Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11."

Conyers added ""My response to him (President Obama) is TO MASS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROTEST THIS."

(Source: click here)

This declaration is significant both politically and morally as Conyers is not only the second most senior representative in the House, but was also the first member of Congress to endorse candidate Obama. Conyers doesn't merely draw a moral "line in the sand' but he presents a candid picture of violent contrasts between himself and the first African-American president.

More at the link --

Does anyone feel DU has the power to light the match to initiate such a protest / gathering?

Much smaller blogs have initiated much bigger protests if folks can talk turkey for even a little bit.

Conyers has called it.

I know it takes time to organize an event, but most people will have forgotten this debt-ceiling fight by October. There will be a plane crash, a kidnapping or murder, a storm, earthquake or fire, or something else by that time to divert our attention.

No need.

This is about re-election when real progress gets made. Right now the Republican party is being associated with the Tea party and that is a great thing. Everything comes in increments.

The GOP was in ashes in 2008 -- Obama resurrected them --

The mask is off -- it's over --


But if you really want to see pessimistic -- take a look at our most serious

problem -- Global Warming -- !!

I think he re-election won't be easy, but odds are he will be.

and he's been game-playing with the GOP rather than stressing economy

and employment --

that was after he negotiated three new rw trade agreements -- !!

After he betrayed the nation's suffering on universal health care -- !!

After he has failed to listen to the will of the people -- 80% want an end to the wars -- !!

76% and more want MEDICARE FOR ALL --


It's over --

also if this is true, I'm burning my voter registration card and packing my bags.

the slow suffocation of the working class will never be forgotten. If you want to stand on the sidelines, throwing spitballs and watching everyone else fight for your future, go right ahead. As for me, I'm taking the pledge:

"I will commit to being in Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., with others on that day or the days immediately following, for as long as I can, with the intention of making it our Tahrir Square, Cairo, our Madison, Wisconsin, where we will NONVIOLENTLY resist the corporate machine by occupying Freedom Plaza to demand that America's resources be invested in human needs and environmental protection instead of war and exploitation. We can do this together. We will be the beginning."

It wont be over in a day. It wont be over in a week. They can only control us if we let them.

http://october2011.org/welcome

Internet activists never forget.

in the primary..And with the mood of the progressive voters right now we could win.

to start.

on the table during the debt discussion?

GUESS WHO JUST SAID THAT??

Obama wanted both sides to abandon their sacred cows, entitlements and taxes. Neither did in this deal.

Closing loopholes isn't the same thing as raising taxes.

The Repigs won. And we all lost.

Doing away with subsidies would also.

And it won't raise the revenue that a raise in taxes would.

We lost.

Actually, closing loopholes IS raising taxes. Notice how Repugs keep saying that same crap "America has the highest cooporate taxes in the world." That's true before you add in all the deductions/loopholes. Most of these cooporations don't pay any taxes. Repukes know this!

tax rates will remain the same, or even drop during the "special committee" negotiations (as per Sen. Conrad's interview on MSNBC today).

We lose.

Are you f-ing kidding me? This "abandoning their sacred cows" stuff is crap. The (now former) "sacred cows" of the (former)Democratic Party have been "sharing sacrifice" for thirty GD years. At what point does the "shares sacrifice" really become shared sacrifice. This is nothing but a "heads I win tails you lose." I hate to say it. I hate to admit it. I'm embarrassed to say it. He duped me. He betrayed me. I fell for it. Obama is the Manchurian Candidate.

If they worked during the campaign, why does he not think they'll work now?

2012 Democratic Presidential race and I find out that now the mantra here is I must do an extensive poll to see if the person has a chance of winning before I mention other candidates!

Last week, the mantra was that we individual citizens have no right to judge a sitting President - that is for history to do!

(I am guessing that these people were not around when the damn POPULACE of the country saw to it that Nixon resigned. And the notion that no one here can float alternatives unless they do an extensive poll - Jeez Louise.)

