Official White House photo
For the third time in two weeks, President Obama will meet today at the White House with several private-sector chief executives, discussing among other things the administration's fiscal plans. According to the Wall Street Journal, 14 CEOs will be in hand, including Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein, Caterpillar's Doug Oberhelman, and Pfizer's Ian Read.
And while it's unclear whether and how much this will help the White House's larger plans, National Journal raises an interesting point about the larger political dynamic.
President Obama's meeting Wednesday with business leaders, his second such get-together since Election Day, is a sure sign he is intent on repairing a troubled relationship known more for its conflict than partnership during his first term. But when the private-sector tycoons gather in the White House, they'll feel just as much pressure to make things right.
Only a month ago, many in the business community were openly trying to defeat the president. They denounced him as anti-business and funneled tens of millions of dollars to Mitt Romney's campaign.... Obama won, and he earned not only another four years in office but another term just as lawmakers are set to consider a raft of measures -- such as tax and entitlement reform -- of critical importance to most businesses.
In other words, the man they were openly hostile toward now has leverage over them and their fate. Making amends with the president isn't just good publicity, it might be a necessity for their bottom lines.
Democratic budget expert Stan Collender added, "They made a big bet, and they lost. And now they have to, if not grovel, make it clear they'll work with the administration."
Time will tell whether (and how much) Corporate America is actually prepared to grovel, but there have been some encouraging signs for the White House since the election. A variety of business leaders, for example, have already begun pressuring congressional Republicans to accept a raise in the debt ceiling, aligning the private sector with Democratic wishes. What's more, the corporate-financed Fix The Debt has begun focusing more attention on tax increases, much to the right's chagrin.
For the last year or so, much of Corporate America figured there was no real point in cooperating with the Obama White House -- they didn't see eye to eye, and the president's odds of re-election were, shall we say, iffy. Now, however, they're stuck with him through 2016, and business leaders need Obama at least as much as Obama needs them.
Leave a Comment:
Demonstrating once again that business guys are NOT the smartest guys in the room. Too short-sighted, too focused on their own profits to the exclusion of all else.
Corporate America seems to be the only place where you fail UP! These guys couldn't do a 'real' job so they went into management. They 'bet'...and lost. Kinda like 2008.
Obama needs to tell that shiny little pimp Blankfein to STFU and consider himself lucky he hasn't been indicted as the crook he is and that criminal conspiracy Goldman Sachs hasn't been smashed as it should be (with all his partners in crime there also indicted for criminal conspiracy).
Let's raise the rates on these scum back to where JFK lowered them to. After all, they all say that was a Good Thing he did back then.
Well, if the robo call I got last night is any hint, the losers are not giving up. "Impeach President Obama" was the plea for funds, suggesting yet again that he is not a natural born citizen of US and claiming that the president supporting allowing the UN to tax US citizens. This is not going away.
Impeach Obama? If there were any chance of them getting serious attention in Congress, I'd send them money to make it happen.
The "Lost" Explain that to me. It was Win Win for Big Business. Either way they knew they would have the President's ear. They knew that either way Obama would court them, so they did what businessmen do- they looked to maximize their gains. Obama will impose no consequences for their support of Romney, and they knew it.
Since it appers Obama will once again forsake the grassroots for the inside game, then he need business leaders to demonstrate they have any power over Boehner.
Otherwise, without any demonstrative power, they have no seat at the table.
Say as a token of goodwill and a demonstration of their relevance Obama asks them to get Boehner to do something he is on record that he will oppose. Like abolition of the debt ceiling as strongly favored by the business community, Greenspan, and Geithner.
It's really too bad Obama has appeared to have learned nothing. He said to Univision that he learned in his first term that he couldn't change Washington from the inside- that he had to come at it from the outside.
But all he appears to have meant is that he will come at Congress from 5 blocks outside their walls. He is coming at them through their lobbyists.
While it may be the most effective way to achieve his short term objectives, I don't consider that an outside game.
