Is Bernie Sanders the only one calling for no medicare or ss cuts now?

[senseandsensibility]

I just heard him fighting the good fight live on the Ed show a few seconds ago. But the rest of the "liberal" pundits on tonight don't seem to want to go there. It's all "we have to raise taxes on the top earners", which of course we do. But no one seems to want to talk about what really matters to most of us

[still_one]

1. If the Democrats fail us here then what they had as almost a sure thing in 2016 is not so sure

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Abso

fuckin' LUTELY!!

We got the name, we better have the game.

2010 happened because the Dems didn't make a big enough change to be perceptible to the politically disengaged. They/we better get it right this time.

That means pushing good New Deal-type legislation and letting the Republicans smash themselves to little pieces opposing it, if that's what it takes.

We put forth the plans the people want, and let the troglodytes block it if they insist. The people will figure out what's going on and know whom to blame, and 2014 brings in a Democratic super-majority in both houses. The public elected Obama for a reason, and re-elected him for the same reason. Time for the payoff.

[teddy51]

2. If Cleaver is on the level, then I think they do have something that should be looked at in

medicare. He was saying on Ed that there are people out there making $750,000 plus per year that are on medicare!

I have no idea if this is true or not, but if so this should be looked at and dealt with.

[limpyhobbler]

5. Medicare is for everybody. It's not welfare for the poor. It's for everybody.

If we want to make sure rich people are not getting a free ride, get it from them in taxes. Cutting Medicare for the ultra-rich saves almost no money. It's a trivially small amount of the budget.

The corporate people are trying to push means testing as a way for wealthy people to avoid paying higher taxes.

Once we start income testing people for benefits, the corporate people will try to lower the income threshold. We will spend the rest of our lives fighting over the income thresholds cut off and risk medicare being turned into a "welfare" program.

[LeftInTX]

7. Totally, totally agree

Lots of middle/upper middle class have Medicare as secondary.

I've got Medicare as secondary. My health insurance pays most of my bills. Medicare probably makes money from me.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Dead on. Thanks.

I was already composing something like this in my head before I saw your response.

One additional point is that the wealthy do pay a little more for their MC coverage. That could be increased a little without wrecking everything, but the rich have paid ins something and deserve to get something back. Same thing with SocSec, but again it wouldn't hurt to raise the caps.

[teddy51]

12. Then I guess I don't have a problem if medicare is on the table for a hit.

[teddy51]

9. Personally I don't agree that medicare should be for anyone that doesn't need it, and can

afford to provide medicare for themselves. If you have a certain income, then I think that you should provide your own medical.

[Honeycombe8]

11. I disagree. If you change it to a tax to provide free healthcare, it will be changed

from what it is, to something else. That will make it more likely to be cut or killed.

It already has a bit of a means test to it. That could be expanded. But to cut them out entirely, after they've paid into it for 40 years is unfair and changes the promise that was made to them.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Yes, exactly.

To cut people out who have paid in isn't just unfair, it's really terrible politics. Suddenly SS & MC get classified in the same bag as "welfare" & are open to getting mangled in the same way. It's playing into the hands of the RW propaganda machine.

[Honeycombe8]

17. Right. It would become like Medicaid. nt

[senseandsensibility]

16. Is it even possible for a ninety year old to buy insurance in the open market?

Would anyone cover them? If so, the cost could be prohibitive even for a wealthy person.

[limpyhobbler]

3. I think Senator Tom Harkin has been good so far too.

Harkin: Leave Medicare, Medicaid out of fiscal-cliff talks

But he also came out with a new Proposal to Strengthen Social Security today and I don't know the details of how it messes with the CPI. I skeptical of any CPI changes even when they are sold as increasing COLAs. But anyway he's been pretty good.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-tom-harkin/a-real-proposal-to-streng_b_2258959.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Senator Tom Harkin stands up for Social Security recipients by denouncing "chained CPI"

[Octafish]

4. This is what happens when all that people have to worship is Ronuld Raygun.

Our elected representatives largely were raised on Reagan.

The Real Effect of 'Reaganomics'

Ronald Reagan promoted the idea that conservatives prefer to leave the economy to the market. Nonsense – we've been gulled

by Dean Baker
Published on Monday, February 7, 2011 by The Guardian/UK

At the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, his most important legacy has gone largely overlooked. Reagan helped to put a caricature of politics at the centre of the national debate and it remains there to this day. In Reagan's caricature, the central divide between progressives and conservatives is that progressives trust the government to make key decisions on production and distribution, while conservatives trust the market.

This framing of the debate is advantageous for the right, since people, especially in the United States, tend to be suspicious of an overly powerful government. They also like the idea of leaving important decisions to the seemingly natural workings of the market. It is therefore understandable that the right likes to frame its agenda this way. But since the right has no greater commitment to the market than the left, it is incredible that progressives are so foolish as to accept this framing.

In reality, the right uses government all the time to advance its interest by setting rules that redistribute income upward. As long as progressives ignore the rules that are designed to redistribute income upward, they will be left fighting over crumbs. There is no way that government interventions will reverse a rigged market. For some reason, most of the people in the national political debate who consider themselves progressive do not seem to understand this fact.

To take the most obvious example: fighting inflation has come to be seen as the holy grail of central banks – a policy that it is supposed to be outside of the realm of normal political debate. On slightly more careful inspection, the inflation-fighting by the Fed and other central banks is actually a policy that is designed to ensure that the wages of ordinary workers do not grow too rapidly.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/07-10

They'd be wise to read stuff by Galbraith and his sons.

[TheKentuckian]

18. That strikes a chord

I have long felt that the old W.I.N. (Whip Inflation Now) campaign from the 70's was nothing but a rabble rousing effort to get poor and working folks behind stagnating and crushing wages.

[Octafish]

19. Puro BFEE.

Jerry Ford doing that scrapyard thing.

Priority legislation—action, I should say—to increase energy supply here at home requires the following:

One, long-sought deregulation of natural gas supplies,

Number two, responsible use of our Naval petroleum reserves in California and Alaska,

Number three, amendments to the Clean Air Act; and

Four, passage of surface mining legislation to ensure an adequate supply with commonsense environmental protection.

SOURCE:

http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3283

Remember Poppy at his inaugural?

"We have more will than wallet."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2360525

And we pretty much got nothing to show for our money except some disastrous wars.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Watch out for Shumer. He's been making sounds that he's more than willing to sell anyone down

the river. Even Social Security, when Reid & Obama both have said SS is off the table during these talks.

[Honeycombe8]

13. All experts that I know of agree something has to be done about Medicare. But Durbin...

thinks the eligibility age shouldn't be raised.

Obama and Reid have both said that SS shouldn't be (or did they say "won't be"?) part of the fiscall cliff negotiations. Reid said that if SS needs anything done, it should be handled separately, since it's not part of the budget.

Shumer implied he'd go along with just about anything! Next time I saw him, he retracted his statements about SS cuts. Guess Reid got to him.

I don't recall if Pelosi has been asked specifically about that.

Claire McAskill said that raising medicare age eligibility is not the way to go. Maybe a means test.

[teddy51]

14. I agree with Claire McAskill, there should be a means test.