White House: Obama plans on cutting benefits for the poor and elderly

[brentspeak]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-11-budget11_ST_N.htm?csp=34news

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to outline a fresh multiyear plan to cut the federal deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy and limiting government health benefits for the poor and elderly in what the White House says will be a major speech to the nation Wednesday.

"Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at," White House senior adviser David Plouffe told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, two days after Obama and congressional leaders struck a down-to-the-wire deal over spending cuts for the remainder of this budget year, which ends in September.

snip

With that budget drama largely behind him, Obama is preparing for a new set of showdowns. In a series of talk-show appearances on Sunday, Plouffe gave a broad outline of Obama's proposal. He said the president favors increasing taxes for top earners and limiting benefits in Medicare and Medicaid.

Plouffe said the White House does not believe Social Security is contributing to the short-term deficit. He said deficit-reduction will not be done by "putting all the burden on seniors."

And there you have it.

[Harmony Blue]

1. I look forward to hear

the President's speech Wednesday night. I will try to keep an open mind, but I have to admit I don't think cutting Medicare/Medicaid should even be on the bargaining table.

[d_b]

2. good god...

[demigoddess]

19. good god is right!!

what exactly are these people supposed to do?? get work at the local ihop or grocery store bagging groceries?? especially the severely handicapped florida seems set on throwing out of the care homes. Some family member will have to quit their jobs to care for these people and that is one more person with no income no paying taxes. The republicans seem set on ruining our country one person at a time.

[DJ13]

3. "Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at,"

"Except Defense and those 80 bases around the world, or Capital Gains taxes on the wealthy speculators, or the billions given to the oil companies who are ripping us off every year, or......."

[DURHAM D]

4. Ok - got to say this.

Hillary Clinton would have never considered this "limiting government health benefits for the poor and elderly".

INCOMING...

whatever...

[grasswire]

8. Indeed

Hillary even is a proponent of dental care for the poor and elderly.

[Autumn]

9. Health care Reform was Hillary's goal and dream

not like Obamas insurance finance reform, and she would have fought like hell against "limiting government health benefits for the poor and elderly".

[DURHAM D]

11. Yep -

the "self-important" guys in the senate (Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, Dodd, etc.) plotted out the SOS job in order to get her out of the boy's club so they could shut her down on domestic (read that health care) issues.

I find nothing Obama is doing or saying about the "entitlement" reforms surprising. He telegraphed it all during the primary.

[Beacool]

24. Yeah, they wanted the "historical" candidate.

Unfortunately, they picked the wrong one. The "boys" didn't know what to do about Hillary, she wouldn't have been as easily rolled over by Congress. Well, out of the four you mentioned, one is dead, one had almost zero chance to get reelected and chose to leave the senate and one was barely reelected and is as popular as the plague. On the other hand, Hillary is (as McCain put it last week) an "international star" and has been the most popular politician in the country for quite some time now.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Autumn]

81. I think she would have been a very good President.

She will last as long as Obama will last, more than likely eight years. Anything else is nonsense.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Autumn]

79. And that's the truth.

:toast:

[karynnj]

88. Maybe you should consider that what really happened in 2008,

was an ABH vote. Though that terminology was misused in the 2004 general election, where it makes no sense, by Clinton allies, Begala and Carville, it is a valid concept in primaries.

I can't tell you how many people I know who voted for Obama, seeing him as the only choice to avoid having Clinton as the nominee. With Bill Clinton's unusually nasty behavior mostly after the South Carolina loss, I heard many Democrats give that as their reason.

So, in addition to many excited about Obama, there were also many who just didn't want Hillary.

[karynnj]

87. Will you Clinton people make up your minds!

You can't both say that Kerry fought to get the SoS and that he plotted to put Hillary in the SoS position. As to Kennedy, you know perfectly well that he was critically ill at that time and was using whatever strength he had to work with his committee on the healthcare bill.

Not to mention, in the Senate, seniority is important - and Hillary did not have enough to chair any full committee. Kennedy chaired HELP - and Hillary was WAY down the seniority list. Dodd was second in HELP, was the most senior on SFRC and was Chair of Banking - he could have taken either banking or SFRC and when Kennedy left, he could have had HELP - he kept Banking. Kerry had chaired Small Business, which he dropped for SFRC. Reid was the majority leader.

They were 4 powerful Senators - all easily more powerful than Clinton in the Senate.

The SoS job was a GIFT to HRC, who otherwise would have returned as a not very powerful Senator. Her power in prior years was that people saw that she could become President - at the end of 2008, that was highly unlikely.

