Liberal group threatens to pull Obama support

Liberal group threatens to pull Obama support

Associated Press
July 15, 2011

A liberal group upset over potential cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security delivered pledges Friday to President Barack Obama's national campaign headquarters threatening to pull its support.

About a dozen people representing the Progressive Change Campaign Committee delivered what they said were 200,000 pledges from people who will refuse to donate or volunteer for Obama's re-election campaign if he cuts the entitlement programs.

"It's not a question of who they're going to support for president, they're going to vote for Barack Obama. It's a question of where their time and money is going to go," spokesman T. Neil Sroka said.

Obama has been taking heat from the left over the debt ceiling negotiations, in which he has been willing to target the long-standing programs. His approach is certain to sit better with independent voters, many of whom have told pollsters they want Washington politicians to work together to solve the big problems.

Sroka said the 200,000 people represent more than $17 million in donations to Obama's campaign in 2008 and about 2.6 million volunteer hours.

Protester Mary Ellen Croteau, 61, of Chicago said she's even ready to find someone else to support if Obama cuts Medicare and Social Security.

"I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet because there doesn't seem to be too many people on the horizon, but I will vote for someone whether it's a Green candidate, whether it's a communist, I don't care. Somebody who's going to stand up for people," Croteau said.

Sroka later said she was not speaking on behalf of the group.

The Obama campaign's chief operating officer, Ann Marie Habershaw, accepted the group's petitions in the lobby of the downtown office building that houses the campaign.

"Americans elected the president in 2008 to take on the big challenges facing our country, and he's engaged in an effort to do just that," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.

I swear, I can't get it thru my head on how stupid people can be. I'm serious here. Let's let the gov't default on it's entitlement obligations because we can't reform (cut) the programs.

It's cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

TexasBlue wrote:I swear, I can't get it thru my head on how stupid people can be. I'm serious here. Let's let the gov't default on it's entitlement obligations because we can't reform (cut) the programs.

It's cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

We're starting to sound more like Greece everyday. Expect riots if Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security reforms actually do get passed.

It's pathetic what has happened to far too many Americans. They've become willing wards of the state.

TexasBlue wrote:I swear, I can't get it thru my head on how stupid people can be. I'm serious here. Let's let the gov't default on it's entitlement obligations because we can't reform (cut) the programs.

It's cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

True, but it's no less stupid than letting the gov't default because we can't raise taxes, or (even stupider) just letting the gov't default no matter what, as Michele Bachmann would have us do.

It's ridiculous that this debate is even going on. But since it is, everyone in Congress should agree, unconditionally, to raise the debt ceiling.

Raising taxes at this point would be futile. It wouldn't even touch helping the deficit. Not a single bit. The HUGE problem we have is spending. The problem is more going out than the budget calls for. Unfunded liabilities.

Someone did a study recently and said that if we taxes the rich at 100%, we'd never get out of the hole we're in unless we make massive cuts in spending.

Everyone in this country has to roll up their sleeves on this one. But those who take more than they give, won't.

TexasBlue wrote:Raising taxes at this point would be futile. It wouldn't even touch helping the deficit. Not a single bit. The HUGE problem we have is spending. The problem is more going out than the budget calls for. Unfunded liabilities.

Dbl and I are debating that very proposition in another thread, so I won't get into it here.

My point here is different. I think attaching any sort of conditions to a debt ceiling increase = economic terrorism. It should be a given that we honor our financial obligations. It should not be contingent on anything. The debt ceiling should be raised, period.

TexasBlue wrote:Someone did a study recently and said that if we taxes the rich at 100%, we'd never get out of the hole we're in unless we make massive cuts in spending.

Good thing no one's suggested that, then.

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Raising taxes at this point would be futile. It wouldn't even touch helping the deficit. Not a single bit. The HUGE problem we have is spending. The problem is more going out than the budget calls for. Unfunded liabilities.

Dbl and I are debating that very proposition in another thread, so I won't get into it here.

My point here is different. I think attaching any sort of conditions to a debt ceiling increase = economic terrorism. It should be a given that we honor our financial obligations. It should not be contingent on anything. The debt ceiling should be raised, period.