If the third person in the race has as much as a chance or a better chance than the Dem running you can support him/her. It can even be a recent Republican as long as he/she no longer is a registered Republican or running under the Repub ticket.

Certainly the Democratic Party is no longer protecting the nation --

it's more Koch Bros DLC than it is Democratic Party now!!

Good Gawd, I could have written your post. Rec 100000+:(

...you'll see his 'tax reform' is cutting the corporate tax rate.

Don't be so selective in your quotation. It makes you appear dishonest.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just trying to clarify.

He would look like the Great Deficit Reducer to the tune of 4 trillion.

A liberal friend of mine disagrees and thinks the Grand Idea was just a ploy on Obama's part. His theory is "Obama told them the he would allow SS cuts if they allowed tax increases, something Repukes would never allow, therefore assuring that SS cuts would never happpen".

Interesting theory, considering that the final bill has no tax hikes and entitlements are exempt from the "Super Congress'" triggers. I don't know.

When his context is "tough choices"?

means cuts to social benefits.

The problem is that approximately 8% is taken out of the smallest to the largest paycheck for wages (this is not the case for capital gains, and hedge fund managers and very wealthy people may not be paying this) is taxed and goes into a dedicated Social Security Trust Fund. In addition, the employer matches the approximately 8% taken out of the employee's check for the Social Security Trust Fund.

The Social Security tax used to be lower, but during the Reagan administration, economists realized that they would have difficulty covering the cost of the benefits for the baby boomers unless they raised the rates. So they raised the rates and we have all been paying the higher rates since either 1983 or 1985 (I've heard different dates for that.)

As a result, there is a huge surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund which was specifically collected to pay for the Social Security and other benefits of the baby boomers. Over the years, the government has purchased US Treasury bonds with that money. The money from the Social Security Trust Fund, therefore, has been used to fund the expenditures that should be funded by our general fund tax revenue. Bush II, for example, fought his wars to a significant extent by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund instead of raising taxes (as other presidents have done). Bush II also gave a huge tax cut to the highest tax bracket -- funding it with the Social Security surplus.

The baby boomers are now starting to retire. And the government does not want to pay the money back to the Social Security Trust Fund. Thus a significant portion those Social Security taxes -- the extra taxes that we paid for all those years to make sure that there would be enough money for the bulging baby boomer generation (which was, I should add very hard-working and productive), has been converted to ordinary tax revenue.

Thus, retroactively, the government has in a sense stolen the baby boomers' Social Security benefits by converting them into general revenue. It borrowed the money, and not it does not want to pay it back.

In addition, the wealthy who were given huge tax cuts, increasingly large tax cuts, since the Eisenhower administration (1952-1960), are enjoying their low tax rate. And the Republicans refuse to raise the taxes on the rich or to make corporations that enjoy huge loopholes so that they pay no taxes, pay their taxes.

It's Robin Hood in reverse. The rich have stolen from the poor.

It is perverse, evil and unjust.

I KNOW HOW TO USE ELLIPSES, TYVM.

Especially when Exxon gets a $135mn return on their taxes which they never even paid.

I wish people would open their eyes and see what's going on instead of being Obama apologists. He's one of the best Republican presidents there's ever been. Wake up.

:eyes:

Wake up to that fact! Repukes will tell you that "Lowering Taxes" is not a "Sacred Cow", but saving entitlements are. Obama was (regrettably) arguing from the middle. How could you not figure that out?

Yeash!!!

Plus SS would should have all the money that was raided from it replinished.

Thank you -- and I think I read somewhere here at DU a few days ago that

Obama had told some newspaper that he thought entitlements should be cut --

think it was after election but before he moved into WH -- !!!

We need to get this guy out of the White House -- pronto!!

Republicans don't like him so he must be a progressive. That's what the Obama sycophants told me.

:eyes:

Or are we waiting for "more respected bloggers" to issue a call to action?

I am referring to the idea of a march, of course.

I've been there many times -- the Congress is gone -- no publicity!

