Obama Commission debt plan unites liberals & Tea Party in opposition

WASHINGTON — By putting deep spending cuts and substantial tax increases on the table, President Obama’s bipartisan debt-reduction commission has exposed fissures in both parties, underscoring the volatile nature and long odds of any attempt to address the nation’s long-term budget problems.

Among Democrats, liberals are in near revolt against the White House over the issue, even as substantive and political forces push Mr. Obama to attack chronic deficits in a serious way. At the same time, Republicans face intense pressure from their conservative base and the Tea Party movement to reject any deal that includes tax increases, leaving their leaders with little room to maneuver in any negotiation and at risk of being blamed by voters for not doing their part.

Mr. Obama, on a diplomatic tour of Asia in which the fiscal condition of the United States has been a recurring backdrop, maintained his silence on Thursday about the particulars of the draft deficit-reduction plan the commission chairmen had released the day before.

“The only way to make those tough choices historically has been if both parties are willing to move forward together,” he said at a news conference in Seoul, South Korea. “And so before anybody starts shooting down proposals, I think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts. I think we have to be straight with the American people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

he might TRY to get what little use he can out of the time remaining as a majority but nooo, he STILL is kissing butt.This is jut stunning. We cannot move forward together. The GOP has already announced they will not do so. And much is going to be dismantled. For God's sake, can this President be persuaded to lead at all?

Please , sir, , even at this late hour, can you at least TRY?????????

Everything but the kitchen sink is listed for cutting... from CPB to military bases to mortgage deductions.

I've been seeing the $500k number popping up.

The idea being that if you have 2, or 10, houses, you don't need a deduction.

So many don't realize how much fairer the proposal is.

Cutting foreign and domestic write-offs is in there.

with his few (and as I recall VERY Few) speeches on privatization. It was at that point his numbers really started to fall off as I recall and I mentioned to my Social Conservative "Friend". "Mr. Bush just became a lame duck President". He was done at that point.

While as posted on I believe Alternet yesterday, this initial Debt Commission report is the first salvo and hardly a final product. It is designed to for shock & awe and overall media distraction. The devil is in the details and there will be plenty of both details and devils for us to push back.

they should expire why are we having a discussion about this.

--and reducing corporate tax leves. That only increases taxes on the rest of us who have to pay for those sociopathic parasites that crashed our economy.

--and reducing corporate tax leves. That only increases taxes on the rest of us who have to pay for those sociopathic parasites that crashed our economy.

They had an outline or page by page print-out of the whole thing and it seems there's good and bad in there. The bad is the raising of the SS retirement age to 69 but that's not until 2075 and it mentions making provisions for those who have hard physical jobs who simply won't be able to do them that late in life. Also, early retirement with lower benefits is mentioned and targeting benefits more to the lower income individuals and families. Another interesting point was simplifying the tax code so that there are only 3 categories and no deductions. So an overall lower tax rate but not the endless deductions that now exist. I realize that hurts those who deduct interest on mortgages but has that been really that good overall? I don't know this but has this maybe contributed to making it acceptable for house prices to go up to ridiculous, unaffordable heights? A house is supposed to be something you live in, not an investment - or at least that's the way I look at it...
The way I see it is if our national debt is over 10 trillion, we're going to have to do something to pay it off. Granted it isn't most of our fault but it has to be done and blindly opposing every attempt to either cut spending or raise revenue is going to get us nowhere. Personally I think it's a starting point for a discussion and we need to do what we need to do.
The main thing I don't understand and maybe someone here knows - Why do we have to pay off the debt? Why is it a bad thing?

actual economists to the Commission instead of a bunch of good ol' boys from the Billionaires club, he might have gotten some worthwhile solutions.

These proposals will not solve the problems. The Bush Tax Cuts have to go if anyone is serious about reducing the deficit. But predictably they do not recommend raising taxes on members of their own club.

Ending those tax cuts woul be a huge contribution to reducing the deficit. They've made out like bandits for the past decade, it's way past time to cut them off. Sacrifices WILL have to be made, these billionaires need to start understanding that we taxpayers cannot afford to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed anymore.

Ending the wars, we simply can't afford them. You are right, sacrifices will have to be made. Defense Contractors and mercenaries will have to find real jobs.

James Galbraith eg, laid out a plan that would actually help reduce the deficit, but then he is a real economist. He understands how it all works, unlike Alan Simpson, Bowles and the rest of the billionaires on this panel.

