Live Feed for President Obama's Upcoming Press Conference.

[MineralMan]

As always, you can watch the press conference live and in HD video at the whitehouse.gov site. Here's the direct link to all live feeds from the White House.

There are other sources, of course, but this one is uninterrupted by blabbers and pundits. It's a great way to hear the President's remarks from beginning to end without extraneous stuff.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live

The President's remarks are scheduled to begin at 11:00 AM EDT. However, he's usually a few minutes late.

[gateley]

1. K&R Thanks for the PSA! Do you happen to be watching

Pelosi giving a statement? Just tuned in and wonder if I missed anything or what the general gist is. Thanks.

[MineralMan]

2. Sorry. I wasn't watching.

[gateley]

3. Well, we'll learn about it when the President speaks. I do know

she said "we stand with the President" and "there will be no cuts to SS/Medicare recipients".

Do you know if they've in fact reached an agreement? (I know, just wait 8 more minutes, gateley).

[MineralMan]

4. It has begun.

[MineralMan]

5. Starts by explaining the importance of raising ceiling.

Says this should have been taken care of much earlier.

[MineralMan]

6. Willing to cut domestic spending.

Military spending, too.

Stabilize Medicare - did not mention cuts...just stabilization.

[thewiseguy]

8. Willing to cut military spending? They have already passed the defense spending bill.

[Javaman]

11. Easier to get forgiveness then permission. LOL nt

[MineralMan]

13. I'm just reporting what he said.

[gkhouston]

27. Maybe he means FY12 and the out-years. n/t

[MineralMan]

7. Wants to raise revenues.

No new proposals. Tax the rich, etc. Same stuff.

[MineralMan]

9. Stresses polls that indicate most citizens want

to increase revenues. Not just Democrats. No sacrifices from middle class, most vulnerable. Still pushing for "big deal."

If no big deal, let's still be ambitious.

[jtown1123]

10. Why is Obama Pushing a Huge Deficit Reduction Bill now?

We're still in a major recession. Why does he want to signal to our bond markets. NO no no.

[woo me with science]

16. Why would you make fundamental changes to Medicare, SS, tax codes, budgets,

in an emergency, panicked situation?

Why would you do this?

Because this is the plan, and this is the way to get it through without input from Americans.


Yes, 300 economists have warned against this. That should say a lot.

[originalpckelly]

19. Of course, they have manufactured an emergency.

How many times during the Bush administration did they do this, right?

How many debt ceiling's did we crash through?

[woo me with science]

40. This is how they do it without allowing public opinion to interfere.

This is how they push MAJOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE through, as an emergency, after closed door sessions, without input from Americans.

This is appalling and disgusting and outrageous, and this is what is becoming of our "representative" republic.

[woo me with science]

56. "We don't need more debate.....We simply need to make these tough choices...

and take on our base."

Translation: We need to do it in two weeks, behind closed doors, and pass it on an emergency basis.

[Javaman]

92. Then go on vacation!

that's the underlying message here.

[Liberalynn]

61. I heard Bernanke

even warned now is a bad time for the government to be pulling federal money out of the economy. Have to agree there.

There are so many short sighted people in this country it is not funny.

[woo me with science]

68. Three hundred economists have warned against this crap.

He is not short-sighted. This is monied interests in DC, in both parties, having their way.

[Liberalynn]

76. Sorry I miscommunicated there.

I think it is some members of the voting public who think the only important thing is lowering their taxes, cutting big government, etc and who vote for candidates willing to pander to that sort of view in order to aid the corporate fat cats, that are the short sighted ones.

Some of these voters don't understand the catastrophic effect such steps will have on the overall economy, and how much more it will cost them if privatization goes through.

[woo me with science]

83. He also misrepresents polls.

People who believe the government is being profligate cite tax cuts for billionaires and the wars as the most important outrages.

They are overwhelmingly opposed to SS benefit cuts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/pew-research-americans-fa_n_892445.html

[MineralMan]

12. We are running out of time, he says.

Wants plan within 24-36 hours. He's ready to move.

Going to questions...

[jtown1123]

14. Here comes the entitlement questions...

of course he only wants to protect current beneficiaries...cuts for the young folks? Sure!