Denial of numbers --

But, think it should be discussed -- I imagine many would go --


Imo, I'd rather see something more disruptive from home bases --

something that shows we all know what's going on -- and we are organizing.


There are two things we have to remember -- we are fighting fascism --

it is corporate/fascism but there are no corporations without the support and

protection of CIA and MIC. Oil, for one is a "national security issue."

No oil/no war --

And our government -- at every level -- is in their hands -- basically KOCH Bros.

Oil and Coal industry hands --


Secondly -- one of the biggest secrets they are trying to hide is Global Warming

and the losses already occurring over last 20 years --

The events and disruptions are increasing -- seriously.

This will also include increasing earthquakes of increasing intensity --

Earthquakes generate new volcanic activity --

And -- because of the 50 year gap in our beginning to feel the effects of Global Warming --

aside from the melting of the glaciers which began in the 1940's -- we are only now

about to begin to feel the effects of capitalism's pollution/destruction up to about 1960!!

Imagine all we have done after that time.

Further -- no one can say how all of this will compound --

The oceans have been absorbing HEAT -- they are collapsing --

Our trees -- the small ribbons that are left of them -- have been absorbing our pollution --

They are exhausted -- and not only can they not absorb any more -- they are beginning to

release the carbon.


We have urgent issues -- and sadly not all recognize that reality --

mainly because the public has been lied to for so long by oil indsutry/coal industry

which now controls our Congress ... according to Gore in his Rolling Stone article!

I wish he would change his party so that we could run a real Democrat

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952-----

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's so confusing that I don't know which is the real Democratic Party anymore!

Congress has come out numerous times advocating the 14th.

this is not the Democratic party wit the exception to blue dogs.
he is doing this on his own.
Eisenhower was one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had, he would be a liberal today.

Obama sure hasn't talked about abolishing Social Security and even the so-called "Catfood Commission" never recommended that. The only person in recent history that attempted to abolish it was GWB back in 2005 and we all remember what a disaster that was for him and the Republican Party and what the subsequent effort by Paul Ryan the Republican Party to abolish Medicare.

Who knows who will be in the WH then?

And if it isn't someone who cares about Social Security, either the age will be raised so high it won't matter to many of us, and the COLA situation will further deteriorate.

Meanwhile, what needed to be done, in terms of deficit reduction, that is, CUTTING THE MILITARY SPENDING IN MEANINGFUL WAYS, and also UPPING THE TAXES THAT HUGE CORPOORATIONS PAY, was left alone.

we all need to make sure we (re-)elect people to WH and Congress whom share our values. It's hard to expect a lot of common sense reforms when you have the radical Tea Party terrorists effectively controlling the actions and agenda of the Republican Party and using them to hold the country hostage to their whims. :shrug: I also don't have a problem with looking at ways we can make entitlement programs stronger and more secure for the future but, once again, we need to make sure we're electing the right people to do the job right.

We will get whomever the powers that Be want us to get for Prez in 2012.

And even if Obama stays in office, the economy has just gotten the rug pulled further out from under it. The states will all be receiving much less money. Without that money, fewer jobs. For example, even the cut backs that Food Stamps will see - that means fewer grocery store clerks and maybe even fewer grocery stores.

So as the economy fails even further, the revenue from the middle class working people will also be much less. By January 2013, Obama will have dozens more reasons to get rid of "entitlements."

Was very conscious of the needs of the Middle Class.

Eisenhower saw to it that the returning GI's had jobs - building highways, building community centers, hospitals, clinics, community colleges etc.

With all the employment opportunities, Americans were able to move out of small cramped apartments and into real houses. The GI Bill provided higher education to many who had fought in WWII and in Korea.


Because most Americans were progressive in terms of Middle Class America having protections, it affected the political class at every level.

Eisenhower also hassled the Southern Governors, who didn't feel that Blacks and whites should go to school together.

I guess the current political sellouts wouldn't cotton to Eisenhower - he didn't coddle the rich with low tax rates.

