Obama: Social Security & Medicare cuts are “very much (back) on the table”

It’s Tuesday, and Barack Obama has betrayed us again. And by “us” I mean not just progressives (of whom he is not), but also Democrats, the party that sells itself as the party of Roosevelt, Johnson and Kennedy. Of that party he also is not, except nominally.

Barack Obama is not a Democrat, he’s a “NeoDem,” in the same sense that Tony Blair isn’t Labour, he’s “New Labour.” New Labour means “not Labour” (memorize that) except for the deceptive candy coating. NeoDems are not Democrats; they’re servants of the wealthy. You know, just like Roosevelt, only … not.

It’s Tuesday, and Barack Obama has put Roosevelt’s Social Security and Johnson’s Medicare “back on the table” in the next round of Pete Peterson–sponsored “budget negotiations.” (Peterson should get naming rights. The “Peter Peterson Budget Negotiations” — brought to you by Starbucks, Whole Foods, and the people who put oil in your car; click to see their special sponsorship deal.)

From Obama’s most recent press conference (emphasis and square-bracket comments mine):

The proposals that I put forward during the fiscal cliff negotiations in discussions with Speaker Boehner and others are still very much on the table.  I just want to repeat:  The deals that I put forward, the balanced approach of spending cuts and entitlement reform and tax reform that I put forward are still on the table.

I’ve offered sensible reforms to Medicare and other entitlements, and my health care proposals achieve the same amount of savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms that have been proposed by the [my hand-picked] bipartisan Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission.

Not just on the table — very much on the table. He’s eager. There’s even some laughing and joking at this point with the cameramen. I don’t have the heart to quote it, but it’s in the official transcript.

It’s Tuesday, and Barack Obama has betrayed us again. Not this Obama:

That Obama was the happy by-product of a deceptive ad campaign (the 2008 presidential election) and much youthful optimism in kids of all ages. They were badly snookered, weren’t they, and many of them now know it.

I mean this Obama, the one who isn’t at all as he represents himself. Deeply deceptive Obama. Can’t-be-trusted Obama. Legacy-library Obama. Library-fundseeking Obama. NAFTA-on-steroids Obama. Keystone-is-next Obama.

Obama, Prince of Drones. That Obama — the one with all the exploitable vulnerabilities. (About that, if you threaten what a man wants, you will have his serious attention, and serious desire to trade.)

It’s Tuesday, and Barack Obama has betrayed us again. He’s playing hardball with us. Can we not at least return the favor? I’ve taken a vote here at La Maison, and the results are in. All of me agrees — Yes We Can. I know I’m not alone — many real progressives are with us. This really is a bridge too far, this kill-the-Roosevelt-legacy, even for many of the recently-dazzled by stardust and pixie fog.

There are ways to get at this, and many are working it. As I’ve said many times, their hubris is our friend, including Obama’s. All we need to be is bold, un-fogged, and willing to rinse that pixie dust from the eyes of our otherwise-progressive friends. This is miles from over.

Still, it’s Tuesday …


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

102 Responses to “Obama: Social Security & Medicare cuts are “very much (back) on the table””

  1. max espinoza says:

    The same people who created the term “entitlements”, are the same folks who created the term “Obamacare.” So why do progressives adopt and repeat these terms as if they’re actual terms…Also: The cuts are aimed at pharmaceutical costs and hospital fees…Things that single payer would have fixed. Why do some of my fellow liberals like to repeat the GOP’s half-assed terms and facts..?

  2. It is something that shouldn’t happen with people, Medicare & Social Security cuts are not acceptable. I would like to say people must oppose it……. http://bit.ly/Y5c2sz

  3. Sweetie says:

    “It really means you are entitled to the benefits promised due to the money you paid in.”

    Which is precisely why they use the word entitlement not investment.

  4. karmanot says:

    “Do you think the DC Police and Park Rangers will tear gas and beat on this group?” Yes

  5. butch1 says:

    Will he consider us “Enemies of the State” or “terrorists” worthy of assassination?

    (What is with Discus? I have to Pick a name and type in my email address each and every time now. This is getting tedious.)

  6. Ford Prefect says:

    I wouldn’t say he’s “lousy” as much as Corrupt, defined as “Corruption As Duplicitous Exclusion.” But this time, such “liberal” notables as Barbara Boxer also opposed filibuster reform that would have dealt with the obstruction problem. The reason, of course, is they need the cover the GOP provides them to enact horrible policies.