Let's hear some good ideas and we will think about them. But sticking to the poor and the elderly is just not going to go over very well, especially since they are not responsible for the gambling debts of the ruling class. We bailed them out enough already.

considering in the report. It's not all bad and does mention defense spending cuts as one of the things that needs to happen. I'm mostly concerned that if people just blanket oppose all of the recommendations, we're going to do nothing and that doesn't seem like a good option. But, I do really think ending these tragic wars and removing our bases from other countries is a good and easy step that needs to happen. Actually I was listening to the radio yesterday and I heard that closing some bases is in the recommendations. Also, I just skimmed quickly last night, but it did seem to make an attempt to target the SS cuts toward the more able and well off...
I guess I'm in a mood where I want to do something/try something and see if it works. I don't care about Wall Street or wealthy people and what they do or don't do...They have nothing I want. That said, I agree with you that the government needs to take steps to be sure those who can afford to sacrifice do so. I also noticed that there was a recommendation that a Public Option be added to the healthcare bill - That, I would love to see and it would be good for everyone to get behind. It's like we've been given a second chance...

It is true they have put some things in there that are good, like a proposal for single payer and shutting down military bases.

However, when the final report is done, it will be presented as a package. So Congress will not be discussing these issues individually when they vote on it.

Any package that involves touching SS should be voted down no matter what else is in there. To include it is to be disingenuous. SS had nothing to do with the deficit and cutting it, raising the retirement age etc. will not bring the deficit down.

Many people have come to believe that a major goal of this Commission was to do this, to reduce SS benefits, to increase the fund so that they don't have to honor the debt to that fund, which would involve higher taxes for the rich. So, the whole idea of the commission, especially when the appointees and the advisers were named, was discredited, once they mentioned SS and it is now seen as a ploy, not to fix the deficit, but to avoid having to raise taxes on the rich.

These issues should be before Congress. This president should have raised them BEFORE the election and forced Republicans to fight the poor and protect the rich, which they would have been doing had Democrats done the right thing and not pushed these issues forward until after the election.

This is the business of Congress and should be discussed openly, not behind closed doors by a bunch or rich people who are not even economists.

The whole point of SS is that it's a guaranteed safety net - not a risky investment in the future. What I am interested in seeing is the part where they seem to say they'll strengthen benefits for the more needy and maybe give less to the wealthy who honestly don't need it. I would very much like to see an open, rational discussion in public by those who are running the country. I think Barack Obama is happy to do that - his mistake may have been in thinking there were other adults participating on the Republican side. I agree with you that if there is an open, public discussion it would put the Republicans in the postion of having to defend tax cuts for the wealthy and maybe open people's eyes as to who is and is not on their side.

who call themselves teabaggers but appear to be Klan, by my measure. And yet, it may come to exactly that. American and American side by side against Washington and Wall Street. Strange times, indeed!

“The only way to make those tough choices historically has been if both parties are willing to move forward together,”

Every time this statement is put forth by politicians American citizens lose massive chunks of taxpayer wealth to corporations and hoarders at the top. Every time.

<Mr. Obama’s stance was at the request of the chairmen, Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican Senate leader, and Erskine B. Bowles, a White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, who wanted to avoid any statements that might prejudice the panel’s deliberations before its Dec. 1 deadline. But it was also a response to the outcry from both conservatives against taxes and from Mr. Obama’s liberal base against the plan’s proposed long-term cuts in domestic programs across the board, including Social Security and Medicare.>

Yeah, he's going there. BOHICA.

<“Dealing seriously with these things is fraught with political peril for both parties, but at some point not dealing with these issues is also fraught with political peril,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview.>

Yep. They're going there.

who call themselves teabaggers but appear to be Klan, by my measure. And yet, it may come to exactly that. American and American side by side against Washington and Wall Street. Strange times, indeed!

entitlements will be further gutted. Pete Petersen is starting a $20,000,00 ad campaign to sell this fresh hell.

I fully expect and new flush of Astroturf teabaggers in the streets to protest the proposals to increase revenue after which Obama and the Democrats will all cave and agree to harsher cuts to SS/Medicare/Medicaid and anything else they can get their hands on.

Exactly the WRONG thing to do. And "moving forward together" is the wrong thing to do.

LEAD, Mr. Obama, and skip the propaganda put forth by entities whose objectives to trash social security and medicare have been known for decades. IE: Consider the source of the "facts".

...and it won't be due to the GOP. It wil be due to HIS GOP policies.

Sid