[karynnj]

75. Hillary's plan was also insurance based

There is not a Democrat I can think of who did NOT champion healthcare reform. Here's a long list - Teddy Kennedy, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, Mondale, Clinton - both, Bradley, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Clark, Obama, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich.

The fact is that Hillary was NOT to Obama's left. Another fact is that the US needs a budget passed and control of the House makes it impossible to get one without a huge amount of very unpleasant compromise.

Not to mention - who said what was in the quotation? It was NOT Obama, nor are they the words of Pouffle. They are the words of a USA Today Journalist.

What I think is significant in the actual Pouffle comments is that they put raising taxes back on the table. They also protect social security. I wish they went as far as Senator Kerry's words in a great LTTE on Medicare.

YOUR APRIL 6 editorial “Ryan’s Medicare plan is unfair — but at least he has one’’ ignored the fact that the Senate already walked the walk, casting tough votes to extend the life of Medicare. The Affordable Care Act strengthened Medicare by extending the solvency of the trust fund from 2017 to 2029, the largest extension in history. It produced more than $500 billion in savings over the next decade, reduced drug costs for seniors, and provided free preventive services to reduce costly care later.

We saved Medicare billions by eliminating wasteful overpayments while reducing beneficiary premiums. We did it without cutting a single benefit and by strengthening access to primary care.

We’re testing the most promising models of payment reform that reward the quality of care delivered instead of the quantity of tests ordered and services performed.

More difficult decisions remain to tackle deficits and revive Clinton-era balanced budgets. But that too will require both political parties putting the next generation ahead of the next election.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/04/07/senate_has_walked_the_walk_on_medicare_reform/

In 4 short paragraphs, he makes the point that Medicare is solvent until 2029 - and that the payment reform being tested might produce more long term savings for Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare in general.

The fact that SS and Medicare are solvent IF THEY GET ALL THE MONEY FROM THE DEDICATED PAYROLL TAXES means that it is wrong to cut them, steal the money and pay for things that should be paid for by general revenue. That money, from a more regressive tax should not be used to pay for more cuts in the progressive income tax.

[Autumn]

80. I had the privilege of talking to Hillary for about 10 minutes

on health care reform, that is one thing she believes in heart and soul. The insurance finance reform act that Obama pushed and passed would have been a starting negotiation for Hillary,and would have been improved from there through negotiation and she would have twisted arms and fought for it, unlike Obama, for Obama insurance finance reform was the goal.

[karynnj]

86. Did I say she didn't?

If that were the starting negotiation, the likelihood is that it would get worse, not better. The fact is that the bill Hillary pushed - VERY Unsuccessfully in 1993, gained not even one of the Democrats in the Senate Finance committee - not even Bill Bradley, far more a liberal than Hillary ever was. Why do you think that Hillary would suddenly be such a good arm twister? Tell me what coalition she put together in her years in her years in the Senate.

The fact is that the plan that passed is doing much good. It is strange that as HCR became more likely, the assumption that we could have gotten single payer has grown. If you look at the votes, there were few to spare in each House. That suggests this was as far as the then very Democratic Congress could go.

[tekisui]

5. It's been coming down the pike. So sick of this shit.

[elocs]

6. How am I going to answer Republican friends who tried to tell me the other night

that Obama and the Democrats were going to do this. I said, "no way, Democrats are the champions of the poor and the elderly". I feel foolish now. Big tax breaks for the rich while the poor once again get the shit end of the stick.

[johnaries]

25. Keep on telling them the same thing. The headline is a lie.

Plouffe never said that. Keep reading down-thread.

[CountAllVotes]

7. how do you cut benefits for old, sick and poor

These groups have nothing much left to be handing over to you Mr. President for your ugly wars. :wtf: is wrong with you?

:kick:

[KoKo]

44. He will do it by saying he's "cutting, waste, fraud and abuse."

That's how he will sneak it by.

[ProSense]

10. Plouffe said no such thing

Transcript

<...>

PLOUFFE: Yes, but again, you just can't look at it broadly like that. I mean, we have a responsibility to the American people to look at every allocation here and make a determination, is it working for people? Can we afford it? Is it going to help the economy? And that's what the president did. So again, this is a budget agreement and this is the principle he's going to use bringing forward.

I will say, later this week the president is going to speak about his approach to long-term deficit reduction. Is that approach, which is while we reduce the deficit -- and we have to do it, we've got to do it in a balanced way. Can't be all on the backs of seniors and the middle class. We have got to make sure that we are taking a balanced approach to this that allows us to win the future. And we're not going to win the future in this country unless we invest in education, in research and development, in innovation and infrastructure. So that's going to be his north star in these spending decisions. How do we make sure that it is balanced? That we are investing in the things that are going to allow us to win the future.

