Dean Baker: Will Seniors Have to Pay for President Obama’s Victory on Budget Standoff?

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/will-seniors-have-pay-president-obama-s-victory-budget-standoff-1381242031

Whacking seniors with a cut to their Social Security and higher medical expenses makes this situation worse, not better. It means that they will have less money to spend, further reducing demand in the economy.

Perhaps President Obama and the other grand bargainers who think these sorts of cuts to seniors make sense have some theory under which budget cuts in a downturn boosts private sector demand, but most of us have to live in the real world, not the dreams of budget cutters. At this point we have a vast amount of evidence; cutting spending in a downturn leads to slower growth and fewer jobs. That is not a debatable point. It’s sort of like the earth being round, it just happens to be true.

The deficit cutters will have to speak to their own motives. Some may actually want to keep high levels of unemployment because they don’t want workers to have any bargaining power. After all, profits are at record highs as a share of national income right now. Their view may be that we would not want to see more jobs and a stronger labor market, since this could cause wages to grow at the expense of corporate profits.

<snip>

It would be really unfortunate if President Obama decided that his peace offering to the Republicans should be a proposal that both hurts seniors and weakens the economy. That might make sense to the Very Serious People in Washington, but not in the real world.

[JDPriestly]

1. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I wonder how many seniors would have to completely forget about Christmas if Obama and Boehner decide to cut Social Security. That is if they have a Christmas with the pittance they receive now.

We need to cut our military involvement in the world. We are doing more damage in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan than we would do if we just ignored those places.

As for stopping terrorists. Strictly review visa requirements. Don't be so generous with those visas. It would be a shame to lose some foreign students and tourists and business, but if we had watched who was coming in and out of our country more carefully we wouldn't have had 9/11.

That doesn't mean we have to harm immigrants or stop immigration. It means we have to know more about who we let in the country. Ask questions. Don't make it so easy to get in on work, tourist, etc. visas.

[Fumesucker]

2. Only 99% of them n/t

[kelliekat44]

3. Why don't we just wait and see? Congress makes and passes laws, not the President.

And besides, if Obama is FOR something, most of the Congress will be AGAINST whatever it is. So if, Obama is still the shrewd, smart man I believe he is, he will know just what to be FOR so he can get the opposite result.

[DURHAM D]

4. Sorry BUT

the President is the one who keeps the chained CPI and medicare changes on the table while the Democratic leadership keeps trying to take it off.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Our political system is meant to be participatory. It is not a spectator sport.

To declare that we should always wait until deals are done to comment on those deals is to encourage dereliction of a citizen's duties and a betrayal of our elected officials. You claim we should let them do as they wish without speaking out then later punish them at the ballot box unwarned and uniformed of our desires?

[KoKo]

6. +1 Exactly!

[L0oniX]

8. ^^^this^^^

[leftstreet]

9. +1

Nicely stated

[ProSense]

7. Yeah, it would be,

"Will Seniors Have to Pay for President Obama’s Victory on Budget Standoff?...It would be really unfortunate if President Obama decided that his peace offering to the Republicans should be a proposal that both hurts seniors and weakens the economy."

...but some people out in Arizona and Texas are needing food this week because the Republicans have shut down the Government.

Food bank sending trucks to feed furloughed Grand Canyon workers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807835

[hfojvt]

10. except it would be the FUTURE seniors who would really pay

and if Republicans agree to a "grand bargain" that includes "tax increases" then you'd better read the fine print because they will set themselves on fire before they vote for, or even allow, any tax increases on the rich.