    So too in the House, Speaker Pelosi violated everything she said during the ’06 and ’08 campaigns by letting the Minority GOP have their way on way too many items, all in the name of buy-partisanship. “Oh, they had us over a barrel,” she would say. Uh huh. Her brutal shenanigans over the War Supplementals were staggering… not to mention edifying as to her intent. As for PPACA, we’re already finding out how terrible that package is and it’s not even 2014 yet.

    The Dems had a window of opportunity to do things that would have guaranteed their electoral success for many a cycle, but that kind of success wasn’t what they were after, apparently. Had they created 10 million jobs, reformed the banks (and prosecuted them for fraud), an Army of Koch Bros. would not have made much difference. And all of that was perfectly doable… they simply chose not to do any of them.

    So I stand by the “sell out” narrative, because it’s the only plausible one left. When Honorable (I mean that, not snark!) Jeff Merkley of Oregon lifted the veil on the filibuster machinations, he did us all a huge favor. It’s the best example of how Democrats operate in DC today. They govern by a dystopian ideology and it shows.

  7. Owen Johnson says:

    Yes, I agree. Harry Reid is a lousy Majority Leader. He should be using his bully pulpit, not caving to McConnell every time. If it weren’t for the ridiculous filibuster rules, things would be passed by the Democratic majority every day. (It would be interesting to see what corporations and special interest groups have funded his campaigns.) However, then you have Boehner & Co stopping anything the Senate does pass.

  8. Ford Prefect says:

    There is one problem with your thesis: You leave out the fact the Senate Dems gave the GOP the 60-vote rule. So one the one hand, you’re correct the Dems didn’t have that much control, but that’s only because they ceded their majority position to the GOP. Harry Reid & Co. made damn sure very little of value could get through the Senate and they just did it again with their bogus “deal” with the GOP.

    When Dems have a majority and refuse to rule as if they are in the majority, that’s their fault and no one else’s.

  9. htfd says:

    Me too. I voted Green. What I’m waiting for is the Seniors, cane, Walker, Crutches, wheelchair, scooter, electric cart birgade to start marching on the White House in mass regarding cuts. Do you think the DC Police and Park Rangers will tear gas and beat on this group? This would give Obama a lot more bad press than Bloomberg got.

  10. Owen Johnson says:

    Ford, I’ll say it again: The Democrats did NOT have a majority in both houses for two years. It was much less than that amount of time and when they did have control, we got the ACA. Less than what a lot of us wanted, but better than nothing.
    Whether it’s pointless to conjecture on what might have happened under different circumstances is your opinion, not fact. In reality, you are rationalizing to support your thought that it’s all been a sell-out.

  11. Owen Johnson says:

    The common statement that the Democrats controlled both houses for two years is a myth. It was actually a lot less, thanks to Ted Kennedy’s illness and death and the long illness of one of the older Democratic members of the Senate. And the delay in swearing in of Al Franken, thanks to Republican efforts. I wish people would get their facts straight before claiming myth as fact.

  12. Ford Prefect says:

    Agreed. But sometimes I just can’t resist the urge to say NO very loudly.

  13. condew says:

    Trolls are nasty creatures, a lot like skunks; they stink the place up and stir discontent.

    But far worse is the provocateur, who is more like a disease; a foreign influence that would turn a body against itself, cripple it, or have it waste energy on unproductive pursuits.

  14. hollywoodstein says:

    I’ve been a broken record that Obama is Ronald Reagan Jr. except that Boehner is no Tip O’Neil. And the gay community is like the evangelicals getting led around by the nose on their special interests in order to provide the election support needed to dismantle the New Deal. Yes, our checkbooks forced Team O against their preferred political calculations to throw us some bones, so they could have another term to take a few more bites at the apple for the Big Grift a la Simpson-Bowles.

    It’s really simple, we should address the jobs crisis, raise the income cap for SS, increase benefits, and lower the retirement age, rein in health care costs, and yet we are talking about debt, and deficits, deficits and debt. Our politics is broken. The majority of the American people wants real reform, but all we can hear is the media consensus of what the 1 percent wants, which is to screw the American people.
    Well we did manage to get the bread and circuses of DADT repeal, a tepid states right approach endorsement of same sex marriage, and a party invitation, which was enough for some here. So there’s that.