But he does believe that to grow economically, to be a strong country, we can't sustain this fiscal situation. And there are some that don't agree with that, but he believes strongly that we do have to engage in serious deficit reduction.

<...>

PLOUFFE: No, he's going to lay out his approach, which is -- and he said this previously -- but to get the kind of deficit reduction we need to -- first of all, one of the reasons he wants to do it is so we can live within our means so that we then have the ability to invest in things like education and innovation. But obviously you've got to look everywhere. It's got to be a balanced approach. Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at here.

CROWLEY: So, Social Security?

PLOUFFE: Well, first of all, he said -- first of all, his health care reform package is going to produce $1 trillion of deficit reduction over the next two decades. That being said, we clearly have to do more. So you are going to have to look at savings you might be able to get in Medicare and Medicaid in the long term. He said Social Security's not a contributor to the short-term deficit problem, but in the process of talking about our fiscal situation and our government, we ought to look if there is a way to strengthen Social Security in the long term that doesn't endanger anybody, you know, who's a current beneficiary, and doesn't slash benefits. So he'll look at that.

Defense spending. Domestic spending. Revenues are going to have to be part of this. Listen, the congressional plan that you referenced...

<...>

[rug]

13. Where do people get these crazy ideas?

PLOUFFE: So, yes, we are going to have to have more health care cost savings in this country. There's no question.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: In Medicare and Medicaid.

PLOUFFE: Yes, you're going to have to look at both of those things, and he'll speak to both of those this week.

[ProSense]

14. From

Krugman:

"Mr. Obama...has done more to rein in long-run deficits than any previous president."

There Is Still No Such Thing As Socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid

[rug]

21. Ah, I thought it was from Plouffe

unless, of course, he contemplates Medicare and Medicaid savings that are not cuts.

[FrenchieCat]

26. I went and read the transcript,

and the only thing I got out of it is that Pres. Obama is about to propose tax hikes for the wealthy, and that Candy Crowley is a real partisan ass piece of shit.

[rug]

28. Lol, she may well be a partisan piece of shit but there's more in that preview than that.

[FrenchieCat]

29. I read the script......

and unless I wanted to force some nefarious shit out of it,
the only thing I read that one could do that with is when
plouffe talked about making Medicare run more efficiently,
and saving money that way.

I'm tired of this shit....but hey Whining about something not yet announced,
is certainly better than crying when the Republicans kick the shit out of us.

We are some sorry asses....always reacting to tiny bits and pieces of information and
attempting to translate it in the worse possible way.

[Sheepshank]

51. yup...that about sums it up

OP gets an unrec for misleading heading, anti Obama flame baiting and twisting truths.

[ProudDad]

54. I'm reacting to his track record...

which is not very fucking good...

[Hawkowl]

57. Ineffective communicator

Obama is a liar. Simple. He'd rather speak in half truths and smiles then firmly come out and say something like "Social Security and Medicare cuts will happen over my dead body".

See that would be leadership. What we have is a cross between Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Hoover.

[golfguru]

84. Hear hear n/t

[uponit7771]

90. More than not bashers have been the liars, another debuncked BS post

[8 track mind]

72. Winner!!!!! n/t

[vaberella]

34. Dude...when someone says savings it doesn't equal cuts.

It can equal cutting back on fraud measures--- Ie savings.

[MNBrewer]

20. by selectively snipping transcripts, I guess

[rug]

22. Yes, those words are not really there.

[MNBrewer]

41. Sorry. Meant for post 40 to be a response

Please see post 40 :)

[MNBrewer]

40. Sorry, wasn't referring to your post as the selective snipper

I was afraid the reference wouldn't be clear, and it wasn't. I was referring to ProPaganda's selective snipping.

[johnaries]

23. "cost savings" and "benefits cuts" are 2 different things.

Obama has suggested several times on many occasions how we can cut costs in health care without cutting benefits, and several of them have been included in the Affordable Care Act.

[rug]

27. Two different things that are not mutually exclusive.

And the Wednesday speech, per Plouffe, will be short on details.

[krawhitham]

30. cost savings != cutting benefits

[vaberella]

36. How? When in all departments there are problems of fraud?

What are you people reading?

[phleshdef]

53. ! = means "not equal"

[former9thward]

58. Where does the transcript mention fraud?

[vaberella]

67. Actually that's my point. It could very well mean cutting down on fraud.

However, no one here thinks that. Automatically it's assumed that Obama wants to cut benefits.