[originalpckelly]

15. He is willing to raise retirement age and means test it.

I'm OK with means testing.

But raising the retirement age altogether is totally unacceptable. What an ass.

[Javaman]

17. +1. I agree. Completely unacceptable. nt

[jtown1123]

18. Means testing is a major doozy for SS. It will open it up for privatization.

There are no savings in means testing SS. Not enough wealthy seniors.

[jtown1123]

21. Several studies show means testing, to produce savings, would cut benefits for pple who make 40k

[originalpckelly]

22. It's not a winning argument.

People are going to be against not means testing, they will be able to play it as rich guys getting by.

[TBF]

28. I agree - I would only agree to means testing if it were an

"entitlement". Instead, it's an insurance policy. We all pay in (mandatory) and we all should be able to collect. Now, if they want to fiddle with how much you contribute (add more levels after 100K or whatever the cutoff is now), go ahead and do that. Also feel free to raise taxes and capital gains taxes on high earners.

Privatizing will ruin the program, just as it is ruining public education.

[Liberalynn]

69. +++++100000

[WinkyDink]

86. It = going after the savings accounts of seniors.

[PragmaticLiberal]

20. At some point the retirement age is going to have to be raised.

It sucks but it is what it is.

[Javaman]

24. Why is that? SS is fine.

when it runs into issues regarding funding in 2 decades raise the cap on contributions.

[jtown1123]

26. +1

[originalpckelly]

39. It is perfectly fine, if only the middle class received more of the money it has been making.

Middle class workers have increased our productivity by 80%, yet wages have stayed the same accounting for the inflation rate. What this means is that the income has been taken out of companies in ways that do not fall into the areas taxes by the Social Security system.

That's why we're in the pickle. Even if the worker to retiree ratio has decreased, the workers have been doing so much more that they are work almost two workers 20-30 years ago. But the productivity increases are not being paid for, so the social security system is in trouble.

[Javaman]

43. All current models indicate SS is solvent for the next 20 years.

As I repeat, when it does get in trouble 20 years from now, raise the cap on the pay in to include those in higher tax brackets.

[originalpckelly]

47. Well, it's not a good idea. The workers should be paid more in the first place...

to keep up with their productivity increases.

If this was happening, this program wouldn't get into trouble, even in 20 years.

[jtown1123]

53. If we had a lower unemployment rate, it would be fine.

Also, those projections are worst case scenario. A future shortfall may never even happen.

[originalpckelly]

62. Very true. And we must keep the taxes on the middle class...

because if we don't then the Republicans will start moaning and groaning about "wealth re-distribution."

You know, like the wealth re-distribution that's been going on the last few decades...to the rich!

The taxes were specifically regressive, because they wanted no one to come along and say that this program was being funded that way. They wanted it to be protected.

***Edited to explain the direction of the wealth re-distribution from poor/middle class to the rich.

[Javaman]

70. Of course we should be paid more...

in this day in age, in this bullshit climate of worker destruction, don't hold your breath.

Ideally, we all should get cost of living raises across the board, but alas, until we get someone in the whitehouse that actually pays attention to what is going on with the unemployed, under employed, working poor and the middle and lower middle class, nothing at all will change.

we are on the tread mill of a deftly crafted long range repuke message of societal destruction so they can make more via the cheapest labor force possible.

call it what you want but we are entering into corporate fascism or democratic feudalism.

[originalpckelly]

72. We will not win in the government, until we win the economy.

We're going to have to look into co-op type working environments from this moment forward. We need to fire the investor class.

[Javaman]

80. As I wrote in another thread...

there is a storm coming.

People will only take so much.

Touching or altering SS or Medicare is the first of the body blows to the American Psyche.

This will be remembered, especially come november 2012.

if a repuke comes in and begins the great dismantling or a dem (Obama) continues on this trend, I honestly believe people will finally wake up.

[originalpckelly]

81. 2012 is too late. We must win tomorrow, the week after, and the next coming months.

We the people must reclaim America, we need to downsize companies and lay off the people who have been stealing money from our paychecks. The vast minority who think they have the right to perpetual ownership of something that is primarily built by the vast majority.