  15. Ford Prefect says:

    No. No. No. Who, after all, is “protecting us from the Republicans” now? It’s certainly not the Dems is it? Progressives have been quiet little sheep, selling out to the Neo-Liberal wing of the party every step of the way. They’re not “bailing,” they’re selling out, okay?

    Also, stop with the purity drivel. That got old circa mid-2009. It was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now. The only reason the Democrats are still viable as a party is precisely because “liberals” and “progressives” refuse to bolt the party. Our reward for such loyalty? The loss of all our rights as human beings and citizens, permanent war and so on.

    Purity my ass.

  16. Butch1 says:

    Clinton, our wonder friend of the gays who had to wait to sign DADT and DOMA bills in the dark of night because even he was ashamed of signing them in the light of day.

    This is another example of where “our protector’s,” the democratic party have gone and left us and then pretend to be liberals fighting for our Safety Net and other liberal causes when in reality, they are no better than the republicans, just sneakier about doing the dirty work of screwing us all. This party does NOT represent us anymore and never will. We need to let them know we are on to them and that we are going to withdraw our support. Their leaders are liars and have continued to stab us in the back whenever they have had the chance especially when the issues have been important. They always come up with an excuse. Sen. Reid did NOT have one this time for his betrayal of the super-majority lie he promised us he would get rid of. He just flat out lied and pretty much thumbed his nose at us without any excuse. His implied response to us like his party was “What are YOU going to do about it?” “We are all that you’ve got; are you going to choose the other guy?” Well I’ve got news for him and his party. If the people will wake up and start looking into third parties and start sinking their money there, I mean the rich democrats start really helping us all out and just cut bait with the democrats and find a third party e.g. Green Party, Justice Party, Any Party but the democratic party that will remove this corporate run rich person’s party that does NOT have the common man represented anymore and actually wants to gut Social Security and Medicare just like the republicans, then we need to do it and we need to start now in stopping this arrogant bunch of asses who think they own us and have our votes all locked up forever.

  17. condew says:

    I really don’t see any other mechanism besides politics.

  18. condew says:

    I understand the frustration of all those posting below about abandoning the Democratic party and supporting some third party (well maybe most of them are trolls); but since Republicans always seem to be just a few votes shy of making elections moot from this point on, I must ask who will protect us from the Republicans while we are in disarray, picking a new party banner and new leaders? By the time any third party is strong enough to challenge Republicans on anything, the courts will be fully stacked against them and they will be gerrymandered to an even greater disadvantage than Democrats are now. It’s just not feasible.

    If Progressives worked within the Democratic party the way the tea party worked within the Republican party; if Liberals didn’t just bail every time they found out their candidate wasn’t as pure as the driven snow, then maybe we’d be taken seriously.

  19. Ford Prefect says:

    True dat. It’s a sad realization, isn’t it?

  20. Ford Prefect says:

    Indeed! His speeches resonate now as much as they did back then. How fucking sad is it that we’ve collectively forgotten everything we learned 70 years ago?

  21. the_rebis says:

    Where’s the big organizations like NAACP, La Raza, et.al.?

  22. karmanot says:

    Very like!

  23. karmanot says:

    Obama is the result of the Clinton genius PR machine and this country fell for it.

  24. karmanot says:

    And brother Boehner

  25. karmanot says:

    “This blood thirsty over-reaching president” “This man needs to be impeached.” Absolutely!

  26. dula says:

    These are just more lesser-of-two-evils steps backward for the nation. The Democratic electorate has decided to vote for it because real change is chaotic and most voters are doing well enough with our from of government (predatory Capitalism) and won’t consider the pain of change. Like any addict, the US has to hit economic bottom before we are willing to admit our nation has become unmanageable/unsustainable. Change will probably have to come from lower income people because anybody doing well enough won’t risk it…especially so called “liberal” leaders on the TV/radio who have their dream job$. You notice they never get all that upset about anything. They are always ready to get the vote out for neoliberalism regardless of what happened the day before.

  27. Butch1 says:

    I’m beginning to think so. I at least have a clear conscience since I did NOT vote for this liar this time. I wasn’t going to be deceived by his carnival act this time around. “Once bitten; twice shy.”

  28. Butch1 says:

    Then he should stand with him if he ever is brought up for war crimes.

  29. htfd says:

    Think again, Obama is further right than some of the crazy Tea Party people.