Oh for FFS. You get all of this from the fact that he's simply talking to them?
Why isn't he having meetings with Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz? Why is David Plouffe out pushing the idea of cutting Medicare and Social Security?
This is not a good sign.
I can only hope that John is wrong about a lot of this. The President needs to show you can get piss on yourself if you piss into the wind and piss off the President of the United States. It's part of his power. And what is good for big business now is not necessarily good for America (and the world) in the future.
Hey, I would love for the Messina to prove me wrong.
My email has gone silent. Last OFA email was that "poll".
How about you?
Steve, I really really would like to believe that Obama 2.0 will be a lot different than Obama 1.0, but as far as I can see, Obama is interested in grassroots in the Alinsky way. It gets you as seat at the table, forcing the powerful to deal with you.
But the end game is in a smoke filled room. I think what Obama realized was that there were only puppets at the table the last go around. It is entirely plausible that Obama concluded that his 2.0 strategy is simply a shift in audience, not the venue of the smoke filled room. Obama 2.0 has concluded the end game was ineffective because the real decision makers-the puppetmasters were not at the table.
This is entirely consistent with Obama's pramatism. Walmart really really wants great sales. A tax break for the middle class will spur sales. So ignore Boehner and McCain gesticulating with their media spectacles for their Fox viewership- get Walmart to put pressure on Boehner.
Similarly, if Exxon wants the XL pipeline to go through, then they will have to force Boehner to make votes the President wants.
It will probably work, but it is sad.
It is naive to imagine wall st will bargain in good faith on anything , to look to wall st for job creation is a complete joke , the only reason they even agreed to meet with obama is for the continued watering down of banking regulations , consumer protections , and any sweet heart deals that will enrich THEM , not america
After watching these people stab america and obama in the back for the last 4 years , they hardly deserve a respectful call to the white house , but that is obamas call , and we have no choice but to trust his judgement
The WELL MAYBE THE CEO'S WILL ACT DIFFERENT THIS TIME thinking is perposterous , these clowns declared war on working people 50 years ago , the only welcoming committee they can expect from my community , are the dead carcass's of the 1000's of people who have died as a result of the dysfunctional health-care system they FIGHT to keep dysfunctional
Sadly, John, your two posts are exactly right. Bruce Bartlett was right in his American Conservative article where he said that if things had not been pushed so far to the right, people would recognize that Obama is politically a moderate center-right politician, a moderate Republican.
What progressives have to get through their head is the fact that Obama is not what they think he is. The last four years proved that, and only keeping his feet to the fire got any of the things we wanted even part way. He is indeed better than the alternative, but when you look at the alternative, that is really not saying very much. He is totally a man of corporate power, and John is entirely right to describe his "community organizing" as being on the Alinsky model, which a lot of us who engaged in real community organizing back then - for civil rights and against the war - were opposed to. Alinsky, BTW, was against the antiwar movement back then. He was no progressive. He was at best an "American trade unionist" on the Gompers model who opposed bringing politics into the effort at all past being in favor of "good government reforms" most of which never worked if you look at them 20 years on.
And I notice there haven't been any more e-mails from Messina since his "answer" to my concerns about the budget b.s. say-nothing e-mail they sent out last week. "The President is in favor of ponies. You should support us!"
If we do not keep a clear eye on the fact that Obama's real nature is to cut us out unless we break down the door to his smoke-filled rooms, we're going to get the same betrayals we got before. Doing the same things (considering him Mr. Wonderful) expecting a different outcome is, as they say, the definition of crazy.
John, Patango and TC, well said.
I bought into what the President sold us in 08. After awhile I realized that it was all still business as usual.
I have hope, but I do not think much will change in the next 4 years.
Obama is going to give the business community a seat at the table of power because they still have the money to fund campaigns against the Dems, some of which are already in business' pocket. With 2014 elections already underway, Obama needs to move some of his agenda forward to give Dems the upper hand in campaigns. The president may not be facing reelection, but the rest of the Dems will be doing so in the near future. If Obama can move the business community to his side, then Dems have a better shot in 2014 and 2016 while Republicans are still destroying themselves.
