Sheer Coincidence
This has nothing to do with Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan's budget, Tea Party agitation, Rick Santelli's rants, Rick Perry's irresponsible language, or any other crazy, radical right wing nut-jobbery you might care to mention.
This is a coincidence, see? Stop drawing your radical right wing conclusions. From the NYTimes:
In a significant shift driven by bipartisan concern about the looming long-term debt, Republicans and Democrats are no longer fighting over whether to tackle the popular entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — but over how to do it...
The collapse of the budget negotiations between Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner, with their tentative trade-off between savings from entitlement programs and new revenues, left many in both parties convinced that no significant debt-reduction bargain is likely before the 2012 elections. Unless Republicans accept higher taxes on the wealthy, and they swear they will not, Democrats will not support reductions in future entitlement benefits.
Yet both parties are feeling the pressure to act sooner. That reflects not only the seriousness of the nation’s looming debt crisis as baby boomers age, but also the possibility later this year that just as in this summer’s fight over raising the debt limit, the financial markets and the economy in general will be shaken by dysfunction in Washington if no plan can be mapped out by the new deficit-reduction committee and enacted by Congress.
Coincidences like this keep life fresh and interesting.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Sheer Coincidence
It's like The Sixth Sense. I hear dead people.
Dec '10
Re: Sheer Coincidence
"Unless Republicans accept higher taxes on the wealthy, and they swear they will not, Democrats will not support reductions in future entitlement benefits." The situation is asymmetric. Whether the Democrats support them or not, reductions in future entitlement benefits will be necessitated by the insolvency of the entitlement programs. The only hope for Democrats to preserve entitlement benefits at any level is to support reform of the programs. Holding their collective breath until their faces turn as blue as Maxine Waters's district won't do the job.
May '10
Re: Sheer Coincidence
It's an attempted set up by the NYT. They are telling Democrates their strategy should be to get out in front of the entitlement debate, but declare that they can do it smarter and with more compasion than the GOP. And you wait the Repubs will fall for it. Also explain to me again what is so irresponsible about what Rick Perry said? I suppose it is if you look at everything through the glasses of Mike Murphy. Tell me again how it worked out for Meg Whitman and Mike Murphy.
May '10
Re: Sheer Coincidence
The real story here, which the NYT missed, is that the Democrats have finally conceded to the Republicans in the longstanding debate over eternal damnation.
Dec '10
Re: Sheer Coincidence
Peter - I'm pretty sure Rob was being sarcastic.
Sep '10
Re: Sheer Coincidence
WRT Medicare, remember that we receive three dollars of benefit for every one we pay in. Today the taxes being paid into Medicare plus what's in the trust fund(?) is enough to cover all the medical expenses of retired fogies like me. In other words, no monies are needed from the general fund to pay for my medical expenses. That ends in 2017 (or earlier given the recession). I imagine the Demos are expecting/hoping that the general fund will pay the shortfall beginning in 2017.
May '10
Re: Sheer Coincidence
The Great Adventure!
Peter - I'm pretty sure Rob was being sarcastic. · Sep 12 at 9:43am
I tend to think he wasn't considering he is not the only one saying basically the same thing. But after reading it again, perhaps you are right.
Aug '10
Re: Sheer Coincidence
We must remember: the NYT is allowed to change the meaning of words and declare something "to be" with no evidence or proof. They can ascribe any motive to any person or action at any time. They may change course for political expediency. They may essentially say whatever works for them whenever they want. They will receive Pulitzer prizes for doing so.
And the Right is not allowed to question any of this.
Re: Sheer Coincidence
Peter Norman
The Great Adventure!
Peter - I'm pretty sure Rob was being sarcastic. · Sep 12 at 9:43am
I tend to think he wasn't considering he is not the only one saying basically the same thing. But after reading it again, perhaps you are right. · Sep 12 at 11:46am
Oh no. That was sarcasm. Maybe I need to turn up the dial.
May '10
Re: Sheer Coincidence
Rob Long
Peter Norman
The Great Adventure!
Peter - I'm pretty sure Rob was being sarcastic. · Sep 12 at 9:43am
I tend to think he wasn't considering he is not the only one saying basically the same thing. But after reading it again, perhaps you are right. · Sep 12 at 11:46am
Oh no. That was sarcasm. Maybe I need to turn up the dial. · Sep 12 at 5:46pm
Wait, are you being sarcastic here?