General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSell-Out Alert: 9 Democrats Already Caving to GOP On Social Security Cuts
http://www.alternet.org/economy/nine-democratic-senators-side-gop-entitlement-cuts***SNIP
The list of Democrats who are entering these negotiations enbracing the GOPs terms continues. There are at least nine in the Senate. Californias Dianne Feinstein, Montanas Max Baucus, West Virginias Joe Manchin, Delawares Chris Coons and Tom Carper, and Colorados Michael Bennett have all said they support cuts to entitlements in letters to constituents, proposed bills or statements made after the Presidents fiscal reform commission led by Eskine Bowles and Alan Simpson issued its 2010 report proposing capping or cutting entitlements while lowering or eliminating corporate taxes.
No wonder George Will, arguably the nations leading right-wing commentator, also boasted on Fox News Sunday about the upcoming budget negotiation, saying, We are now talking entirely in Republican terms, in Republican vocabulary after this so-called defeat No taxes, how much is spending goung to be cut? The federal workforce is being cut, discretionary domestic spending is being cut And the Wall Street Journal quickly capitalized on the division among Democrats with its own report, titled, Budget Discord Simmers Among Democrats.
Who Will Defend Ordinary Americans?
The starting line or framing of political debates is critical in shaping the outcome. If Will is correct that the Democrats, led by Murrays acquiescent all issues are on the table posture, is entirely on Republican terms, then there is little likelihood any outcome would bode well for current and soon-to-be retirees. There are 18 senators on the budget conference committee, including Sanders and Wisconsins Tammy Baldwin, who fervently oppose Social Security cuts. But Simpson-Bowles supporters Coons and Warner are also on the panels Democratic side.
If anything, Sanders has said the current level of benefits is too small and needs to be increased. Hes noted, as his policy aide Gunnels points out, that this debate has not included asking the wealthy to pay more toward fortifying societys safety nets.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Why are they not Republicans? Or rather, are we sure they aren't?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Voters are told a more progressive candidate "wouldn't stand a chance" and are offered a choice between a moderate republican running as a democrat (and getting all of the Party's resources allocated to them), and a far right nutjob running as a republican. I have the 'honor' of having this scenario as my choice in nearly all federal elections down here in Georgia. When a progressive does get in to run against the republican, they never get any resources or help from the state or national parties, and generally are running against an entrenched R with huge resources in a heavily gerrymandered district. But all competitive districts and statewide races follow the first pattern.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)No funds for progressive Democrats. Nice.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)At least that is his description. During the last shutdown he repeatedly voted with the repubs to defund obamacare as a condition of opening the government back up. In the past he has always sided with the defund obamacare repubs, and with them on any NRA legislation, and on other issues they value. He is a republican, just has a D by his name.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)It fools a lot of people here.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)The corrupt politicians, militarization of police, attacking innocent country ( Iraq) and leaving in our wake destruction that will take a very long time to recover. This doesn't include the children that have no chance due to the radiation pollution we left behind.
You vote for who you feel is representing you only to find out they lied (if they win). On the other hand I don't know if my vote matters a hill of beans with gerrymandering or dibolt changing votes.
I wish to hell I would have left this country years ago. Now I'm to damn old!
ruffburr
(1,190 posts)Same thing, It truly is heart breaking,It seems that all the things we were raised to believe in turns out to be a lie, And like you i'm too damn old to get the fuck out at this point,
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I would leave this screwed-up country if I could, but at my age it isn't happening. We're told this is is the greatest country in the world. Bullshit.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Our government is owned by corporations now and has an entirely different purpose...
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)http://www.salon.com/2013/10/26/sell_out_alert_9_democrats_already_caving_to_gop_on_social_security_cuts_partner
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448104579147933373740214#printMode
You are right. It has become very hard to recognize this country when Democrats are talking in Republican terms and policies. Particularly when Democrats are abandoning the very policies and social programs we elected them to office to protect.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Response to xchrom (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)senseandsensibility
(17,056 posts)hedgehog
(36,286 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)said Warren Gunnels, senior policy advisor to Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-VT, who has been appointed to the 2013 federal budget conference committee, where the debate is taking shape.
You hear these people saying, We have to be the adults at the table and the Republicans dont negotiate. Arent we reasonable? he continued. A more reasonable position is a majority of Americans dont want Social Security, Medicare and Medicare cut at all. Why dont we have one political party represent what a majority of people want?
Octobers government shutdown and threatened debt default was disruptive and hurt the economy. But what is emerging is an entirely different drama, one that could shape the quality of tens of millions of peoples final decades. Most Americans do not have much in retirement savings and will live on Social Security now averaging $1,200 a month, and receive their healthcare under Medicare. Similarly, nearly two-thirds of Medicaid recipients are children from poor homes or adults with disabilities...SNIP
...SNIP
The National Journal, a leading conservative publication, did a nationwide poll in the first week of the shutdown and tilted its questions to try to show public support for the GOPs intransigence and for cutting entitlements. What it didnt put on its website but was buried in its results (see page 4) was that 76 percent said Social Security should be cut not at all, as opposed to cut a lot or some. Eighty-one percent said Medicare should be cut not at all. And 60 percent replied not at all to cutting Medicaid. These results tracked two other National Journal polls done in 2012 and other national surveys.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/26/sell_out_alert_9_democrats_already_caving_to_gop_on_social_security_cuts_partner/
polichick
(37,152 posts)instead of whoring for the 1%. Won't happen until we, the people, demand it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Where are the demands to raise the cap?
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)quote ANY of the accused 9 on any actual budget bill is what you are running with?
Before today's latest outrage against Democrats who are on today's shit list, could you provide any direct quotes from any of these Senators to support your OP?
spanone
(135,841 posts)although he's full of shit.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)This past weekend, Sen. Dick Durbin, the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate, appeared on Fox News Sunday and told host Chris Wallace that he would support cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits as part of a grand bargain with Republicans.
These vital and hugely successful programs deserve to be strengthened and expanded, not cut. But the Republicans are longstanding opponents of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and have been waging an unrelenting, decades-long assault to destroy, defund or privatize these programs.
The last thing we need is a powerful Democrat, especially one like Sen. Durbin who claims to care about these programs, going on national television and saying hes open to making a deal with the Republicans that includes benefit cuts.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/22/1249612/-IL-Sen-CREDO-Action-Puts-The-Pressure-On-Dick-Durbin-D-To-Not-Cut-Social-Security-Medicare
Warpy
(111,267 posts)I wish we could primary those assholes out, but some of them come from deep red areas where the alternative wouldn't be much better.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)system...
Buns_of_Fire
(17,180 posts)Probably because I never saw them as Democrats in the first place, I guess.
All I see are nine ratfinks who desperately need to be primaried.
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)How can you call yourself a Democrat?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)So this week we had a barrage of OP's cheering Reid's momentous announcement that there would be NO GRAND BARGAIN!
Yet now these nine mentioned in the OP appear ready to betray us.
And today Obama's economic adviser indicates that "entitlement reform" is going to be a part of the deal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023925289#post17
Sounds like the same old scam again. Lots of speeches to give the impression of supporting the 99 percent, while a deal with the One Percent is actively in progress.
The corporatists who work in both parties are very, very slick at what they do.
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Partys deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald
Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how its played:
.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
This is what the Democratic Party does...Theyre willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as theres no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bushs eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bushs habeas and interrogation abuses (Gosh, what can we do? We just dont have 60 votes).
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, its Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, its Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and breaking with their party to ensure Michael Mukaseys confirmation as Attorney General; then its Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then its Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they cant blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they dont need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.