These things will come, and must come, or this nation will never truly be free. Our government will always be corrupted, and we will not be a democracy.

[Javaman]

87. Oh I agree.

but as long as Obama keeps kowtowing to these corporate bastards, not a whole lot will change.

Unless we get supers in both the house and senate.

However, given the fact that it now seems as if the government doesn't give a damn about any of us, with the exception of the rich, time will come where we the people will be forced into taking matters in our own hands.

It will happen, but like any societal change in history, it's proceeded by many years of suffering.

[metalbot]

96. Productivity increases shouldn't necessarily translate to more pay

A lot of the productivity increases that we see (certainly for middle class white collar jobs) is coming from increased IT spending. If a company spends $500k on an accounting software package that makes the accountants more efficient, how would that justify paying the accountants more? The same would apply in manufacturing when automation is driving worker efficiency.

You can argue for paying employees more when profits and cash flow are good, but productivity, unless it's coming from people simply working harder, isn't something you reward by itself.

[PragmaticLiberal]

45. You're absolutely right but I was thinking about whats going to actually pass.

Personally, I don't have much faith that congress will ever raise the cap on contributions.


Perhaps thats just the cynical side of me speaking.

[Javaman]

73. if taxes can't be raised on the rich,

we certainly won't get a raise in the cap.

[jtown1123]

25. No. Sorry. False Choice.

That is a benefit cut. Let's force seniors to work until they die. Great idea. Major gains in life expectancy go to wealthy, white males.

[originalpckelly]

31. We have enough money to pay for social security.

We have seen an 80% increase in productivity in our economy, but wages have stayed flat. The money has gone to people who do not pay into the Social Security system. Because of that, these new productivity increases that would make it easier to pay for the same system, have not actually been able to support the system. And won't in long term estimates.

[TBF]

32. With 10% unemployment we ought to be LOWERING it -

and nationalizing health care.

This is complete rubbish and more theft by the ruling class.

[gkhouston]

36. +1000. That would be an economically feasible solution, and

popular with many Americans--just not the rich ones. :-(

[jtown1123]

44. Yep. Kucinich had an idea like that. Of course, pple dismissed it as crazy.

[myrna minx]

34. No it doesn't. Can you prove your assertion? n/t

[riderinthestorm]

38. As a farmer involved in heavy labor, there's no way I'll make it to 67. Nor will firefighters, cops,

nurses, the construction trades etc. etc. Any of us who are involved in that kind of physically demanding labor simply won't be able to last that long. Even 65 is damn near impossible. Do you want a 66 year old cop running down the 19 year old thug that mugged you? Or the 66 year old firefighter trying to rescue your child?

It's easy to say "raise the retirement age" if you've only had a desk job but for the rest of us those words strike some real fear.

[TBF]

46. Even law firms have mandatory retirement (ofen 65) -

these attorneys become "senior" status and collect their private pensions (the big firms have good retirement plans)

They make new partners every year (who are typically in their 30's) to replace them and everything continues on ...

Personally I would drop the retirement age to 60 and let folks live out their years in peace (with universal health care)

[originalpckelly]

50. That's exactly what should happen. And social security is really too low.

People should be receiving more money. It's sad.

[Liberalynn]

94. Plus less people retiring means less jobs opening up

for younger people to move in to. Raising the age also assumes corporations, governemnts, and not for profits are willing to keep people passed a certain age anyway. I mean there is supposed to be "no age discrimination" but we all know how well those kinds of laws are circumvented especially when we have a Conservative SCOTUS that looks the other way.

Raising age eligibilty bad idea.

[WinkyDink]

88. No. Not true in the least.

[MineralMan]

23. Question about "entitlements."

Not acceptable:

Current beneficiaries not be affected.
Look at means testing.


Not willing to restructure Medicare like House wants. No vouchers. No privatizing.

Modest modifications possible. And, no, I don't know what that means.

Not going into get into specifics. Not going to ask for

Wants more from millionaires.

[woo me with science]

29. A senior will have to pay more....but we expect a millionaire to do something, too.....

Do what?

Chortle?