Your debate with Dbl is about revenue versus taxes being increased or cut. My point is that raising them at this current time would do no good to pay off debt. The only good that it'll do would be to flame the class warfare that's going on in this country

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Someone did a study recently and said that if we taxes the rich at 100%, we'd never get out of the hole we're in unless we make massive cuts in spending.

Good thing no one's suggested that, then.

Point made.

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:I swear, I can't get it thru my head on how stupid people can be. I'm serious here. Let's let the gov't default on it's entitlement obligations because we can't reform (cut) the programs.

It's cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

True, but it's no less stupid than letting the gov't default because we can't raise taxes, or (even stupider) just letting the gov't default no matter what, as Michele Bachmann would have us do.

It's ridiculous that this debate is even going on. But since it is, everyone in Congress should agree, unconditionally, to raise the debt ceiling.

I would tend to agree with you under normal circumstances, but the truth is that our country is now sitting at a very dangerous crossroad - we can go the way of Greece, or we can FINALLY establish some fiscal sanity. We cannot afford $1.6 TRILLION dollar DEFICITS per year going forward! It's sheer insanity!

The Democrats have refused, absolutely refused, to address the ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS + in unfunded liabilities this nation currently faces because of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Not only have they refused to deal with this massive debt, they have heaped TRILLIONS more on the nation with ObamaCare!!!

It's like we're living in some sort of alternate universe where logic and responsibility don't exist!

I can completely understand why the debt limit became the final line in the sand - a bargaining tool to finally force a serious discussion on our burgeoning debt and deficits.

Sadly, I agree with you that using the debt limit is a bad place to draw that line. And it's frustrating that Republicans repeatedly refused to hold the line earlier when they had a chance to.

But I am glad that the discussion is now being waged and that even the mainstream media can't avoid dribbling some of this out to the people at large.

What concessions would you demand from the Democrats in order to not destroy the economy on August 2nd?

dblboggie wrote:The Democrats have refused, absolutely refused, to address the ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS + in unfunded liabilities this nation currently faces because of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

When are these hundred trillion dollars due?

kronos wrote:What concessions would you demand from the Democrats in order to not destroy the economy on August 2nd?

dblboggie wrote:The Democrats have refused, absolutely refused, to address the ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS + in unfunded liabilities this nation currently faces because of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

When are these hundred trillion dollars due?

Much of it much sooner than we might realize. Remember, the boomer generation was the single largest generation in our nation's history (and quite possibly the largest of any nation - save China and India). And the boomers have already begun retiring. Hell, in 7 more years I'll be retirement age, and I was born near the tail end of the boomer generation.

So while I could not say precisely when or how much of those unfunded liabilities will fall due, I would guess that we are not much more than 10 to 15 years away from seeing a majority of the boomers at retirement age and qualified to draw Social Security and Medicare benefits.

And at the lousy rate at which we are reproducing, there will be fewer and fewer workers paying for those benefits. I think we're already down to three workers for every Social Security recipient.

Clearly, we cannot sustain the kind of growth in government that we've seen in the last 2 years, or the last 10 for that matter.

And despite what the Democrats try to tell us, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

I don't get this.

In 2010, 1.438 trillion were budgeted for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. (I'm not sure how much was actually spent).

Not to say there isn't a serious problem with the growth of these expenses, but for the costs of these programs to increase to 100 trillion is a 6900% increase. In 10-15 years? No. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you.

Dbl, I am genuinely curious to know how this computes.

I didn't say (or mean to imply) that the costs for these programs would increase to 100 trillion in 10-15 years, just that in 10-15 years, with much of the boomer generation drawing those benefits that we will exhaust any funds (in the form of bonds of course) that exist for these programs necessitating massive cuts or taxes or both and will elevate federal spending on these programs ever closer to 100% of GDP (if it doesn't actually get there).

The unfunded liabilities extend beyond just the boomer generation, because all American's are covered in one way or another under Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - and a great many of them will not be eligible for coverage for decades into the future.