Since it appears Obama will once again forsake the grassroots for the inside game....
I disagree. Obama hasn't forsaken anyone. You don't get things done as a President by holding a grudge against people who can make a difference in the economy, if properly directed. At this point, the President is on higher ground and he should, by all means, take full advantage of his position. I doubt very much that he's approaching these guys with a, "All that stuff during the elections? I've forgotten about them. Let's start fresh." Pardon me for this slightly disturbing image but... he has them by the balls and he won't let them forget it. It's essential that he show the likes of Boehner that he'll be getting these guys to work for him. I'm glad the President is working this angle. The stakes are too high not to.
He may have them by the cajones, but the real question is what will he do now. I vote for squeeze, but cannot be certain he has the cajones to do it.
I can only hope he is using these meeting to take their advice for the purpose of doing the exact opposite. These people have no interest in creating prosperity for the 99%.
Two lessons we learned during the last debt ceiling hostage crisis are 1) the views of Big Business and Big Finance on economic matters mean absolutely nothing to Republicans in Congress if those views conflict with the Republicans infallible, holy and entirely sacrosanct dogma regarding taxes and government spending and 2) Big Business and Big Finance don't punish Republicans for ignoring them and do punish Democrats for saving their sorry asses from disasters created by the Republicans infallible, holy and entirely sacrosanct dogma.
As we have seen by the recent comments from McConnell...'Quit talking to business leaders (it's just a campaign swing!) and come back to DC, show leadership and talk to US (who of course, know NOTHING but pretend to!)!'
If Obama is pushing for cutting Medicare and Social Security then "they" made a big bet and won.
Throughout his first term, an awful lot of Internet progressives spent month after month after month working themselves into ever higher states of preemptive outrage over the cuts to Social Security benefits they just knew Obama was going to push through any day now. In their minds, it was a done deal. They assumed the fact into existence and became ever more enraged about it.
And time after time, the so-confidently predicted cuts didn't materialize when they were predicted. And, invariably, the fact that they didn't happen only spurred them to even greater certainty that, oh, it was coming, just you wait, and ever higher states of preemptive dudgeon.
As time and again, their predictions failed and they just got more certain and more angry, it became difficult to avoid the conclusion that, like most people on the right, there were just an awful lot of people on the left who were so completely addicted to the rush they got from their anger at Obama that they were willing to fantasize whatever state of facts into existence was necessary to keep the rush going without interruption.
The scary spectacle of the Republican primaries seemed to shock a lot of those people into sanity, they way a brush with death will sometimes scare an addict into rehab. It would be a real shame if the first thing they did now that they're out is run back to their old pushers for another fix.
It WAS a done deal. Look it up. The only reason it didn't go through was the Republicnas balked.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/will-obama-agree-to-entitlement-cuts-he-already-has/
The progressive predictions were correct. Obama did offer to cut entitlements and you can't rewrite history by wishing it wasn't true.
Obama caved on so many things it's unreal. The debt ceiling, single payer and on and on.
That's the real world.
Favedave is right, Steve, the President isn't going to give you a pony no matter how good a little boy you are.
Thank you favedave
"The scary spectacle of the Republican primaries seemed to shock a lot of those people into sanity,"
Romney got 48% of the vote , that is how much sanity was gained from the gop spectacle , and all the polls showed they trusted romney with the economy more than obama ....
1/2 the nation is conservative dysfunctional, get use to it , and know we must all fight like hell , and call dems on their spinelessness , or live under the tyranny of romney ryan
Actually, I've gotten pretty much everything I wanted from this president--government subsidized health care for every citizen financed by tax increases on the wealthy, an economy that didn't slide into a depression, DADT repeal and withdrawal of DoJ support for DOMA, the Lily Ledbetter Act, the reversal of the Bush Administration's subversion of the federal regulatory apparatus, withdrawal from Iraq, significant restoration of respect and esteem for America globally, and a bunch of other things. The things I haven't gotten have been due to GOP intransigence and blue dog stupidity.