  30. VictorGNYC says:

    Tell the motherfucker to tax the church, and if you need a good reason, see the next story about the Catholic Church enslaving women in Ireland.
    Actually I believe that all non-profits should give up their tax exempt status and the US would have money to burn.

  31. htfd says:

    But he fits in so well with the rest of Obama’s Administration.

  32. htfd says:

    I do so agree with you.

  33. htfd says:

    You mean Glen Beck tears.

  34. htfd says:

    With one exception, to recognize what is repeating itself.

  35. htfd says:

    Obama-care. A Republican plan health care system and the end to don’t ask don’t tell. Of the two the only one of merit is dadt.

  36. htfd says:

    If Obama had bit the bullet when the Bush Tax Cuts first came up for renewal and pushed for their repeal none of this would have been happening. Remember his excuse for caving (the man always has an excuse). Sure Congress would have said the unemployment extensions and the cuts to the payroll taxes wouldn’t have been renewed. Think; there is no way the Republicans would have blocked the unemployment extensions, not with an election looming in the very near future. The cutting of the payroll taxes gave little to the worker but big time to the employer and helped shrink the income coming into Social Security and Medicare. For things to have been different it would have taken a Democrat Congress under Pelosi’s tool-age to have investigate the Bush administration which would have lead to many insights to things to come 3 years down the road, perhaps even avoidance of many. Got that Democrats brought this on themseves. Obama inherited what he should have investigated and looked for solutions not cover ups and give aways to his chosen.

  37. htfd says:

    “An election cannot give
    a country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national
    parties which merely have different names, but are as alike in their
    principles and aims as two peas in the same pod.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt

  38. htfd says:

    Yes and No. If Romney had been elected the Obama cheer leader, house party idiot people would be actively raking Romney over hot coals and picking ever last word and deed to pieces. Romney would be facing the music on Kill List, Indefinite Detention, Drone Killings, Spying on USC’s, no jail time for the crooks that wrecked the economy, no investigation of the torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity, exceeding presidential authority as granted by the Constitution. Even the way Romney ties his shoes would be scrutinized. Instead we have Obama Apologists who won’t lift a finger or vowel to stop this catastrophe that is taking place. Compared to Obama, Richard Nixon was a saint. Just so I don’t called a Republican plant, I’m a Democrat that voted Green.

  39. FunMe says:

    Is this what has replaced?
    – “Stop being selfish”

    – “You can’t always get your pony”

    – “Have patience, it’s only been ___ months”


  40. htfd says:

    It is time to think impeachment of a President that has exceeded his authority in many ways.

  41. Butch1 says:

    So, we murder 16 yr olds because of the sins of the father. What an ass Robert Gibbs is to have made such a weak excuse for taking the life of a 16 yr old boy with a drone missile ordered by Obama. This man deserves to be tried for war crimes by his own country!!

  42. Butch1 says:

    I know the drones have made him blood thirsty.

  43. PJ. Wilcox says:

    If you work and your employer takes out social security it goes into a fund for our retirement correct. Well I have been paying into this since the 60s. I paid in and now I understand that the fund is broke. Where did my money go? Who got it? I remember some politicians borrowed it with promises to pay it back but did not get re elected. So now I am on the hook, do I qualify for a bailout like the banks got? AIG, GM, and many more got help but I got screwed. You can bet your ass if the politicians had Medicare there would be no cuts. They don’t need social security cuz they have a kick ass pension. What do I have. Imagine RIP Ed Koch lived in a rent controlled apartment in west village and he even has his tomb in one of the last graveyards in NYC. it’s to bad all the ones that want to screw my life up can’t be buried along side our dear Mr Koch. I mean bury the bastards now.

  44. ezpz says:

    Ryan Grim (on the killing of 16 year old American born, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki):

    “WASHINGTON — A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike “should have [had] a far more responsible father,” Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change….

    “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business,” Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, told the interviewer from We Are Change, when asked to justify “an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial — and, he’s underage, he’s a minor.”…



  45. ezpz says:

    Not so moderate at all. He’s to the right of Bush/Cheney, something I never thought was possible.

    As for the GOP not wanting him, it may be for a different reason than not being right enough.

  46. ezpz says:

    Yes, and 0bama’s use of the word is as you describe in your first sentence.

