"Obama push to sieze budget initiative"

[WinkyDink]

The White House said on Sunday it would this week propose radical reforms to public spending, an attempt to regain the initiative after a last-minute deal on Friday to avoid a federal government shutdown.

David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said Barack Obama, the president, would propose “significant debt reduction”, including looking at the federal Medicare and social security programmes, traditionally regarded as sacrosanct. “Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at,” Mr Plouffe said on Sunday, although he added that spending on investment and education would be protected whenever possible.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c1d9774-6399-11e0-bd7f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1JANYdEi8

[msongs]

1. SS admin already rips off recipients by paying out only 25% of earned payments.

sounds like
SS needs more integrity and less budget cutting.

[PSPS]

3. What does "earned payments" mean?

Ordinarily, I'd assume such a statement was some kind of RW mumbo jumbo that doesn't mean anything but is intended to portray SS as something "bad" that must be "privatized."

[Skittles]

2. every corner except the wars

gawd, he sucks

[Poboy]

4. The Real U.S. National Security Budget The Figure No One Wants You to See -$1.2 Trillion for Nationa

The Real U.S. National Security Budget The Figure No One Wants You to See -$1.2 Trillion for National Security

By Chris Hellman
Tom Dispatch.com

So the big week is here as the federal budget heads for the Washington operating table. The question in the media will be: to shut or not to shut the government down -- and whether that shutdown is likely to happen now, two weeks from now, or in the spring when raising the debt ceiling comes up for debate. In the meantime, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives is intent on taking out fuel subsidies for the poor, federal funding for Planned Parenthood, money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs,” among many other programs, but not (as New York Times columnist Gail Collins pointed out recently) the millions of dollars the U.S. Army sinks into its “relationship” with NASCAR. The House voted down a proposal to eliminate that program a week ago by a wide margin.

Here’s the thing: the House Republicans are going after their version of unsightly pimples on the body politic -- the programs they and their billionaire sponsors find ideologically unpalatable -- without seriously considering where our money really flows. We at TomDispatch thought we might lend a hand to Congress’s deliberations this week by offering something new: the first real figure on what American taxpayers actually pay for the Pentagon, the U.S. military, homeland security, our distant wars, the care of veterans, intelligence, and every other aspect of our national security and war state.

It’s often said that military and security expenditures make up 20% of the federal budget. But you have to wonder about that figure when you consider what the U.S. national security budget adds up to. Let’s face it: what American taxpayers really fork over for “national security” should make us all feel exceedingly insecure, as Christopher Hellman of the National Priorities Project, an expert on military spending, makes clear below. He offers a startling figure that undoubtedly could have -- and should have -- been calculated long ago by others in the media and in government (including that freshman class of Republican congressional representatives). Perhaps, though, Americans in Washington and out would prefer not to know where their money is really going.

Here’s your chance. Take out your calculator and check the addition yourself -- and prepare to be staggered.

CONTINUED...
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175361/tomgram%3A_chris_hellman%2C_%241.2_trillion_for_national_security

[stockholmer]

8. +1000 , a great article I have used a lot

[Poboy]

19. I use it on plenty occasions. Its really an answer for just about ANYTHING!

[PSPS]

5. Goodbye Social Security

David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said Barack Obama, the president, would propose “significant debt reduction”, including looking at the federal Medicare and social security programmes, traditionally regarded as sacrosanct. “Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at,” Mr Plouffe said on Sunday, although he added that spending on investment and education would be protected whenever possible.

Since Social Security contributes zero to the national debt, this is Obama paving the way for his desired dismantling of it. The cat food commission was his initial signal in this regard, since he hand picked for its members only those known to loathe the program. His "tax holiday" scheme, with its intrusion of Social Security into the general budget for the first time in history, was Obama's tricky way to insinuate Social Security into the debt discussion.

Of course, "spending on investment and education" translates to more corporate welfare and elimination of the public school system in favor of for-profit schools run by political cronies.

[WinkyDink]

10. My mind is shell-shocked at this point. I cannot fathom how we got here.

[Skittles]

11. style over substance

[MasonJar]

6. OBAMA HAS ALREADY LOST MY SUPPORT. HE'S WORKING

HIS WAY TO LOSING MY VOTE TOO.

[kenny blankenship]

7. I guess he's decided that since he won't fight them, he can preempt them

Won't the Republicans be confused! A Democrat President proposing Medicare and Social Security cuts--ooops I mean "savings". Hey Boehner! You can't demand that I cut Social Security and Medicare because I ALREADY DID, so now I demand that YOU concede to MY concession! Boehner won't know whether to shit orange poop or go blind. Obama will razzle dazzle them and then POW down goes Boehner.

All the Democrats rejoice in our chess playing President's triumph. The Awesomeness continues.

[kath]

9. FUCK. THAT. SHIT.

disgusting. :banghead: :banghead:

:puke:

[neverforget]

12. If he's serious and a Democrat, he'll propose tax increases, cuts

to the military and closing loopholes for corporations.

I expect to be disappointed.

[katnapped]

13. Oh, he'll PROPOSE those things

But since those people are his base, no way those will go anywhere past lip service. It's only us "little people" that need to "sacrifice" (since we've been living "high on the hog" for too long)

[mmonk]

14. I will not vote for any Democrat that goes along with this..

[kath]

15. No real Democrat would go along with this.

FDR rolls in his grave (along with my two union-organizer grandfathers). :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Ganja Ninja]

16. He's trying to out Republican the Republicans. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Is that called being a "fierce advocate"?

[GeorgeGist]

18. I'm willing to sacrifice ...

Obama, if he's all that standing between the ritch and the pitchforks.