He also resisted getting our nation involved in Vietnam. When some of our four star generals urged him to fight in the Far East, he asked the GOA to show him the numbers, and when they did, his reply was that it would cost us too much.

I can remember my father arguing, very politely, with most of his friends, in 1960. My parents' friends were all for JFK, and so was I. (I was a bit too young to understand politics, but what young kid wouldn't find Kennedy appealing over the staid and uptight Nixon?)

There wasn't much that separated those two men, campaign-wise. Both believed that the average person needed a fair shake. Nixon wanted to end the draft. I now believe that we were very lucky to have Kennedy over Nixon - I think that Nixon might not have gotten us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Which might mean many of us wouldn't be alive right now.)

:thumbsup:

your facts into oblivion. All is well!

nt

I don't want to read your bizarre recounting of threads on DU.

to have an aversion to the facts. If you don't like me pointing that out, there are any number of ways to maintain the "integrity" of your bubble. Your post, by the way, is incoherent.

It's condescending.

There are plenty of people here at DU on both sides of any issue. We're all trying to learn and stay informed.

And, while we're at it, it's not condescending. When there are people claiming Obama didn't put Social Security & Medicare on the table while the facts (including those form Obama's own mouth) scream the opposite, the sort of post I made is completely appropriate. If you're going to police the board, you might do it more profitably by going after those who work fairly hard to mislead the DU community.

Just commenting.

And I do go after the trolls, as well.

There are indeed a lot of of posts with this type of reply.

You suggest I go after others... yet that is exactly what you DIDN'T do. You were obviously replying to a post you agree with.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Read the press release, or the CNN news article quoting the White House!

Note that nowhere are there cuts to SS/Medicare beneficiaries.

Read the entire WH fact sheet instead of the MSM whore interpretations and cherry picked Chicken Little snippets:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

In a carrot and stick. The goal is OBVIOUSLY to get the commission plans passed.

And the commission plans would be AS progressive as this or any other WH/Congressional back doors sellout bill, such as HCR, Warrantless Wiretapping (which Obama participated in the selling), TARP, Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq (promoted here on DU (!!) by the same shills as not really a vote to support going to war) etc etc.

Makes you wonder if DU is seen as just an outlet for progressives to vent where party shills can test out misinformation on us with no media consequences.

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1630883&mesg_id=1631033

years. They were covered under 'no inflation' claims.

This president, and there is no way to deny it anymore, is for 'structural reform' to the New Deal programs. What does that mean?

Now can we close on that bridge I sold you?

(one I should have checked on myself) I feel a little at ease now, not because I'm getting social security but I know many many people who are on social security and have very tight budgets to live on!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.

Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.

Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

This looks an awful lot like $550 billion in domestic spending cuts (to Eisenhower levels) with only $350 billion in military spending cuts. What am I missing?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

The initial press release specifically said that the trigger was to punish Congress and pose unacceptable hardship (in Obama's view) if they fail to pass the Commission plan.

$350B over 10 years? Less than a piss in the ocean. Current expeditures are roughly $800B/year for defense...so this cuts defense spending a little more than 4%, after a 150% run up.

Cutting defense spending back to inflation-adjusted Clinton era levels would cut roughly $250B per year, or $2.5T over the decade.

Nice to see you so supportive of a longstanding Democrat in Congress.

There's a difference.

the President AND themselves.

You shouldn't be surprised.

Still, it should not be allowed to stand.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... that he is criticizing in the OP.

One has spent HIS ENTIRE FUCKING LIFE fighting for the working class and poor. One has spent HIS ENTIRE FUCKING PRESIDENCY sucking at the teat of corporate America, Wall Street and the insurance companies. Obama is a dino, period.

No don't tell me

but I'm sure you probably figured it out by now anyway.

We need more of it --


:)

I've seen Matt on the TV, and he seems to be neither "attention"-fixation, or "senile."

People who continuously spam discussion forums and hijack threads with crude personal attacks, now that is something I would be willing to associate with senility AND "attention whoredom."