The Spock half of the base is largely satisfied and, where not satisfied, at least accepting and understanding of the reasons it didn't get what it wanted. It's the McCoy side of the Democratic base that spent most of the first term demanding "ponies."
Steve:
Wrong again - there are millions still without insurance. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/24/11-facts-about-the-affordable-care-act/
A minimal, at best, stimulus package that did almost nothing to save the average folks out there while Wall Street got entirely bailed out. A grade of C+
ANY Democratic president would have done that .
Not really true - the Dodd-Frank regulatory approach to Wall Street is a flaccid joke.
Again a grade of C+
Gee Steve - you may have pointy ears but you're certainly not logical. Nor do you live in the real world.
Obama has been a big disappointment to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. That's because he conducted the first four years of his presidency that way he conducted himself in the first debate - he gave the house away.
That's reality Steve - deal with it.
Please confine yourself to actual statements of fact. I am a liberal Democrat, have been for four decades and certainly am not disappointed in President Obama. Perhaps that's because I'm also a follower of politics - the art of governing and I wasn't expecting any progressive nirvana to follow Mr. Obama's election anyway.
We had control over enough members in the House to get almost everything we wanted passed by that body. What we didn't have was enough of a majority in the Senate to have those same pieces of legislation passed unchanged. Considering the D/R numbers in the Senate and the number of Blue Dogs in the House I'm surprised as much got passed as did.
However, I'm not at all surprised to find out that President Obama was willing to include cuts to several programs, nor do I feel betrayed. Those cuts would have come at an incredibly steep price for the Republicans - they would have had to not only renounce their allegiance to Norquist's "pledge", but actually raise taxes.
Once the Republican voted to increase taxes it would then be in their own interest to marginalize Norquist - for political survival, if nothing else. When Republicans had shown that, yes they could vote for tax increases, they could no longer hide behind that "pledge". If Republicans couldn't hide behind that pledge, they'd have to justify why they couldn't further raise taxes.
Especially on the 1%. Or change the tax code so capital gains and interest income are taxed at the same rate as wages. You know, things like that, things supported by 60-70% of the voters in this country - including Republicans.
If say, at some future date, Democrats wanted to reverse some of the cuts Republicans would have to provide an actual reason for not reversing those cuts. Good luck with that.
One works with the hand one's actually been dealt, not some imaginary one. Based on that, President Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi did very, very well.
I almost forgot, you do realize that everything President Obama agreed to, may very well have been a bluff? That the President, based on information provided by Rep. Pelosi, was all but certain that Boehner couldn't deliver his caucus? In which case, yes, the President ran a risk of having to make cuts to several important programs if it turned out Boehner could deliver his caucus (which is why he had to have Reid and Pelosi's assurances they could carry their caucuses), but even if that occurred, the Republican ability to justify opposition to raising taxes would have been dealt a tremendous blow? As I said before, cuts/changes can be reversed.
Sorry, if anyone isn't living in the real world, I'd say it's you.
Doug
Let's see - where to start? Reconciliation. How about that? That's how the limp Health Care law was passed. It was passed MONTHS after progressives had advocated passing via that method. After the staged "Town Halls". After the months of ridiculous back and forth in the media All of that could have been avoided with reconciliation.
And that's just one example of the real world stupidity of the Democratic Party - as led by Obama.
Excuse me if I don't get all weepy about sticking it to the Republicans.
Remind me again -- why do we care what the 1% are concerned about? The general public AND the majority of Republicans support raising taxes on the wealthy.
Ahhh -- are you arguing with yourself? WTF
The meth is starting to kick in right now -- yes?
Frankly, I want to see groveling. Humiliating, public groveling. Sackcloth and ashes and prostrate groveling.
followed by begging, pleading and then possibly some more groveling later in the afternoon
Then when that's all over, a week in public stocks in front of the bull on Wall Street. And that followed by another week in front of the White House. All in their underwear of course, so we can see their doughy, out-of-shape, nasty-ass, embarrassing raw carcasses.
