BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

[Anonymous]

So you suggest that people who have worked very hard--and, perhaps, more years than most, should not get their Social Security because they have enough? What would be the justification for saving their money if they knew they would not get SS? These might be the people who did not take expensive vacations or buy expensive cars. Perhaps they live in a modest house in order to save money.
Go read The Ant and the Grassopper.

[Anonymous]

17:46. So what you're basically saying is those that have worked hard, saved their money and provided for themselves should just be taxed at 50 -75%. Then spend their golden years sucking off the same government teet that they were taxed to sustain? Makes a lot of sense.

I'm not an expert in actuary sciences, but it isn't the high net worth folks that are putting the stress on Medicare.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
What do you see as the solution? One side wants to raise taxes and spread cuts evenly. The other side refuses to raise taxes and wants the cuts to be aimed at the old, the sick, and the poor. Where is the middle ground?

i guess first, lets put things up for a vote. everything shouldnt start and end in negotiations that then go to votes. if the house has passed their BS, let the senate put it up for a vote and lets see what happens. obama can veto so theres nothing to be scared about. id probably start there.

have the senate vote and pass a budget. any budget and see what happens there.

the bottom line is i want action. i am more inclined to assign blame on one party/person/etc knowing that they put forth any sort of effort to do something to no avail. for example, i blame the republicans for holding up the hagel nomination. what was the point of holding things up if there was no end game?

i guess obama has tried to do something but to me he's just talking and blowing hot air. the real issue is congress to me. put things up for votes and stop posturing and grand standing.

folks are more concerned about running to a microphone to trash each other than actually governing.

my ultimate beef is with congress at the end of the day. obama has angered me somewhat as well but i hate congress with a passion now.

what are your ideas to resolve this?

One thing to clarify about what you said above. The House passed two bills, but that was in the last Congress and they have expired. There is actually no viable bill for the Senate to vote on today. However, it is my understanding that the Senate will vote on a bill or bills of their own this week.

I think you have to look at this in terms of what has happened in the past. When Obama first came into office, he thought he could go to Congress with a deal that had some of what they want and some of what he wants and they could get something done. He quickly found out that the Republicans would immediately reject any idea that came out of his lips -- even if it had previously been their idea.

Next, with the debt ceiling limit deal that led to the sequester deal we have now, Obama tried a more traditional negotiating tactic. Though he wanted revenue at that point, he negotiated revenues away. He also accepted higher cuts then he had originally wanted. That led to Boehner telling the press that he had received 89% of what he wanted in the deal. Most people, including me, thought Obama got rolled. You can find a thread here in which an Obamabot and I got into a big fight because of my criticism of the President.

Now, the President has decided to take his case to the people. Trying to deal fairly with the Republicans hasn't worked. Trying to bargain in a traditional give and take manner hasn't worked. Maybe getting the public behind him will work. That remains to be seen.

One thing you have to remember is that Obama controls the executive branch. Predictions of hour-long waits at airports for security may be exaggerations, but Obama can makes those waits a reality with a simple phone call. The administration can start cutting back on visible public services and the Republicans can say it isn't justified as much as they want. Pressure will increase on them to make a deal. I think the Republicans are waiting to see if Obama really has it in him to play that kind of hard ball. I think he does. Public pressure will not only strengthen Obama's hand, but will strengthen Boehner's hand vis-a-vis the Teahadists.

The ultimate solutions seems pretty obvious. The Republicans will compromise and allow some tax loopholes to be closed, Obama will offer up some SS and Medicare reforms (something he has been begging to do for reasons I don't understand) and there will be cuts on both the domestic and military sides. An alternative outcome which is bit less likely is that Congress will simply repeal the sequester and hope everyone just forgets about it. They will establish some sort of deficit reduction committee or other kind of charade to hide the fact that they abandoned deficit reduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cut retirement entitlements to the rich. It is insanity that high net worth folks over age 65 get benefits at all, never mind much more than back more than they put into #SS and Medicare. I have no idea how much that would raise, but it's not nothing.