If that is what was posted, of course.:)

The Duer was referring to Conyers and I clearly disagreed with that statement.

If you look in the top right of my post, you'll see the post # to which it referred.
The post by that DU'er was deleted.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Read more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1631409&mesg_id=1631409

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, who is anything but a "shill", agrees. His column today is enlightening.

Not even Lawrence O'Donnell, who opined last night that while Obama had "played" Boehner "brilliantly" up to a point (I don't see that either, but WTF), he ended up getting trounced.

PB

I read it as "Defended" SS.

I knew that had to be a mistake on my part. Well, actually, it's a mistake that's going to crash down on the heads and shoulders of the American public. Strange how the wealthiest people and the corporations will most likely emerge unscathed (AGAIN). That's the most optimistic way that I can frame this debacle and it's pretty sad.

Even if they let the shrub's tax breaks expire in the future, so the hell what.... Tax breaks, wars and bank crimes screwed us, so of course it only makes sense that we try to recoup the losses from the bottom 98% of Americans. McCain got one thing right, this is Bizarro world now.

Is this a great country or what?

He's shit-stirring and leaving out very important facts about this deal:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

<< Thanks for pointing out the facts, ClarkUSA. But now you've taken the Obamaball away and they can't keep kicking it just for fun. Aw... >>

:rofl:


:hi:

Obama said that SS is not the cause of the debt and that we need to strengthen it so that it lasts for a very long time in the future!

http://www.crewof42.com/cbc/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

Though the debt ceiling debate continues, many Democrats continue to say the real issue is jobs and unemployment. Yesterday, the PEW Research Center put out a study showing the wealth gap between whites, blacks and Hispanics is wider than at any time in history. Conyers focused on jobs and the White House throughout much of what he said.

“We want full employment as a matter of government policy. Which was passed in 1987 when I stood with Hubert Humphrey. We passed the first bill that allowed the government — in areas of high unemployment — to directly intervene and create jobs. Well, we’ve got the bill in here again and I’ve got nothing from the White House,” Conyers told the audience.

And don't get on any small planes.

At one Conyers was going to retire, I think --

then he decided to run again?

Not sure --

But, we need more liberal Democrats like him to stand up against this

corporate/fascism --

Did Conyers ever let us know that Congress is under the control of the Oil and

Coal industry? Al Gore just said that in his article in Rolling Stone.

Did Conyers -- or Al Gore ever mention to Democratic Party voters that the DLC

was actually Koch Bros?

If these are liberal Democrats they need to get together and begin a movement

away from Koch Bros. and let us know exactly what is left of the Democratic Party.

If anything!

Koch Bros don't play idle games -- they were infiltrating the Democratic Party for

20 years -- influencing its agenda -- selecting its candidates -- including presidential

candidates.

When I think of the arrogance of the right wing, their confidence that they're not going

to get caught, I recall that they are used to the protection of the MIC/CIA -

after all, oil is a national security issue!

You're here for US.

I can't believe how some DUers are throwing solid Dems like Conyers and waters under the bus. That tells us what we need to know.

Only when triggered - which is highly unlikely - will there be cuts and only then to providers only NOT beneficiaries:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1630883&mesg_id=1631033

Secondly, it opens the door - wide open - to cuts in SS which does not add one nickel to the deficit.

of what happens when cuts to providers are made? Many of them quit taking Medicare patients and/or patients end up spending more out of pocket, and you don't think that hurts beneficiaries?

http://www.thirdway.org/press_releases/166 - 8/1/11


“But to finish the job, the next steps toward such a bargain must involve tough choices on both sides – Republicans must be willing to throw out their pledges and support an increase in revenues; Democrats must tell their core supporters that the only way to save entitlements like Medicare and Social Security is to reform them. Both options must be on the table immediately, and neither side should view their absence in the current deal as an opportunity to declare them off-limits."

That should be an OP! Seriously!