  47. Butch1 says:

    And he targeted that 16 year old son of an alleged “terrorist” who actually was driving his cousin to pick up his aunt to go to a wedding. First, they deny it, then they called it collateral damage, then Carney says it may or may not have happened.

    Sorry, I do not like little White House parlor euphemistic word games to describe drone murders played out by young soldiers barely out of their high-school pimples and safely 2 or 3,000 miles away from the carnage where they do not have to see the blood splattering in all the directions as a result from their actions. All they have to do is fly the damned things back to the base and push the “reset” button for the next kill order from Obama. This blood thirsty over-reaching president needs to be pulled back in line by the Congress and they had better do their job very soon. This man needs to be impeached and brought up on war crimes in my opinion.

  48. Butch1 says:

    We knew when Obama idolized Reagan that something was wrong with him. He’s a moderate republican. The GOP doesn’t want him because he isn’t a far right-winger.

  49. Butch1 says:

    Some of us have been saying this all along that he has never been a democrat. He is nothing but a liar and he is nothing but a moderate republican. Social Security and Medicare have always been his target as well as Nancy Pelosi’s and Reid’s. They both are nothing more than Blue-Dog democrats and never have been liberals. When will people stop believing their lying faces? Start supporting third parties and cut off these liar’s money and support. They need an ultimatum and they need it loud and absolutely clear. If they do not pay attention, get rid of all of them that are coming up for re-election in two years! Then get rid of the next bunch in the next two years! We really need third party patriots filling these positions. The democrats have proven time again that they are traitors to us. Just look at Reid, Pelosi and Obama and that should be enough for us to start voting for a new party. This one is diseased and needed to be put out of its misery.

  50. Mac and Sandy says:

    Sigh… I feel like we’re all screwed ; me with SSA; the targeted assassination programs; the post office,we’re all under attack, the budget sequestration
    Lately I’ve been talking to the Lyndon LaRouche people who stand on the street corners – feeling like I need to be doing more… but what???

  51. Ford Prefect says:

    Yep. I angered a few people in suggesting his tears were of the crocodile variety, since he kills innocent children every week. He launches a Newtown every few days, it seems.

  52. karmanot says:

    The most recent edition of The Nation has an excellent article on what’s it’s like being homeless for the elderly in S.F., especially women. Worth noting are the comments of S.F.’s Homeless Czar, a truly heartfelt fierce (D) advocate, who just can’t seem to get anything done,. but he talks an eloquent line—just like his hero Obama. Obots make me sick.

  53. karmanot says:

    What drivel! “nothing more he can do if his tools are little”. Got that part right at least.

  54. karmanot says:

    WTF are you talking about?

  55. karmanot says:

    At this point it’s worth entertaining as a quickening of the distopia.

  56. karmanot says:

    But he cried real human tears over the Newtown massacre, so he must be a good guy………… oh, forgot about the drones that kill ‘those’ children.

  57. karmanot says:

    Sacs of bribe money Goldman rings a bell.

  58. karmanot says:

    “He is nagged CONSTANTLY by social media, the news on t.v. and radio. EVERY DAY people just nit-picking at EVERYTHING about him.” LEAVE OBOZO ALONE!

  59. lynchie says:

    But raping the poor and elderly so the rich can go on living the rich life makes no sense. In terms of what sacrifices i will be willing to make–i will do my share but we are all in this together. When the rich contribute and don’t expect special favors lower taxes and we give up proportionately more than they do then we can talk. If you are saying his promises in 2008 were only wishes and he would do nothing to work to accomplish them I don’t buy it. He said many things we have all listed the wishes and the few he made are largely inconsequential. You offered a measured validation of why nothing was done and then ask me for a plan of action. I did not run on Hope and Change, Obama did. He has not been transparent in his actions. He is the President and I expected him to stand in front of America and clearly tell us what he wants to accomplish and how that is being stymied, and if necessary to do it week after week until it begins to happen. All we have been given are his big Anthem speeches, his impersonation of Martin Luther King and no action, no plan and no result.

  60. silas1898 says:

    “Entitlement” has taken on the meaning of money for nothing which is BS.

    It really means you are entitled to the benefits promised due to the money you paid in.

  61. Bill_Perdue says:

    Not if it’s some sort of ‘progressive’ or pale green party. Workers will be attacked to a Socialist or a Labor Party.