[former9thward]

77. We will have to see what happens Wednesday.

But I don't think there is that much fraud in these programs that eliminating it (which I do not think is 100% possible) would lead to significant cost savings.

[wysingm]

15. ... we ought to look if there is a way to strengthen Social Security

well, duh ... Put the money back... These people think we're damn fools.

"Of the nearly $14.2 trillion in debt, roughly $5 trillion is money the government has borrowed from other accounts, mostly from Social Security revenues, according to federal figures. Several major policies from the past decade when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress — tax cuts, a Medicare prescription-drug benefit and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — account for more than $3.2 trillion. " http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110410/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown">Link

.

[sad sally]

16. "Can't be all on the backs of seniors and the middle class."

The key word is "all," which leaves open the word "most" where the majority of spending cuts will come from. The President has demonstrated he won't risk alienating his rich contributors with any pesky tax hikes - suck it up poor and middle class people. We are the losers, any blood we have left to give will be drained.

[Sheepshank]

55. your interpretation is taking a leap

perhaps I interpret it to mean millionairs receiveing medicare and medicaid...how about them apples.

[olegramps]

39. Sounds good, but......

What does it matter in the long run if we make an investment in the future in the way of high tech products and services if we fail to protect them from being out-sourced? When I hear that the leadership is going to put tariffs on products that were previously manufactured in our factories and provided living wages for Americans then I will believe that the nation has a future. What we have allowed is for the corporations to rob us of a future. I don't necessarily blame the corporations since they are designed to maximize their profits. The real culprits are the politicians that have failed to provide restrictions and gave them free rein to destroy our industrial base all in the name of Free Trade.

[Bake]

68. Plouffe is a weasel. He can't just give a straight answer.

And neither can the Obama Apologists.

The part that really kills me is the "it can't be ALL on the backs of the poor and elderly ..."

WHY SHOULD FUCKING **ANY** OF IT BE ON THE BACKS OF THE POOR/ELDERLY????

Bake

[Robb]

12. Quite a headline. (nt)

[wysingm]

17. That headline is messed up!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[CakeGrrl]

32. No, you DON'T have it. Stop seeing only what you want to see.

Unrec.

[rpannier]

33. On this, I'll wait and see what he says

I've been critical in the past and sometimes my criticism has been correct and other times it has been wrong.
I'm willing to wait a few days to see what he says.

[vaberella]

35. Some people talk about Fox News. Man...Brentspeak---Fox got's nothing on you.

There is nothing there that even suggests cuts, since most people are aware that reforming SS and medicare/medicaid lowers possible fraud which does run rampant in both. However...this writer you're using slyly insinuates that "savings" equals cutting and misquotes Plouffe intentional. You'd think we'd learn our lesson after watching what Fox did to important government organization and Democratic government people.

[AtomicKitten]

42. +1

[totodeinhere]

60. The difference is that that Fox attacks Obama from the right and the OP attacks him from the left.

I get the impression that attacking Obama from the right is unacceptable at DU, whereas you can attack him from the left all you want.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. But when they both use the same dishonest tactics...

to launch their attacks, one is no better than the other.

[vaberella]

66. Dunno...to me it sounds like the same talking points with people who claim different ideologies. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

62. The other sad part is how many bandwagoneers pile on to agree with this stuff

HOPING that something bad sticks to the President. Unbelievable.

[uponit7771]

91. +1!!!!

[JoePhilly]

37. I hear Obama has death panels!!!!

[EndElectoral]

38. Since the Rethugs WON'T vote to raise taxes on the wealthy, what will Obama do?

[Sheepshank]

52. fall on his sword and set off nuclear bombs.

....not sure why you think taking wild guesses with no basis in fact is part of a discussion?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

43. He said deficit-reduction will not be done by "putting all the burden on seniors."

and there you have it.

[KoKo]

45. What do you think "all the burden on seniors" means? Think about it...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

47. You didn't answer my question ....instead slung an insult.

Again, what do you think those words meant? "all the burden."

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

48. sorry, I'm incapable of the twisting you do

when you translate "we won't burden the elderly" into "we will burden the elderly".

That takes some acrobatics.

[BklnDem75]

49. It means you can't read

He said deficit-reduction will not be done by "putting all the burden on seniors."

Some people just say what they mean. Some people need to dissect everything.

[totodeinhere]

61. Not "all of the burden on seniors," just most of it. n/t

[Sheepshank]

78. most of it?

proof.