Roll call

---- AYES 173 ---

Altmire
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth


Also, his claim that Boehner didn't call for cuts is absurd. From the Ryan plan to destroy Medicare, which was passed by the House, to Cut, Cap and Balance, Republicans have been pursuing that goal for more than a year.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have an enormous respect for Conyers. IMO, you should step back and look at what you have posted for I think it is a pretty shameful thing.

Conyers is a hypocrite for voting for Reid's plan. He in love with his soapbox and never ever seems to attack Republicans. I can't wait until he resigns or is primaried.

We are on DU to discuss issues not to type about Republicans. Rep Conyers KNOWS what Republicans are. Why should he waste time talking to them or about them?

Who called Rep Conyers a bad name? Somebody PM me. :7

I googled. Surprised me, but not much.

voted for this garbage, as good reps will, even though they knew what garbage it was, and that they had been setup to have to choose between austerity and default.

You should praise them for swallowing their pride to avoid default, rather than suggest that they actually supported the garbage they were forced to vote for.

Regarding the BIG Debt Ceiling DEAL:

"That is IMMORAL!
That is WRONG!
And that is BAD Economic Policy!"

"Mr President, that is a BAD proposal.
We CAN do better!
We MUST do better!"

I'll stand with Bernie.

how many here aren't, either.

Democrat. During the 2010 election, many DUers were fervently promoting Third Party darling and Recent Republican Reject Charlie Crist, while also openly opposing the Democratic nominee, Kendrick Meek. This was allowed here, because they had some fantasy that Crist could win, or because they liked it when he stood by Palin and chanted 'drill, drill'. Point is, they were allowed to campaign for Crist and against the Democrat, and Crist is not at all a Progressive, certainly not compared to the Democrat.
So try again.

Also some kind of Hilary puma groupie.

:cry:

He put them on the table for discussion as part of a Simpson-Bowles-esque "grand bargain" that ultimately never happened because the Republicans weren't willing to give in on increased revenue. I don't recall him trying to force Social Security cuts down anybody's throats, however, and I don't see them in this current deal. :shrug: Conyers isn't helping himself or anybody by twisting and distorting what President Obama was doing during the (failed) negotiations over ways to reduce the deficit and strengthen entitlement programs over the long term. The Republicans will gladly attempt to use statements like this to attack Obama with next year and enrage progressives. Of course, they'll have a harder time doing that with that pesky little matter of them having actually VOTED unanimously(?) in the House and Senate for Ryan's "Ayn Rand" Medicare-busting budget but, hey, when has a little hypocrisy ever stopped them from trying (and too often succeeding)?

I am Sooooooo sick of that statement I could barf continuously forever.

"It's the best we can get right now."

FUCK ALL OF THEM.

Somebody take the chess game away from these clowns. They can't even figure out checkers furrchrissakes. :grr:

With a guarantee of 6 uncompromising Republicans, we CANNOT AFFORD to have a single DINO/DLC type as one of the 6 Democrats.


I would think Pelosi could not do better than John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and Raúl Grijalva.


Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski would be good choices by Reid.


On the other hand Conrad, Schumer, Liebermann, or Durbin would guarantee a catastrophe.


We absolutely cannot afford a single Democrat who is not committed to protecting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The fix is in.

This is the maddening thing about politics and why you can't look at a no vote as a real no vote....the manipulation by the leaders is on full display tonight.

The whole process is broken.

Thank God somebody is telling us what the hell was going on.

:loveya:

What a state of affairs.

the truth of his statement is not diminished by his vote.

Thank you, Mr. Conyers.

He also preserved Pell Grants and many programs from the poor from any cuts as well.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

mainly entitlement reform
wake up America

The Democratic party has me feeling like I just came off a week long "binger", and I don't even drink!

I just cannot wrap my head around this. You know the Democratic Party lost big time in 2010, largely for selling out and ignoring the reasons they were sent to Washington. We are six months into this new Congress and it looks like the Democratic party is looking for a repeat of 2010. Too sad...