I'd rather actually make the rich pay SS taxes on their income. I bet most working people don't even know that SS taxes cut off around $100k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cut retirement entitlements to the rich. It is insanity that high net worth folks over age 65 get benefits at all, never mind much more than back more than they put into #SS and Medicare. I have no idea how much that would raise, but it's not nothing.

I'd rather actually make the rich pay SS taxes on their income. I bet most working people don't even know that SS taxes cut off around $100k.

What policy makers know is what you do not. Increase the threshold, you increase the future outlay. Good luck on that.

[Anonymous]

At least higher income people do pay income tax on their SS income.

[Anonymous]

to think a $85B "cut", which is not even a cut at all, is going to have an effect on our huge budget is just laughable. The reason Obama is so scared is that people WILL NOT EVEN NOTICE THIS CUT, and it will open the gates to acceptance of true budgetary reform.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:to think a $85B "cut", which is not even a cut at all, is going to have an effect on our huge budget is just laughable. The reason Obama is so scared is that people WILL NOT EVEN NOTICE THIS CUT, and it will open the gates to acceptance of true budgetary reform.

I am not sure where you got the idea that this is not a cut. It is coming out of fiscal 2013 budgets. That's money that the government was planning to get and now won't. The world won't end on March 1, but if this isn't resolved within a couple of months, people will notice.

Seeing posts like this is totally deja vu from the election: the polls were skewed, Romney was going to win Ohio and Virginia, and it was going to be a Romney landslide. Don't you guys get tired of being divorced from reality? All we need is Rove telling furloughed government employees not to stay home because there are still votes out in Ohio.

One more thing. The Pentagon, in an attempt to hoard its funds in case of a sequester, drastically reduced spending months ago. That was reflected in the January Commerce Department report that showed the economy was shrinking primarily as a result of reduced defense spending. The Pentagon had prepared for a Jan. 1 sequester (that's when it was originally supposed to kick in) and reduced spending in the prior quarter. So, if the sequester has already negatively impacted our economy without even coming into effect, what do you think will happen when it actually occurs?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to think a $85B "cut", which is not even a cut at all, is going to have an effect on our huge budget is just laughable. The reason Obama is so scared is that people WILL NOT EVEN NOTICE THIS CUT, and it will open the gates to acceptance of true budgetary reform.

I am not sure where you got the idea that this is not a cut. It is coming out of fiscal 2013 budgets. That's money that the government was planning to get and now won't. The world won't end on March 1, but if this isn't resolved within a couple of months, people will notice.

Seeing posts like this is totally deja vu from the election: the polls were skewed, Romney was going to win Ohio and Virginia, and it was going to be a Romney landslide. Don't you guys get tired of being divorced from reality? All we need is Rove telling furloughed government employees not to stay home because there are still votes out in Ohio.

One more thing. The Pentagon, in an attempt to hoard its funds in case of a sequester, drastically reduced spending months ago. That was reflected in the January Commerce Department report that showed the economy was shrinking primarily as a result of reduced defense spending. The Pentagon had prepared for a Jan. 1 sequester (that's when it was originally supposed to kick in) and reduced spending in the prior quarter. So, if the sequester has already negatively impacted our economy without even coming into effect, what do you think will happen when it actually occurs?

a cut from 2013 budgets, but what cut compared to 2012, 2011 and 2010? it is minimal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to think a $85B "cut", which is not even a cut at all, is going to have an effect on our huge budget is just laughable. The reason Obama is so scared is that people WILL NOT EVEN NOTICE THIS CUT, and it will open the gates to acceptance of true budgetary reform.

I am not sure where you got the idea that this is not a cut. It is coming out of fiscal 2013 budgets. That's money that the government was planning to get and now won't. The world won't end on March 1, but if this isn't resolved within a couple of months, people will notice.

Seeing posts like this is totally deja vu from the election: the polls were skewed, Romney was going to win Ohio and Virginia, and it was going to be a Romney landslide. Don't you guys get tired of being divorced from reality? All we need is Rove telling furloughed government employees not to stay home because there are still votes out in Ohio.

One more thing. The Pentagon, in an attempt to hoard its funds in case of a sequester, drastically reduced spending months ago. That was reflected in the January Commerce Department report that showed the economy was shrinking primarily as a result of reduced defense spending. The Pentagon had prepared for a Jan. 1 sequester (that's when it was originally supposed to kick in) and reduced spending in the prior quarter. So, if the sequester has already negatively impacted our economy without even coming into effect, what do you think will happen when it actually occurs?

a cut from 2013 budgets, but what cut compared to 2012, 2011 and 2010? it is minimal.

Not really true and this is why. The growth in the budget is in the categories that don't get cut. This shows the planned growth of the major budget categories:

Annual rates of increase in major spending categories budgeted for the 2012-2022 period were:
Defense: 1.8%
Non-defense discretionary: 1.6%
Social Security: 5.8%
Medicare: 6.6%
Medicaid: 8.5%
Net interest: 14.2%
Total spending: 5.0%[31]

So Medicare, ss and interest grow quickly and btw are really large. Meanwhile discretionary spending grows about at the rate of inflation. So does defense.

[Anonymous]

Morning Joe hosts were even talking about how crazy Bob Woodward is looking right now.

[Anonymous]

poster at 8:53:"Morning Joe hosts were even talking about how crazy Bob Woodward is looking right now."


I assume you are being facetious. The hosts and panelists all seemed to think that the White House and, especially David Pflouffe(sp?) were way out of line on this.
A threat-like bullying-is in the eyes of the receiver. After a thirty minute phone call receiving an email with "you're going to regret this" would be intimidating to anyone. Politico-far from a conservative website- looked at Woodward's sources on the sequestration and agrees that it was the White House idea.

Are the Republicans also guilty in this whole mess? Of course. But the White House storyboard was that the sequestration was the GOP idea. It was not.

WH needs to be more careful with its storyboarding--like Duncan saying that pink slips had already been sent out, etc. Exaggeration is one thing-lying is another.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:poster at 8:53:"Morning Joe hosts were even talking about how crazy Bob Woodward is looking right now."

I assume you are being facetious. The hosts and panelists all seemed to think that the White House and, especially David Pflouffe(sp?) were way out of line on this.
A threat-like bullying-is in the eyes of the receiver. After a thirty minute phone call receiving an email with "you're going to regret this" would be intimidating to anyone. Politico-far from a conservative website- looked at Woodward's sources on the sequestration and agrees that it was the White House idea.

Are the Republicans also guilty in this whole mess? Of course. But the White House storyboard was that the sequestration was the GOP idea. It was not.

WH needs to be more careful with its storyboarding--like Duncan saying that pink slips had already been sent out, etc. Exaggeration is one thing-lying is another.

You are mixing up a lot of issues. The White House is not saying the sequester was a Republican idea. Given that the Republican-majority House with the support of Speaker Boehner passed the bill, as did the Democratic Senate, and it was signed into law by Obama, the White House is simply saying it is not fair to call it Obama's plan. Both sides agreed to it, but now the Republicans are running from responsibility.

The issue with Woodward is different. Woodward now claims that Obama did not included revenue proposals in the negotiations that led to the sequester deal. That is simply false and the proof that it is false is in Woodward's own book. At the time of the debt ceiling negotiations, Obama wanted both revenues and cuts. Boehner wouldn't agree to revenues. The deal upon which they agreed included cuts and the sequester. Now, the choice is between the sequester and a replacement for the sequester. Obama wants revenues as part of the replacement. That is not "moving the goalposts" as Woodward would have it. That is simply returning to the same position Obama held during the negotiations that led to the sequester agreement.

If Woodward feels threatened by being told by Gene Sperling that he would regret taking that position -- a position that could be illustrated as false by Woodward's own book, he needs to get into another business. As one analyst pointed out on Twitter this morning: "Sperling makes Erza Klein look like The Hulk on meth."

[Anonymous]

Lanny Davis came out this morning and supported Bob Woodward. Shared a similar story of being threatened by the Obama White House.

I believe he is a diehard liberal/democrat. Just disgusting that this White House feels they can get away with this kind of press bullying and intimidation. They always attack the messenger who is just trying to tell the truth. Typical thug behavior.

[Anonymous]

Really are you going to forget how famously the republicans attacked the very same reporter, over a period of forty years???