Talking to young guys at work (ages 25 or so), they sincerely believe that there will be no SS when they reach retirement age. Grim.

dblboggie wrote:I didn't say (or mean to imply) that the costs for these programs would increase to 100 trillion in 10-15 years, just that in 10-15 years, with much of the boomer generation drawing those benefits that we will exhaust any funds (in the form of bonds of course) that exist for these programs necessitating massive cuts or taxes or both and will elevate federal spending on these programs ever closer to 100% of GDP (if it doesn't actually get there).

OK, but you did throw the 100 trillion figure out there. I'm just trying to understand that particular figure.

Theoretically, we'll be there in about 50 years, given a constant (and unlikely) annual increase in the eligibility pool of 9%. But that assumes the programs stay exactly as they are now, without being reformed, gutted or scrapped, which I don't find a realistic assumption at all. In practice, I don't think we'll ever get near the 100 trillion mark.

TexasBlue wrote:Talking to young guys at work (ages 25 or so), they sincerely believe that there will be no SS when they reach retirement age. Grim.

I partially agree, though I think it might just be gutted. But a lot can happen in 40 years.

Why is this grim though, from a libertarian perspective? I'd think you'd be glad to see it gone.

kronos wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I didn't say (or mean to imply) that the costs for these programs would increase to 100 trillion in 10-15 years, just that in 10-15 years, with much of the boomer generation drawing those benefits that we will exhaust any funds (in the form of bonds of course) that exist for these programs necessitating massive cuts or taxes or both and will elevate federal spending on these programs ever closer to 100% of GDP (if it doesn't actually get there).

OK, but you did throw the 100 trillion figure out there. I'm just trying to understand that particular figure.

Gotcha. The figure represents, basically, the promise these programs make to every American alive today. And that figure will only grow with each live birth.

kronos wrote:Theoretically, we'll be there in about 50 years, given a constant (and unlikely) annual increase in the eligibility pool of 9%. But that assumes the programs stay exactly as they are now, without being reformed, gutted or scrapped, which I don't find a realistic assumption at all. In practice, I don't think we'll ever get near the 100 trillion mark.

When you say a constant 9% increase in the eligibility is unlikely, do you mean it will go higher or lower and over what time period?

Personally, I expect it to go much, much higher as the massive boomer generation retires - absent any modifications to current eligibility requirements of course.

dblboggie wrote:

kronos wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I didn't say (or mean to imply) that the costs for these programs would increase to 100 trillion in 10-15 years, just that in 10-15 years, with much of the boomer generation drawing those benefits that we will exhaust any funds (in the form of bonds of course) that exist for these programs necessitating massive cuts or taxes or both and will elevate federal spending on these programs ever closer to 100% of GDP (if it doesn't actually get there).

OK, but you did throw the 100 trillion figure out there. I'm just trying to understand that particular figure.

Gotcha. The figure represents, basically, the promise these programs make to every American alive today. And that figure will only grow with each live birth.

I see. So the 100 trillion covers several generations of recipients: current recipients, their kids, their grandkids, etc. Obviously, these people won't all be receiving Social Security at the same time. The old will die before the young get old. So this 100 trillion is accrued over at least a century (or however long it takes until everyone currently alive is dead). At no point in time will 100 trillion actually be owed all at once.

In which case, it doesn't seem like a very useful figure, except for boggling the mind with its hugeness.

dblboggie wrote:

kronos wrote:Theoretically, we'll be there in about 50 years, given a constant (and unlikely) annual increase in the eligibility pool of 9%. But that assumes the programs stay exactly as they are now, without being reformed, gutted or scrapped, which I don't find a realistic assumption at all. In practice, I don't think we'll ever get near the 100 trillion mark.

When you say a constant 9% increase in the eligibility is unlikely, do you mean it will go higher or lower and over what time period?

Personally, I expect it to go much, much higher as the massive boomer generation retires - absent any modifications to current eligibility requirements of course.

I meant lower, but I hadn't really thought about at the time I wrote that. Now that I think about it more, I realize it's flat-out impossible: a constant 9% increase would mean the pool would double every 8 years or so. And it's not going to do that. The pool is growing fast, but not that fast.