[jtown1123]

30. Raising Cap? Only acceptable proposal.

[TBF]

33. I agree - that's where they need to do some work.

[woo me with science]

64. Funny how he never mentions that. nt

[jtown1123]

67. B/c he doesn't want to. He keeps talking about the American people.

he should look at polls that show more than 60% want the cap raised. The other options? Less than 20%

[woo me with science]

78. This should be the Democratic message.

Oh wait. I forgot. He's the Democrat.

[Safetykitten]

35. Press conference title..."How can we screw people with no money"

[TBF]

37. + a million nt

[Javaman]

51. I will watch the actual presser tonight but from all indications...

it sounds like a horseshit cake being served to the middle class and the poor, while the rich get the truffles...yet again.

[originalpckelly]

It's horrible.

I've never seen so much bullshit in my life, or rather listened to it.

[Safetykitten]

41. It's now a layer cake. No peas. A layer cake.

[originalpckelly]

42. He thinks Social Security is in trouble, but is going to lower the taxes that pay for it?

Does anyone else see how that's a bunch of bullshit?

[jtown1123]

48. I do. I think he's wrong that 80% of pple want budget cuts in a "balanced solution."

[Renew Deal]

54. I didn't hear him say that SS is in trouble.

:shrug:

[Javaman]

58. Because it's not.

and he's bowing to the rich right wing morons who scream bullshit about how cutting ss and medicare will solve all of our debt needs.

he's playing the game just like they are. We the people are the useless pawns to be tossed aside for political charade.

[originalpckelly]

59. That's why they want to "cut" benefits.

In his baloney speak, the other day he said it was to keep social security and medicare keep going. But if you cut the taxes going into it, you start starving off its revenue.

[newportdadde]

90. I know its a joke.

[woo me with science]

49. "The American people are sold."

Bought and sold.

[jtown1123]

55. We're sold on cutting food stamps? Medicaid? nope

[woo me with science]

65. +1

[Renew Deal]

52. Obama was very honest about "members of congress being dyed into past statements."

So true.

[Safetykitten]

57. "We don't have to do anything radical to solve this problem". There it is kids. His presidency.

[Javaman]

60. no hope and loose change. nt

[originalpckelly]

66. Forget brother can you spare a dime...

now it's:
"Brother can you spare some change you can believe in?"

[theophilus]

63. What do you mean? Did he lose it or win it? n/t

[NCarolinawoman]

84. He is NOT the right man for the times.

Is he another Hoover? Coolidge? Millard Filmore? Who knows..:shrug:

[jtown1123]

71. Oh great. His base is looking at things from a "narrow" perspective. I guess Obama knows best for us

Will your base vote for you again? Be careful about constantly admonishing us.

[WinkyDink]

91. I.e., he simply loathes the Baby Boomers. I believe it IS that simple. We cost too much. We're too

diabetic (that's for Michelle). We're still trapped in those 60's battles.
He cannot relate.
And his previous nonchalant "We're not going to pull the plug on Grandma" still rankles me.

[Safetykitten]

74. Trade deals. Top job creators. The republicans TOLD him so.

[originalpckelly]

75. He's wearing a really pretty tie, too bad he's spewing bullshit all over it.

[originalpckelly]

77. "If your ideologically rigid position lasts more than four hours,

you might be a real Democrat."

[Safetykitten]

79. There is some serious fucked up thought on that last thing he just said about who people will blame.

[Javaman]

82. Frankly, from what I have read here today, regarding his statements...

he's done.

if he wins in 2012, I will be really impressed.

[WinkyDink]

93. So will I, as he will do so without union support on the ground. No GOTV next time.

[NCarolinawoman]

95. Headlines in last Friday's paper: OBAMA puts SOCIAL SECURITY on the TABLE.

The NEWS & Observer is one of the most widely circulated papers in the state of North Carolina. Many doctors offices and even my veterinarian's office, have it sitting on top with all the magazines.

North Carolina is considered one of those states where people come and retire. We are now considered a "battleground" state, and the Democratic convention will be held here. This does not look good for Obama or any other Democrat. :thumbsdown: :mad: :(

[fascisthunter]

85. great... I'll die before I get to retire and somebody here will tell me to accept it

fuck you

[Javaman]

89. I'm right there with you.

I have already made plans to die at my desk.

retirement is vaporware.