While I can envision a deal that I would find acceptable that might ding Medicare benefits modestly, that’s highly theoretical and certainly not desirable. We would have to get a LOT of goodies in exchange for that, and the damage to actual Medicare recipients would have to almost non-existent for it to work for me. Basically, I’m talking about window-dressing here, just so the Republicans can save enough face to vote for the damn thing. Overall, there is no question that no deal is better than a bad deal. You can sign this petition that says that you will not support any deal that doesn’t increase taxes on the wealthy or that makes cuts to vital programs like Medicare or Social Security. That’s the position that Democracy for America is taking, and it’s the correct position. No one wants to go over the fiscal cliff, but there is no reason to make cuts to entitlements just to avoid it. If you think no deal is better than a bad deal, sign the petition.
Personally, I still doubt that John Boehner can get the votes for a good deal.
Broadly speaking, I agree.
Personally speaking, I have to say “sure, for those of you who aren’t seeing your extended unemployment benefits disappear if there’s no agreement. For me, no deal is a disaster.”
That’s a very important point that too many people glibly ignore.
You can’t negotiate with hostage takers. The only way to deal with a bully is stand up to him and call his bluff. The American people have got to see the truth about these SOBs. Let’s not provide them any more cover.
Well, I’m not being particularly prescient in echoing what every sensible observer has said, which is that it’s pretty clear we’ll go over the “cliff” so that everyone’s taxes go up and then the GOP can say they followed it with a tax cut, the contours of which are the substance of negotiations. I don’t see how that’s avoided, and there will be some economic pain from it.
I agree with your general tack, but I would also say that I don’t have any problems with reforms that cut cost through efficiency while retaining (or better, increasing) the level of care provided. I of course am thinking of the “Medicare cuts” in the Obamacare law that don’t cut services but make the system more efficient, etc.
Any discussion of the subject needs to be clear about if we are talking about diminishing services (e.g., raising the eligibility age) or cutting costs through efficiency. Maybe there’s not much more room at the moment for the latter as the Obamacare reforms are not fully implemented. I don’t know.
Yep. I’m hearing pretty reliable info that indicates that Boehner can’t sell a deal to his caucus.
Isn’t the idea that he only supplies ENOUGH votes, with the majority (entirety Democrats voting for it? I don’t think anyone expects him to supply 200 Republican votes.
I’m not sure I take the ‘let’s raise the age of medicare’ case seriously because of that. Setting the policy aside, politically it’s a disaster. The Republicans would campaign against the Democrats as ‘cutting’ medicare, and unlike when they did it against Obama, they would be correct. Democrats would absolutely lose the Senate, not retake the house for a generation, and probably lose the WH. That’s the whole Republican plan! So why would Obama leave that as his legacy? He wouldn’t.
Sorry to be telling everyone what they know, but the last thread was “OMG. The policy sucks.” Yes, it does. But politically it’s worse.
.
Boehner can’t pass something that relies on more Democrats than Republicans and remain Speaker.
Therein lies the rub.
So you are saying that IF the deal includes raising the age of Medicare, 200+ Republicans will vote for it.
Not a chance.
Quite the conundrum. I don’t see anything being done as a ‘grand bargain’. In fact, I wonder if Republicans even vote after Jan 1 to lower taxes on the middle class. Why would they?
Republicans do not care about lower taxes to the middle class.
Republicans do not care about jobs.
Republicans do not care about deficits.
Republicans do not really care about entitlement reform.
They only care about tax cuts to the wealthy. Or finding methods of throwing money to the wealthy.
.
He needs about 135 Republicans and as many as 83 Democrats. No easy task.
Yes, Boehner is not going to to take any plan to his caucus until after he is re-elected speaker in january. He is just going thru the motions with Obama until he is sure about his job. I don’t see how doing his job in 2013 is going to be any different than it is right now.
Have Democrats considered a dual proposal? As in, we’ll agree to proposal A if Republicans supply the majority of votes, but we will insist on proposal B (something more to Democrats’ liking) if it requires Democratic votes to pass.
Yeah, but the point about the long-term consequences is right on.
The ONLY way medicare “reform” should be part of the negotiations is if the GOP puts it on the table. They have to have their fingerprints all over it.
ICAM.
Let’s go off the damn cliff.
I’m going out on a limb here with my timing on the observation that we have been living under the thumb of the right wing boogeyman for the past 12 years. Everything we even consider on a daily basis is merely one step away from hell and damnation.
And here we sit, looking at deals that at best seem to be asking Americans to be happy just climbing back to square one.
What happened to looking for deals that make our lives better? That aim at making Medicare, for instance, something that will give our kids more than we hope to get?
The US wants to be all that it can be again, not just a country that scratches its way back to status quo. Time to reframe these arguments…
Could you please name me a time that the US wanted to ‘be all it could be’?
Look to Michigan. That is the America the average person ‘wants’.
.
Sure. The ’60’s. The movement west.Certainly during Clinton’s years spirits were lifted with the economy. My point is that we’ve become so accustomed to looking at everything through a lens of Fox News fear, NRA strangulation that we’ve lost the ability to expect more than the status quo.
I don’t want to pile on you, but the 60’s? Really? America was tring to be all it could be? Assassinating every politician they could get to, as long as they were Democrats?
The way west was us they to be our best? Yes, genocide was us trying to be our best.
Clinton years? Have you forgotten the ….. Impeachment? That was the reublicans and the national media trying to be their ‘best’?
Your playing a fools game. There is no time in our past where we tried to be better than what we are.
.
I don’t know. What about the Civil Rights Act, or Voting Rights Act, for example? The end of slavery? The New Deal?
You seem to be saying Republican=America. Of course we’ve always had more than our share of psychos, aholes, crooks, and morons, especially in public office. If you’re saying we turned our backs on opportunities that would have led to a hugely better country than we have now, I totally agree. But we have had our moments, no?
I’m not signing the petition because it focuses only on Medicare and SS and seems to ignore Medicaid, unemployment comp and other issues that are not just about seniors. I realize that’s not the intention, but lazering in on just those 2 programs seems to downgrade the importance of the rest.