There is already proof that Obama has said savings can be made by cutting out fraud, and stream lining and eliminating adminstrative waste. There is documented proof of what he hs actually said. Your statement, on the other hand, offers nothing but empty outrage and twisted rhetoric.

[Jersey Devil]

50. Pure hysteria

Yes, certainly we should look for "savings" from Medicare, but that does not equate with "cutting benefits for the poor and elderly" as contained in the OP.

I think everyone should just calm down and let the man talk. If he did propose to cut benefits I'd be in the demonstrations with you, but I am not going to panic just because David Plouffe made some general statement about "savings" to Medicare which for all we know could be the type of savings that would benefit the poor and elderly, not harm them.

[JoePhilly]

64. Calm down ... CALM DOWN ... ??

Not here on DU ... the manufactured outrage machine has a quota to meet!!

We gotta have at least 5-10 "Obama is evil" OPs each and every day.

Sadly we can't sell those, the country would be out of debt in no time.

[dionysus]

70. 5-10? you're lowballing that figure, buddy

;)

[JoePhilly]

74. lol ...

I was pretty sure that some one would notice that my estimate was kind of low.

[treestar]

56. Well your first sentence first states raising taxes on the wealthy

yet you overlooked that part. Do you read until you can find the part you can use to prove the next disaster you've created?

[totodeinhere]

63. What about a means test for Medicare recipients?

I have mixed feelings about proposals like that. For one thing, why not make rich seniors who can afford it pay higher premiums for Medicare? That might save a lot of money and allow more resources to be directed to the poor who need it the most. But what I would not like is having to go through a lot of rigmarole such as having to provide copies of bank statements, tax returns and utility bills.

[JuniperLea]

69. Plans to, preparing for, the president favors...

As per usual, I'll wait until he actually does something before I get my knickers twisted. Carry on.

[dionysus]

71. the campaign slogs on. why do you make up headlines?

[karynnj]

76. You are seeing what you want to see - Pouffle did not say that - a reporter did

What I think is significant in the actual Pouffle comments is that they put raising taxes back on the table. They also protect social security. I wish they went as far as Senator Kerry's words in a great LTTE on Medicare.

YOUR APRIL 6 editorial “Ryan’s Medicare plan is unfair — but at least he has one’’ ignored the fact that the Senate already walked the walk, casting tough votes to extend the life of Medicare. The Affordable Care Act strengthened Medicare by extending the solvency of the trust fund from 2017 to 2029, the largest extension in history. It produced more than $500 billion in savings over the next decade, reduced drug costs for seniors, and provided free preventive services to reduce costly care later.

We saved Medicare billions by eliminating wasteful overpayments while reducing beneficiary premiums. We did it without cutting a single benefit and by strengthening access to primary care.

We’re testing the most promising models of payment reform that reward the quality of care delivered instead of the quantity of tests ordered and services performed.

More difficult decisions remain to tackle deficits and revive Clinton-era balanced budgets. But that too will require both political parties putting the next generation ahead of the next election.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/04/07/senate_has_walked_the_walk_on_medicare_reform/

In 4 short paragraphs, he makes the point that Medicare is solvent until 2029 - and that the payment reform being tested might produce more long term savings for Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare in general.

The fact that SS and Medicare are solvent IF THEY GET ALL THE MONEY FROM THE DEDICATED PAYROLL TAXES means that it is wrong to cut them, steal the money and pay for things that should be paid for by general revenue. That money, from a more regressive tax should not be used to pay for more cuts in the progressive income tax.

[Honeycombe8]

83. If he doesn't stand up for Social Security, he can kiss the next election goodbye.

I don't know of anyone who would vote for anyone who plans on coming down on Social Security recipients. I don't care if he raises taxes on the very wealthy...that doesn't mean it's okay to cut SS for the elderly.

But I do think SS rates have to go up for future recipients. There are just getting to be so many boomer retirees. Their benefits are paid by the younger generation of workers...of whom there are fewer than retirees. So...the numbers just don't add up. But we're not there yet. That happens in a few years, not sure how many. But you have to make plans in advance.

Medicare is another issue entirely. I've heard from various sources, on both sides, that Medicare is in deep trouble, esp after the Bush Rx bill (where we give windfall profits to pharmas).

[dennis4868]

85. seems like a reasonable plan to me....

but like everything else with Obama, you cannot hyperspeculate about what he might say....this is done way too much at DU these days....

[cliffordu]

89. Ah, bullshit. Wait. I'm sorry. MORE bullshit.

:hurts: