ROFLMAO

Greg Sargent on the NYT report that Obama considered cutting Social Security to get Republican support for tax increases:

It’s hard to imagine that anyone could conclude that it would be a good idea to signal a willingness to entertain major changes to Social Securityat the outset, on the theory that it could induce Republicans to make concessions on tax cuts for the rich. So let’s presume this isn’t an indicator of what’s to come in the speech even in the most general sense.

Now that I’ve stopped laughing, I’ll say that I really, really hope Greg is right.

3 thoughts on “ROFLMAO

  1. Greg’s a reporter/analyst; he’s been observing Obama for longer than I have. And I know Obama is not out to help the non-wealthy of this nation.

    I know Obama has been lusting to accomplish what St. Ronnie could not, what no Republicans have been able to do: Fuck over SocSec. And he let that cat out of the bag back in 2007, startling Paul Krugman along with many of us on the left who were paying attention.

    He almost missed getting the Democratic nomination when he started out trash talking about SocSec, how it needed to be “fixed,” but he caught himself (or his advisers told him he had to lie) and he fudged and spun his words to the point voters believed he was going to make changes that helped them, not the wealthy.

    It’s too sad to laugh about, even bitterly.

    But, seriously, when a Democratic president gives the Republicans their cherished tax cuts for the Uberwealthy, along with low, low, low tax rates for hedgefund managers, and actually gives the Republicans even more than they dreamed they could get, why would any observant reporter even consider he doesn’t mean to give them a victory over SocSec?

    Republicans have hated SocSec since FDR proposed it; probably ever since they knew some politicians thought anything similar was a good idea (such as Bismarck). But they have not been able to really destroy it. St. Ronnie and Tip O’Neill managed to make millions of Americans receive lower SocSec payments by raising the age for full payout. (Full disclosure: I’ve just had to become one of them. When it became law that full SocSec wouldn’t be available until age 66, I thought no big deal. How hard could it be to work an extra year? Ah, yes, those innocent days when people were not routinely downsized due to, but not attributed to, age and higher “costs” of salaries and health insurance. And before high unemployment became the lamentable New Normal….)

    But now we have the DINO of all DINO’s, the Republican Trojan Horse president, someone who ran as a Democrat because that’s the way to get elected in Chicago and if you’re black. And, then, we lucky duckies got him as our president, during a true crisis, when we really needed a 21st Century FDR. And we got…Hoover (except Hoover’s failed presidency was truly tragic, because he did know how to do things well and did amazing famine relief during WWI to save millions in Europe; alas, he then fell victim to austerians’ false counsel and may have believed them to be the right thing to do. Obama? There were hints and warnings; be he lied in his speeches, in his promises.)

    So, what’s your excuse, Greg? If Obama did not want to give away SocSec he would never have mentioned it to begin with. It is solid, it is safe, it is funded. So, why’s Obama doing this?

    Because it’s what he wants to accomplish. The change he wants to bring to the American people. He’s got true wealth in his future, as long as he meets the requirements of the Uberwealthy and corporatists. He will not depend on SocSec or Medicare.

    Grrrrrrrr.

  2. Consider closely these closing words from Obama’s primaries victory speech:

    America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love. (My emphasis)

    Who thought then that turning the page on policies meant back to…pre-FDR times? That budget cuts might take regulation back to pre-Teddy Roosevelt times? That the new ideas would be from the Heritage Foundation and Grover Norquist? That changing direction meant going backwards on social policies? And backwards on civil liberties? And keeping Bush/Cheney ideas of the Unitary Executive? And all war all the time?

    The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

    Oh, the irony, it burns. Oh, the pain of lost opportunities, it will damage ourselves, our children, our grandchidren…our plantet and all living things.

Comments are closed.