Servant

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/15/senate-dems-embrace-obama-spending-freeze-wednesday


Budge a Joke
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49481.html

After two years of "NO", the GOP has control of the House. I know it's not enough to get everything they want passed, but they simply have to put some proposals forward. If they don't, then they will have four years of "NO" to run on. Not an impressive resume for re-election in my book.

I'm not as unreasonable as some would think. I want something, anything put forward by the GOP so we at least have a starting point. We cannot debate the merits of something if it isn't there.

CenterBHSFan;680362 wrote:My fear is that if you try to take the reasonable and likeable path it will end up being one step forward and two steps back. I guess that is why I questioned what is considered "reasonable".
Reasonable also must be realistic and drastic enough to have noticeable realistic results, not just fluff.

I understand that as well.
However, we have nothing to really go off of yet. Once, someone, anyone of influence has a plan, then we can debate the merits of it.
Ryan may have one, I just have yet to formally see it introduced and supported by others.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/02/15/healthcare-reform-law-requires-new-irs-army-of-1054

Why don't they correcly label obamacare as The Unaffordable Taxpayer Assualt Act.

Change we can believe in .......

QuakerOats;681033 wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/02/15/healthcare-reform-law-requires-new-irs-army-of-1054

Why don't they correcly label obamacare as The Unaffordable Taxpayer Assualt Act.

Change we can believe in .......

Hey, no one can say that Obama didn't create any jobs.

stlouiedipalma;680703 wrote:After two years of "NO", the GOP has control of the House. I know it's not enough to get everything they want passed, but they simply have to put some proposals forward. If they don't, then they will have four years of "NO" to run on. Not an impressive resume for re-election in my book.

I'm not as unreasonable as some would think. I want something, anything put forward by the GOP so we at least have a starting point. We cannot debate the merits of something if it isn't there.

Exactly what is preventing the Democrats from doing the responsible thing and coming up with their own plans to fix SS, Medicare and Medicaid? They still control 2/3rds of the government, after all, and would be the most likely to get something passed. It certainly would garner bi-partisan support, I would think.

Not all of this is only on Republicans.

Writerbuckeye;681147 wrote:Exactly what is preventing the Democrats from doing the responsible thing and coming up with their own plans to fix SS, Medicare and Medicaid? They still control 2/3rds of the government, after all, and would be the most likely to get something passed. It certainly would garner bi-partisan support, I would think.
Not all of this is only on Republicans.

I would like to know this as well!