  62. Bill_Perdue says:

    He won’t be good for LGBT folks until he successfully campaigns for the passage of a robust ENDA and an inclusive CRA and until he successfully leads a campaign to repeal Bill Clinton’s DOMA.

  63. Bill_Perdue says:

    People who voted for or supported Obama betrayed us all.

    Workers will never begin to get a fair shake until they abandon the Democrats and Republicans and their two party shell game. What will lead to victory are militant mass actions campaigns for a socialist program.

  64. pappyvet says:

    During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied.

    To solve our problems off the backs of the poor and elderly, is economic treason. Banana republic here we come.

  65. HerArmyHisNavy says:

    What result are we looking for in eight years? How big of an impact on a history of bad government decisions are we expecting him to make? There was never any real smoke screen, a man proposes what he wishes to push for and then works toward that goal. He does what he can with what he is given, there is nothing more he can do if his tools are little and he is not being worked with. Things take time. It should be obvious, by now, that there is no quick fix for any of the problems this country is having. It’s all trial and error and it all takes time. My view in this is forced neutral. No matter what the circumstance is there will always be a complaint, never a suggestion for a viable course of action that the current person in the presidential seat (no matter who they happen to be) can apply. Just complaints. Propose a plan of action that does not begin and end with “Get them out of the WH/Never should have voted for them!”, throw them an idea. It is more than possible for the public to see this from an angle that they just do not/overlooked. Say something. What is it that you propose can be done about our current issues? How much do you believe it will take to make them happen? What sacrifices are you willing to make to bring this country into financial health? How long do you think this will take to fix the issue? And better yet, will you need full support from the government? How long do you think you can apply this plan before the public starts demanding immediate results? Are you idiotic enough to think that the public will not slam your name the way they slam the person in the presidential seat?

    You can’t make everyone happy and you can’t get everyone to comply. Someone’s got to be mad. Something’s got to be sacrificed even if only for a moment.

  66. Ford Prefect says:

    Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so there’s that. More importantly though, it’s the same thing with both parties: 1) Make toxic, traitorous policies that violate the constitution and then, 2) hyperventilate about the Other Guy getting that power and why that’s so terribly wrong.

    Example: BO loves his illegal drones, but was terribly concerned that Mittens might gain the use of them after if he won the election. The horror!

  67. ezpz says:

    Yes, that noble Nobel Peace Prize, where his acceptance speech was an Orwellian infomercial for more war — perpetual war!

  68. BeccaM says:

    Remember when the public debate wasn’t about how much needed to be cut, how much less our poor, our elderly, and our disabled will have to make do with, but how was the best way we, America, the richest nation on the planet, would set itself to eliminating poverty in our lifetime?

    Well, I’m guessing many of you aren’t old enough to remember that, but that’s what we as a society were proposing in the 1960s. Not just the preservation of New Deal and Great Society programs, while slowly eroding them piece by piece. But the creation of a whole new social order based on the principles that no one should go without shelter, food, medicine, education and the fulfillment of basic needs.

    Now, every debate is about what we can’t do, can’t afford, do not wish to bestir ourselves to deal with, and the elevation of selfishness as a virtue.

    It’s not enough for us to say “this is intolerable.” If we want progressive, humanist, compassionate policies from our government, we need to ensure that men like Obama, Romney, McCain, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan are never elected again, nor given the chance to win. The cult of ‘Lesser Evilism’ needs to come to an end first.

  69. karmanot says:

    Yep, Just ask Hannah Arendt .

  70. karmanot says:

    Let’s go full existential reality : “The Table Itself.”

  71. karmanot says:

    Oh please, No we didn’t forget. Some of us didn’t vote for the bastard.

  72. lynchie says:

    He already has it. Remember the Noble Prize for Peace a cool million $

  73. lynchie says:

    At no time did you address the point of this post. It was Obama offering up SS and Medicare to be gutted. I am tired of hearing what he inherited we are 4 years out and other that cave to the right he has done a few things. If he did not thing he would be under a microscope then he is more of an idiot that i think he is. The point is he is like all the 1% he has his and is prepared to offer up the poor and the elderly to allow increased tax reduction for the rich. Finally you think Obama does not accept lobbying money–better look at the money received in the last election they are all guilty.

  74. karmanot says:

    Who knew? The wing-nuts were right about O’B. Cheney was the architect of many of these tools—starting the the concept of the unitary presidency during the Nixon reign.

