If you have "no place to go," come here!

Not your father's Democratic party

DCblogger's picture

Defend It

It shouldn't be too hard to defend the programs you're associated with when those programs are incredibly popular, but for some reason it is. I just can't fathom how Dem House candidates don't run a billion ads talking about how their opponents want to cut SocialSecurityAndMedicare, but instead lost the last election because those Galtian Tea Partiers ran on how *their* opponents cut Medicare.

Yes the Medicare cuts weren't cuts to beneficiaries so they shouldn't be anything liberals get upset about, but that the Dems can't make the politics of this stuff win for them is infuriating.
by Atrios at 12:56

Because those programs are not popular with Goldman Sachs, Pete Peterson, or other major contributors. This is not your father's Democratic party. This is not the party of Social Security and Medicare. This is the Democratic Party of NAFTA, mandatory jail terms, welfare deform, school deform, and pension theft. You are not their constituents, you are their marks.

Even if you can't elect candidates from emergent parties, at least don't support the people who are defrauding you.

Average: 5 (2 votes)


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

any number of cuts have/are in the President's Budgets. So it is rather dicey to run against Republicans on this issue.

And regarding some of the cuts that aren't directly paid for by Medicare beneficiaries--they can be passed on to the consumer.

Another special interest tries to wriggle out of paying for Obamacare

Now that the medical device industry appears to be on the verge of snaking out from under its ObamaCare-related tax, another industry lobby has stepped up to the plate with the words, "Us too!" . . .

They say the premium tax, which is designed to produce as much as $100 billion in revenue over 10 years, will add 2% to 3% to the costs of premiums in the individual and small-employer markets. (Self-insured policies, which are what most large employers have, aren't affected.)

The industry observes that while the premium tax technically is levied on insurers, they're sure to pass it on to customers. . . .

So I would like to see the Dems at least attempt to repeal and replace the ACA--with MFA--rather than try to defend it.

IMHO it will be a losing battle to attempt to defend the program, since I imagine that there will be many other "shoes to drop" in the months to come.


Barmitt O'Bamney's picture
Submitted by Barmitt O'Bamney on

The collapse is so complete that in the past few days, we've witnessed the House Democrats agree to nearly all of the Ryan Budget. Sequestration-level austerity is imposed on Federal discretionary spending in perpetuity and there is not one post about it on the front page of FDL. The well of outrage is finally dry. No one expects anything but betrayal and capitulation from Democrats. also doesn't think the adoption of Ryanomics by House Democrats is remarkable. The lone budget thread there this morning complains about Ryan's wish to get back to repealing Obamacare now that they've sent a budget to the Senate. I really don't understand how anyone can see the Democrats as an alternative to the Republicans. The Ds have vaginas and varying skin pigmentation compared with Rs, and that's the extent of their differences.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

blogging quarters.

DKos has numerous diaries protesting this pathetic "deal."

(There are more than a few federal civilian employees and military and military dependents blogging there.)

I only narrowly escaped the "axe," since they did not include all their retirement cuts this round.

But, there will be others--that much we can all count on!

Barmitt O'Bamney's picture
Submitted by Barmitt O'Bamney on

Paraphrasing this Real News Network summary piece, linked to on Yves' Naked Capitalism:
Instead of about 100 billion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending in 2015, there will only be 80 billion in cuts. After 2015, they revert to 100 billion a year in discretionary spending cuts.

Less than half of the cuts overall (discretionary and otherwise) are to be restored.

If this is shape of the deal, why bother?

Why tell America that the sequester has been repealed when its austerity policies will continue in all but name?

The Anarchist's picture
Submitted by The Anarchist on

None of this would have happened under a government like Japan or China. Both of these nations understand their monetary status. They know they can't go broke, they don't use revenue to spend and now they realize that unless they deficit spend their will be no net financial assets in their respective private sectors and unemployment rates will skyrocket.

Our government on the other hand believes it's "out of money" because the President mimics Pete Peterson's butt boys.

If a sizable minority of Americans understood what Chinese and Japanese citizens understand about the operation of their monetary system, we might stand a chance of surviving the right wing deficit terrorists driving this nation to Third World status.

Read what some of our more rational experts say about the stupidity of Obama's telling America that we're broke...out of money...can't afford to eliminate unemployment.

Then we have this additional bit of proof from a conservative that sequestration is a sinister and cynically subversive policy designed to destroy social safety net programs, lower working class wages and deplete middle class wealth.