I really wanted to believe that this was a long, thought out brilliant strategy. The doesn't seem the case.

Is the the Obama Ownership society....????

it is unconstitutional. But, a super congress could do a bunch of very unpopular, against the will of the people policies, and every damn congresscritter and the administration can appear to be blameless.

I'm waiting for the final outcome when it's too late and see how many of you defending this shite are still here giving excuses. For those of us who have been here since Little Boots stole the election, we've seen "the writing on the wall." Anyone paying a little attention could see that starting with Little Boots, they've been shoveling our money to corporations as fast as their greedy hands could sling a shovel. I'll never forget Little Boots after 9/11 state more than once how he hit the trifecta. And what do you think that meant?

And now, OH NO-we're in a crisis. All created with the express purpose on transferring wealth-rewarding those who caused the crisis. No regulation, no accountability while those at the top garner more wealth and more power at our expense.

We cannot and will not get out of this financial quagmire without raising taxes, without creating jobs. And if the greedy, arsehole, sociopathic wealthy and corporations want to sit on their money or invest it overseas; then, it is only the government that can create jobs and offer tax incentives to small american businesses. A fekkin balanced budget and debt ceiling will kill this country at this time, especially without revenue-it will kill most of us. What in the hell will they do if there is a major catastrophe? "Oh, that puts us over the debt ceiling-sorry we can't help you."

Get ready for those jobless numbers to go even higher-of course, they can always fudge the numbers, they apparently are good about doing that.

and actually do have an effect on the Budget -- !!!

Go ahead on an crow. meh.

Did he ever explain why he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare? :shrug:

:evilgrin:

in getting things accomplished-take the Bush impeachment, for example. Have we forgotten?

Conyers is one member out of 435. He was one of the few who was honorable during that time, as he is being honorable now.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/did-president-obama-want-to-give-the-kidnappers-hostages?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29">Here is Dean Baker saying roughly the same thing: "President Obama could have insisted that he would protect the core middle class programs that enjoy support across the political spectrum. And he could have said that the Republicans want to gut them. Instead, he contributed to the nonsense. He made up a false story about the origins of the deficit, wrongly telling the country that the huge deficit came about from the Bush tax cuts, the cost of the wars, and the Medicare drug benefit. This implied that we had large deficits before the downturn, that large deficits were a chronic problem. In fact, the numbers are clear as day and it's impossible to believe that President Obama and his advisers do not know them. The large deficits of the past few years came about because of the collapse of the housing bubble, end of story. So we can believe that President Obama is just a really bad poker player, as Paul Krugman suggests, or we can believe that he is getting what he wants."

He kept the cost of the wars off the general ledger so the American public would not know how much we were spending. When Obama took office, he made a public statement after the first month or so that he was taking all of the financial spending kept off the books and combining them with the official numbers so the American people would know where we stood financially. The American debt was about 14.3 (the last time I checked) and going to go up, but most of the money President Obama has spent has been for the 2nd phase of Tarp, a Bush* plan, interest on the previously existing debt, and the health care law, most of which has not taken effect yet and is supposed to end up over the long haul positively impacting our deficit.

The housing bubble caused by a collusion among the banks, Wall Street and hedge fund managers crashed this economy when the bubble broke right before Obama took office. These financial types and entities did what they did in the way of fraudulent acts because under Bush* it was totally understood anything goes as long as it helps corporations (and no one finds out).

Combine that housing crash with the loss of revenue under Bush* (3.6 Trillion), the resulting impact on employment and the rest of the economy, the cost of the wars, and the other domestic economic problems, with the changes under Obama (which looking at the Bush* record are totally modest and for the right reasons) and that is how we arrived where we are today.

In so way can a reasonable person say this is Obama's fault.

Sam

I'll bet Karl Rove is laughing his ass off.

We know that John Boner is proclaiming that he got 98% of what he wanted. I wonder what the other 2% was. Maybe to get President Obama to handicap him a couple of holes on the links.