  75. karmanot says:

    Got that right! That’s why I voted against O’Bummer. We have been shouting out this fiasco for several years now, but the fantasy of a better lesser evil was so ‘change’ and ‘hopeful.’

  76. Mike Meyer says:

    Third Party, Folks.

  77. perljammer says:

    Hmm. “Betrayed us again” implies that he stopped the betrayal for some period of time. With respect to this issue, I don’t believe this is true.

    Is the difference between “on the table” and “very much on the table” similar to the difference between “a little bit pregnant” and “very much pregnant”?

  78. ezpz says:

    No, he’s NOT the lesser evil. As many have already said (though not so much here), he’s the “more effective evil”.

  79. Ford Prefect says:

    Well, the Dems had both houses for two years and what did they accomplish? Nothing common people can point to as “good.” Those two years are all the evidence one needs to show how duplicitous and corrupt the Democratic Party is. Now, even Nancy Pelosi and the CPC are all about a “New era of Austerity.”

    Obama is plenty forceful about what he wants. He’s only “weak” on things wanted by those who voted for him. Those two things could not be more different. “Different circumstances,” then, means, “An alternate reality in which everything is totally different and Obama is the mirror opposite of himself.”

    It’s pointless to wonder about such things. It’s just a way of rationalizing a bunch of BS that has no connection to reality. As such, it serves no purpose.

  80. Ford Prefect says:

    For someone who doesn’t like Dear Leader, you sure do the apologia rather well!

    1) Don’t celebrate lower spending, because it’s bad economics and contributes to higher unemployment for starters. His spending priorities are making us all poorer, so that’s not something to crow about. It’s something to object to!

    2) Don’t bother blaming congress over the WH. They both share equally in the sausage-making and Obama always gets what he wants from congress.

    What’s happening isn’t negligence. It’s ideology. Both parties share the same ideology and it’s a very dystopian world-view.

  81. vonlmo says:

    Obama is & always has been the Republican Party’s best friend. He has rescued them time & time again. But what is to be done? We all knew he was the lesser of 2 evils. And, as Progressives will always tell you, he’s good for the gays.

  82. ezpz says:

    That he refers to Medicare and Social Security as “entitlements” tells you all you need to know. He has ALWAYS called them entitlements. Anyone who was paying attention would know that..

  83. ezpz says:

    Back on the table? I don’t think it ever came off the table, duplicitous rhetoric notwithstanding.

  84. ezpz says:

    Actually, I don’t think Romney would have done this, as there would have been too much of an outcry against a republican trying to gut the safety net, just as there was when Bush took his SS/Medicare privatization show on the road. The protest voices at the time were so loud that he folded up tent and went home.

    0bama, OTOH, wears the D label, so the bots just go along. Same thing with his assassination program.

  85. jomicur says:

    The Democrats controlled both houses of congress for the first two years of Obama’s first term. How much progressive legislation (“hope and change”) did we get?

  86. Chris Foster says:

    GOP doesn’t care either. Aren’t they what got us here in the first place?

    I don’t like Obama. But if you look at overall spending, it’s actually gone down compared to Bush’s.
    Herbert Hoover even spent more than Obama.
    Spending has been on a slight incline since the 50s (Korean war I think).
    In 2009, spending increased 17.9% under Bush, his last year in office. Think about 17.9%.
    That’s $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion right?
    Here’s the FACTS: From the GOVERNMENT’S WEBSITE!

    In fiscal 2010, the first budget under Obama, spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion
    It rose again in later years.
    In 2013, it fell again – 1.3% to $3.58 trillion
    Over all, if it’s all calculated, over his 4 years – he’s only expected to increase spending by .4%. Go to that website I linked, I DARE YOU to read before you talk again. Because at least THEN you will KNOW you are lying.

    Before Obama even got to do a SINGLE thing, the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. What, spending was expected to increase just because we assumed he was going to be a big spender? Assumptions made on what aspect of him? Because without him being in office, you have NOTHING to back that assumption off of other than appearances (here I’ll say it for you – black).

    He is nagged CONSTANTLY by social media, the news on t.v. and radio. EVERY DAY people just nit-picking at EVERYTHING about him. There’s the pictures about him holding a gun – everyone assumes it’s fake now. There’s the birth certificate issues. If he’s the president, don’t you think the country would have looked into him being a citizen before he was elected?

