... that I have to wonder how they are going to rationalize this:
[That's a purely political process question, by the way. I really don't have a serious dog in the fight between the two most profligate spending political parties in the history of the planet, I'm just curious to see how much kool-aid my friends can gag down. Apparently Tom Carper has far more the range of Mr. Obama's "Democratic" politics than Chris Coons, huh?]
This is something we've never seen from aDemocratic president: An official White Housebudget that includes cuts to both Social Security and Medicare.Give Jonathan Karl at ABC News credit--he tries to find something that liberals and progressives might consider to be redeeming in the package:
White House officials say the budget the president will unveil next week will include proposed cuts to Medicare (by increasing premiums for wealthier retirees) and Social Security (by reducing annual cost of living increases).
And that is a significant change that will open the president up to criticism from liberals and put pressure on Republicans to offer a response.Color me f--king curious, but can anybody explain precisely how giving GOPers in the House cuts in Social Security and Medicare before they've put a single tax increase on the table is going to put pressure on them?
[That's a purely political process question, by the way. I really don't have a serious dog in the fight between the two most profligate spending political parties in the history of the planet, I'm just curious to see how much kool-aid my friends can gag down. Apparently Tom Carper has far more the range of Mr. Obama's "Democratic" politics than Chris Coons, huh?]
Comments
... that I have to wonder how they are going to rationalize this:
This is something we've never seen from a Democratic president: An official White House budget that includes cuts to both Social Security and Medicare."
Steve,
Your "liberal" friends will not try to rationalize it.
It will be as much a topic of debate, comment, discussion or mention as indefinite detention without legal process or droning US citizens without the same. Which is to say, none at all.
Now, there is a lively debate on His sexist remarks about California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a truly important matter.
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2013/04/05/i-read-it-as-a-joke-others-read-it-as-a-vile-sexist-attack-your-thoughts/#comment-339401
" I really don't have a serious dog in the fight..."
Since SS and Medicare cuts will diminish your (and your kids) well-being when you are all too old to work, you really do "have a serious dog in the fight".
Not bloody likely.
I suspect that Steve, like anyone else w/ a decent job and a clue, did his retirement planning around the idea that the government can not be depended upon and that SS will provide, at best, a small supplemental income stream.
I could make lots of comments, of course, but they wouldn't be worthwhile....