The belief that the president's job is to do things that are counter-productive from the standpoint of actually getting @!$%# done just because it would be emotionally satisfying to the base, and the frustration that that didn't happen from 2009-2010, was a big part of the reason GOP messaging went uncountered and unchallenged by the grassroots of the left and was a major contributor to the 2010 Republican wave.
Just sayin'. Lessons of the past, etc. etc.
The base is not looking for the President to tilt at windmills. They expect to be able to continue to serve the country by helping the President achieve his objectives.
Yet it looks like we will be ignored by the DC elites around the president. Again.
If we have learned lessons from the past, then explain to me why Mitch Stewart indicated to all 30K OFA organizers that "The Action.org" was going to continue the grassroots fight, yet their twitter feed is still moribund after two weeks, with only 2900 followers.
That is pathetic.
Steve-
Totally and completely wrong. The base of the Democratic party was less than enthused about the 2010 election because Obama caved on so often on substantive important issues.
These were not "emotionally satisfying" issues - health care, the debt ceiling and on and on. Not exactly issues that were pursued for emotional reasons.
While it might be upsetting to those that think Obama can do no wrong to hear legitimate criticism of the president you have to grow up and deal with the real world.
As Balzac said: "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." These people like that pissant Blankfein, worth $9 billion and telling the rest of us to be happy with "necessary reductions." A nice Eisenhower tax level would take 8 of his ill-gotten $9 billion back where it belongs. It's not like he'd stop being rich at that point.
John and favedave continue to be right while you continue to demonstrate your political illiteracy, Steve. Here in the "reality based community" your wishes and fantasies are running up against Actual Facts.
Exactly , Carly Fiorina was on MEET THE REPUBLICANS sunday and started whining endlessly about how unfair it was that everyone wanted to raise the rich peoples taxes , after making trillions the last 20 years , her and her crew feel they are getting a raw deal FROM AMERICA
That is all these people really have to say and offer the president on the economic front , does anyone really imagine they are saying something else NOW to obama?
Did you see what the CEO's came up with last time obama put an economic team of them together to address job creation ? Their conclusion was we need more money for schools to develop more home grown engineers , which is good and all , but everything these people support cuts education , and it would create maybe 20,000 jobs over 10 years (?) Time to move on to bigger ideas I'd say mr obama
I would LOVE to be in the room with President Obama and Caterpillar's Doug Oberhelman.
The President made a trip to CAT headquarters in Peoria, IL. The purpose of the trip, at that time, was for Obama to promote his stimulus program. Keep in mind that a LOT of CAT's business is heavy construction equipment.
Less than a week after the smiles and giggles meeting at CAT, the CEO of CAT, Jim Owens, cut the President off at the knees saying that Owens didn't think much of the stimulus and it wouldn't do much for CAT's business.
Given the impact that the federal government can have on construction in this country, that has to be one of THE dumbest corporate moves I've seen in a while. Sort of on the level of Papa John's Pizza.
Warren Buffet sat down with Jon Stewart last night.
It seems that one does NOT have to lie, cheat, and steal to get incredibly wealthy.
(He reminisced about the "Good Old Days",when the income tax rate was at 90%, and capital gains was at 39%.)
Co-oping any good ideas the repukes have or stand for can and is compromise. Obamacare, etc. The dems can issue some "tough on crime" policies (longer rape sentences, tracking chips in felons,,), take away the evangelical demarcation (Jimmy Carter?), pro-military (shouldn't the right be lovn the drone attacks?), and as in this story try to compromise big biz. The problem is, is that the repukes really don't have that many good ideas to take over (compromise).
Anti-corruption/sunshine/pro whistler laws should appeal to reasonable repukes. The problem is reasonable repukes (women) may be a tiny minority to the bigots.
Get Honey Boo Boo to announce she's a democrat? Yes, yes, the right will believe some conspiracy that it was dubbed....
Two things, first I saw Lloyd Blankfein and he wasn't conciliatory in the least as he spoke about "doing away with the entitlement system"! Frankly, he's one of the people that should have been perp walked to jail for fraud!
Second, while the President meets with these "business leaders" he needs to remember who "brung him to the dance" and don't be so willing to "compromise" with these devils that he's willing to give away the store!
I get that President Obama is more to the right of progressives than we would like him to be and I get that you must talk to all sides, my issue is that he's shown in the past his willingness to just about give away the store in order to get people on board and that's where I fault him! Yes, I support him, but "support" doesn't mean that he doesn't get critiqued about his actions!
Blankfein and his company, Goldman Sachs, are the perfect example of everything that is wrong with the financial system. They are criminals, plain and simple.
Blankfein is The Enemy, and it would be a good idea of Obama would finally figure that out. All these guys he's meeting need to be indicted first, then negotiated with.
Why is the president of the US meeting with private CEO's at all? No one voted for them. They are not cabinet members. They simply have too much influence and power politically even under Obama. They shouldn't have such incredible access as this at all.
And, um, when was it that the President met with, say Occupy, or MoveOn, or other groups representing the victims of greed and its supporting policies and legislation? Oh, right, in an ideal world, that would be Congress, but nevermind.
I was thinking the other day we should try only letting women and unemployed men vote.
Luz, I believe that it was only the "Native American" women who voted to go to war. And warfare was largely a ceremonial event- like our NFL. (Scalping was learned from the French)
I think a third party could be founded on anti-corruption/transparency policies. This seems to be core to good governance. The people Knowing their taxes are being spent well = happy people. I've always been pissed at the dems for saying the right stuff and then selling out. The repukes use to be honest when they just had the one policy "we don't want to pay taxes".
Anyway, anti-corruption is the core "keep the public happy" policy.
Someone needs to make a determined effort to explain that entitlements are something we all pay for in our payroll taxes. They aren't handouts from the government. Plaster it all over the airwaves. I see dozens of ads every night by energy companies telling me how important they are for job creation, how they are responsible in getting natural gas from the ground, how they will make us independent in energy. How about the same kind of ad blitz that explains that we already pay for things like social security, medicare and unemployment benefits. It's sad that we even have to think about trying to explain this simple fact, but the far right and their propagandists have done an excellent job in convincing the voters that these are all just handouts that have blown up the deficit, which is a lie, pure and simple.
I think AARP does have an ad out about SS.
Of course the oil and gas companies have lots of money to pay for ad time to push their planet killing projects. The environmentalists and the elderly have to raise money from people who have barely enough to live on in order to try to get their message out.
Your ad Blitz is a good idea if you can find someone to pay for it.
Maybe this is something that Moveon.org should take on. This is something absolutely vital, as right now, the far right is winning the battle, convincing the average voter that we need to cut social security, medicare and medicaid because they are just government handouts that balloon the deficit. People need to understand that what the right is proposing is that while you may pay into those programs, you don't really deserve to get those benefits when you need them. It's like paying your mortgage for years, and in the end, you don't get to live in the house you paid for.
People are using way more money in SS and medicare than they put in. That in my mind is a handout when a person exceeds the amount they put in. SS wasn't originally expected to be our entire retirement account, but people wrongly have taken it that way. Yes, a person deserves to get something back form the programs, but there must be some severe reform. Young people aren't going to get that same benefit. We have known that for a long time! The government needs to get that reform done soon so that younger people that WILL be affected can make a plan. It is going to have to be phased in so that people who decided to totally rely on SS in their retirement years can be taken care of, but they should have done a little better planning. I am retirement age and I never remember a time when we believed that SS was going to take care of us. We have always known that it would go broke about the time that the baby boomers retired. And as usual, our elected representatives chose to do nothing about it and let the clock run out. Baby Boomers are retiring and the system is on the verge of bankruptcy. Sadly, the dems in power choose to look the other way. Younger generations will pay dearly.