    I wish people would do their research.
    And if the next president is Republican, juuuuusssst wait. He’ll increase military spendings AGAIN and NO ONE will say sh!t to him because he’s white. I bet you anything.
    For the record, I am white. I just see the complete IGNORANCE in people.
    It’s like they ONLY look to the president to blame problems at, when no president we’ve had has controlled the government alone.

    You DO remember there’s congress right? Who accepts lobbying money to vote certain ways, and doesn’t do ANYTHING to help our budget. Their negligence only injures our spendings more.

  87. MichaelS says:

    Let us all do well to remember that this “progressive” Obama (the media is now calling him “liberal”) is also the same man who signed into law the end of habeus corpus, and whose justice department has also now justified the legal power for him to assassinate any American citizen without due process, without even the opportunity for that citizen to surrender, or even to hear the charges against him (even if they were false). Gutting the safety net is a cakewalk by comparison.

    The precedent he is setting up for the next Republican to take office is chilling… what would Cheney have done with these tools?…

  88. gregorylent says:

    obama’s gift to me, and perhaps to the “american people”, is the realization that politics is not where change comes from.

    route around.

  89. Owen Johnson says:

    I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here, so don’t anybody jump me or say I’m stupid, okay? So, let’s consider: Would SS and Medicare cuts (or “reforms”) be on the table if Obama had a cooperative Congress, a Democrat-controlled Congress? If he had been able to get the tax rates back to the Clinton era rates, would we even have to think about entitlement cuts? If he and the Democrats really thought they could get through cuts to corporate entitlements, would they be going after cuts to oil subsidies instead of talking about worsening the economy and starving people? If Obama had been (able to be) more forceful in his first term, would we even be looking at what we’re seeing now? If the filibuster hadn’t been so easy for the Senate Republicans would we have millions more people working and paying taxes today instead of having to extend unemployment benefits? What if the banking debacles and blood-sucking economy Obama inherited hadn’t happened before he got there?

    While I’m about as disappointed in Obama’s seeming smokescreens as the next guy, my point is it’s hard to say how things might have been very different under different circumstances.

  90. Lorna Keith says:

    The only “entitlements” that should be cut are those to the wealthy and to military corporations. Cuts to Medicare and Social Security would only result on the Government welching on what they owe to the SS fund.

  91. As long as our public servants take big bribes called campaign finance donations we will not have a government responsive to the people. Send our Reps to Rehab.

  92. Blogvader says:

    No, I’m saying that Obama’s doing what Romney would have done, so there is no benefit in voting for Obama.

  93. Blogvader says:

    Obama doesn’t get to lecture people on morality, not after furthering the excesses of Bush’s War on Terror, giving in on tax cuts (while cutting everything else), expanding Guantanamo and the surveillance state, imprisoning whistleblowers, and finally admitting that secret CIA prisons exist.



  94. Blogvader says:

    I agree, Nicho.

    The consensus between the Democrats and the Republicans far outweighs the benefit we may see from voting for the so-called ‘lesser of two evils’, and this is a clear example of it.

    You have a Democratic president fully willing to gut one of the greatest advances in American society just so he can latch onto a Clintonian legacy of “bipartisanship” (*spits*) and in doing so saddle the poor and elderly with paying for all of the nation building and tax cuts that piled up our debt over the last thirty years.

    Whether Romney was worse is inconsequential, because Obama’s doing exactly as Romney would have done.

  95. nicho says:

    Yup. This is just what the GOP needs to make themselves a dominant party again. People will want change. It won’t matter whether the change is for the better or worse. People will be looking for different.

  96. HoldenLitgo says:

    How quickly some forget the morality he ran against in 2012.

  97. nicho says:

    Nope — we’ve reached a point where “better” and “worse” are meaningless. Is the flu better or worse than food poisoning?

  98. canucanoe2 says:

    Are you saying Romney was a better choice?

  99. Blogvader says:


    All of the Obama sycophants on here should remind us why voting for Obama was such a moral imperative. I suppose they were just napping during those many instances where Obama thumbed his nose at us during his first term.

    Now there’s nothing to hold him accountable.

  100. If he does this, 2014 will make 2010 look like happy times for the Dems.

  101. GaiusPublius says:

    Barack is going to get his; I think he’s angling for Clinton’s thank-you money.


  102. nicho says:

    But, hey, the other guy was worse — or something. You can kiss the middle class goodbye. Barry’s got his – screw you.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS