Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Dick Durbin says WHAAAAT?

By Matthew Larotonda | ABC OTUS News  

Medicare and Medicaid savings should be part of future debt-reduction efforts, but not on the table in talks regarding the impending " fiscal cliff," the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate said. In the prepared remarks of Sen. Richard Durbin's speech today to the liberal Center for American Progress, he writes that progressives cannot "pretend" the programs can "continue forever" without changes to ensure their solvency. 

But the majority whip from Illinois insists that any adjustments should come after the immediate budget is passed. "Progressives should be willing to talk about ways to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," it reads. "But those conversations should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff."

 During the event, the Illinois lawmaker skipped over that section of his notes, which were released to the media, but told reporters that he stood by every word. "We can't be so naive as to believe that just taxing the rich is going to solve our problems," he told the crowd, adding that his caucus needed to be open to issues "painful and hard for us to talk about."  (Z: Dick WHO said this?)


 Durbin said he continued to be opposed to some conservative proposals, including voucher programs for Medicare and a block-grant system for Medicaid. But he also maintained he's wary of raising the eligibility age for the safety-net programs, for fear of creating coverage gaps. President Obama floated that idea last year. The statements offer a window into what might be congressional Democrats' proverbial "line in the sand" as each party sharpens their negotiating teams. Both sides must reach a budget agreement by Dec. 31, or else trigger the $607 billion in automatic tax hikes and spending cuts economists agree would plunge the economy back into recession.

 Some members of Congress see the talks as an opportunity to reduce the national debt, and it has become a central talking point as the deadline draws closer. Members of both parties discussed cuts to entitlement programs earlier this month in a meeting with Obama as a way to bring about deficit reduction. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the sum total of US entitlement programs - including Social Security - make up a projected 62.4 percent of the federal budget in 2012. 

Z:  okay...sounds pretty good.  But why can't entitlements be part of the budget?   Is he pulling something?   What do you think?  So, the Republicans give in on some tax increases and he decides he's changed his mind after the talks and says all entitlements must stay?  naaa, he wouldn't do that.  :-)
????

21 comments:

Divine Theatre said...

Of course he is lying. His mouth is open.

Andie

FreeThinke said...

Bravo, Andie! Touché!

I dubbed him Dick Dirtbin many years ago, and never think of him any other way.

Once again we are mired in a fake competition between The Evil Party and The Stupid Party.

Guess which is which?

~ FT

Divine Theatre said...

Did you see this? Illinois is number seven?

http://www.economicfreedom.org/2012/11/28/economic-freedom-of-north-america-2012/

JonBerg said...

I still don't get it when Social Security is refered to as "Entitlement". While that appelation may have some merit when such benifits are provided to those who paid [nothing] into it and shouldn't be able to draw from it. Employees and employers have contributed specifically, as required by law,and thus the system is [obligated] to pay benifits according to the law. I find it a little odd to think, somehow, that I'm "Entitled" to my own money that I EARNED! It's kind of like referring to Liberalism as "Progressive"!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

SS may not meet the exact definition of an entitlement, but it's still an involuntary program that strips money from one's paycheck...in other words, theft.

Entitlements should not only be ON the table....but should be cut/reformed prior to any talk of defense cuts.

Average American said...

Social Security, referring to people that paid into it, is in fact an entitlement. I AM ENTITLED TO get my money back! The problem lies in the fact that politcians have made the word "entitlement" a cuss word, as bad or worse than the 4-letter f-word. The same applies to Medicare and Medicaid.

Social Security would NOT be in such bad shape, in fact, would have a massive debit, if Congress had not stuck their dirty stealing grimey little fingers into the pot! As a prime example, SSI. Not part of the original plan and WAY WAY WAY to filled with fraudulent claims.

Divine Theatre said...

Social Security is not an entitlement. It is strictly a refund.

Andie

Silverfiddle said...

He has something up his sleeve...

Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liberalmann said...

Interesting. Wingnuts finally are realizing the programs they paid into, the 'entitlements' as the GOP had branded them, are in fact programs they deserve.

Taxing the wealthiest 2% or 3% more will not break them and WILL help the deficit. What they need to do is truly get rid of loopholes and tax shelters for the Mitt Rmoneys in this country riding on the backs of the middle class

Any by the way, SS does not add a dime to the debt.

-FJ said...

Can't we all just go along to get along now?

The Republican lesson from the 2012 election.

Now listen to the sound of cans being kicked down the road.

-FJ said...

Social Security is not an entitlement. It is strictly a refund.

It was... but for the past four years, the agency has only been collecting 3/4 of what was authorized for it to collect to strictly be a "refund".

Anonymous said...

Libman...it's the Republicans who've been fighting so hard for closing loopholes, etc.
We wouldn't be in this trouble if Obama'd only been open to the Republicans; remember, also, that Bush publicly denounced the liberal idiocy of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac giving ridiculous loans people didn't understand...
Yes, and, as usual, as liberals tend to do, they've hurt the poor who had no idea how bad a loan with no down payment could be, or what a balloon payment was. "Surprise! you have to move if you can't pAY"!

horrible...typical. You guys just need to get OUT OF THE WAY and let adults run America.

thanks

Z

Liberalmann said...

Z said: "Libman...it's the Republicans who've been fighting so hard for closing loopholes, etc.
We wouldn't be in this trouble if Obama'd only been open to the Republicans; remember, also, that Bush publicly denounced the liberal idiocy of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac giving ridiculous loans people didn't understand...
Yes, and, as usual, as liberals tend to do, they've hurt the poor who had no idea how bad a loan with no down payment could be, or what a balloon payment was. "Surprise! you have to move if you can't pAY"!

horrible...typical. You guys just need to get OUT OF THE WAY and let adults run America."

......

WOOOW, Can you be even more of a bald faced liar? No, the GOP wants less regulation including on loopholes. Sure, they'd take away the middle class loopholes for home ownership and education but they SAID they will do noting for the Rmoney type loopholes.

And if you will recall it was BUSH who pushed for more loans given to those unqualified.

The GOP ran us into the ditch and they tried to get the keys back and failed. No, YOU get out of the way! And you could at least wait a few years if you want to re-invent history.

Z said...

Libman..think what you want.
i'd be so ashamed to have a closed and uneducatable mind.
you're DEAD WRONG about Bush on that...and dead wrong about the loopholes.
Good try.

but maybe there's hope; you seem like a moth drawn to the flame..maybe you do realize truth when you see it, somewhere deep down, and it's drawing you CONSTANTLY to my blog.

do some homework; LEARN!! It's good for you!

Z said...

http://wzakcleveland.com/3511411/national-president-obama-rejects-republican-plan-to-close-loopholes

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Impertinent said...

@Z

"LEARN!! It's good for you!"

You're being sarcastic I hope...you can't be serious with a dweeb POS that's mentally unstable...can you? He lives for anarchy, chaos, disruption, hate, anger, and the progressive way.

That's out problem Z... patience...we extend a hand...we think we can convert and coerce....we think logic and the better argument will stand up against the evil these shits wish upon the rest of us. We are...fully...now...thanks to the Soros...the Alinsky's...the 'progressives"...and the bastard King...he is you know....an evenly divided nation.

47% Mitt said....he could have elaborated... he's too timid...too polite...too PC.

He should have said that the 47% and growing is at war with tradition...law...the constitution...family....morals and morality....God, church and all that most of us believe in. But not for long.

The POS lib turd belongs in Somalia ducking an atomization of a terorist's body bomb.

Many of us see...only one solution and one way out. The Constitution isn't being defended by the Republican scum....certainly not by the parasite scum demrats...nibbling away at the edges...tearing away at the fabric of a civilized society...we'll have to decide soon what the best path is for our survival.

Many of us see only one solution. Hopefully it takes hold of us.

Whateverman said...

okay...sounds pretty good. But why can't entitlements be part of the budget?
Because entitlements aren't line item entries in the national budget. They're actually part of much larger and more contentious issues.

Simply put, to require "entitlement" reform before passing a budget means the budget wont be passed before 2020.

Look at how long "Obama Care" took to get signed into law. Do you really think we can reform the health care and social security system in a few weeks?

Durbin is speaking of practicality, and nothing more. I understand why it might be upsetting, but that's only because some people think the current budget issues boil down to nothing more than partisanship.

Liberalmann said...

‪Z‬ said…"i'd be so ashamed to have a closed and uneducatable mind.
you're DEAD WRONG about Bush on that...and dead wrong about the loopholes."
.....
So typical of a wingnut to lob insults when disagreed with. It get's worse when they are proven wrong:

Let go to the video replay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ

And: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/09/23/607383/-George-Bush-proud-parent-of-the-mortgage-crisis

Lol. Lob away!

Srikanto Bormon said...

Most Pen Drive use a ordinary type-A USB connection allowing plugging into a port on a personal computer, but drives for other interfaces also exist. In 1999 – 2000, pen drives ware invented by Amir Ban, Dov Moran and Oron Ogdan, all of the Israeli company M-Systems. The first Pen Drive was manufactured in early 2000 by a company called Trek with product Thumbkey, shortly followed by M-systems (now SanDisk) with their DiskonKey drive. Pen Drive combines a number of older technologies, among subordinate cost, subordinate power expenditure and tiny size made possible by advances in C.P.U technology. In 2000, IBM and Trek Technology began selling the first USB flash drives. Starting commercially at memory levels in the kilobyte range, memory capacity skyrocketed over the next several years into the multi-gigabyte level. Now a day’s Pen Drive / USB flash drives is a most popular device of all around the world. Every computer expert or under expert use it for data transfer and data storage. It has made the world a very different place. Latest uses and adaptations come almost each year, and the demand is increasing with each new technology.
hydro electric
hydro electric power
what is hydro electric
inventhistory
power generator
wind power generator
solar and power
electric transportation