OK, Jes, let's take you up on your proposal. You say that people shouldn't take out more than they put in? Fine, let's start with all those who make more than $116,000 per year. They only pay FICA on the amount they earn under that cap. Everything above it is FICA tax free. It seems to me that these folks are mooching off the system, right? Here's an interesting little factoid. According to conservative Joe Scarborough this morning on Morning Joe, when social security was originally enacted, the average life expectancy was 62, while the retirement age was 65. In other words, the average person paid into a system they probably wouldn't get to use. Now the average life expectancy is 79, so the average person will only collect social security benefits for 14 years or less. Even under these conditions, social security can continue to pay full benefits for another 22 years. If we eliminated the cap on FICA-taxable income, social security would be funded to 97% of its liability, therefore extending its solvency for many more years. Add means testing or raise the FICA tax a tiny fraction of a percent, and you could easily fund social security at 100% or more. The truth of the matter is that social security is NOT on the "verge of bankruptcy" as you put it, and social security is not the cause of the deficit. The CBO analysis showed that the biggest contributors were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and the Medicare drug benefit passed by repubs under Bush.
People in the past didn't rely solely on social security for retirement. Employers often had company pension plans that were a big portion of retiree's income. Most companies today have eliminated pension plans, instead going the way of the 401k. That's all well and good....until Wall Street greed crashed the stock market and devastated that source of income for retirees and near-retirees.
Sure, let's go ahead and make cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid. But, let's be balanced: for every dollar cut from those programs, two dollars need to come out of the Pentagon's budget, the biggest single source of fraud and waste and corruption in our government. How can we ask seniors, the disabled and the poor to give up on basic necessities while we waste hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons that don't work or aren't needed, or that end up costing 10 times more than was expected? I'd much rather see some defense contractor CEO take a cut in pay than see grandma living in a squalid, unheated apartment going without medical care or food.
I've been following the "Fix the Debt" crowd - specifically our good buddy Lloyd Blankfein, and it appears that even the corporate members are a little nervous about the behavior and press of the "CEO Fiscal Leadership Council".
I sent an email to Macy's letting them know that I'd be spending my money elsewhere this holiday season because they are part of an aggressive lobby to cut my Mom's SS and Medicare. Macy's response said it was an "internet rumor". I'm waiting patiently for a response from them clarifying whether their CEO is still affiliated with the group as posted in the fixthedebt website.
Have you not been listening? Up to now, there have been no plans to cut SS and medicare for retirees or soon to be retirees. They will continue to receive their benefits. Unfortunately, the younger generation will suffer greatly from our greed and mismanagement of the program. The government had no foresight to meet the problem head on and do something about it.
Hey jes33,
You don't know how old Rural Progessives's mother is. If she's not near retirement, she's screwed if they make significant cuts in coverage.
SS and medicare have NOT been mismanaged and do NOT need to be cut. SS needs some tweaking (raise the cap) to cover for longer life expectancies, and Medicare's biggest problem is that it's covered base needs a lot more care than policyholders for private healthcare insurance.
Truth is, Medicare serves as a form of welfare for private healthcare insurance, because it takes high risk policyholders off their rolls. Unlike private healthcare, Medicare doesn't have the luxury of having young, healthy policyholders paying premiums in month after month without filing any claims.
How to fix Medicare: make it universal through a single payer system and stop subsidizing the profits of private healthcare. Employers that want to increase coverage can offer supplemental insurance.
Hey Barack, tell Blankfein that his missive interview and certitude about cutting earned benefits, AKA entitlements, show he is as out of touch as Rmoney and Rayn with what just happened, and to get in line or get out of the way.
Just as an aside, I'd love to see the CEOs grovel a bit. Maybe a lot. Actually, a whole lot.
I'd rather see the look on their faces when they're served with their indictments.
I want their head in the guillotine myself. Break up ALL big business so small business might flourish.
We make big bets.