Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Simpson and Bowles says Obama Headed for 'Failed Presidency' Without Entitlement Reforms.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 97 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 19, 2013 3:57:11 PM PST
D. Mertins says:
Simpson: Obama Headed for 'Failed Presidency' Without Entitlement Reforms

Alan Simpson says he is optimistic Obama is serious about cutting spending

February 19, 2013 RSS Feed Print

President Barack Obama walks with former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson to the Rose Garden of the White House, April 27, 2010.

President Barack Obama's presidential legacy hinges on whether he can significantly reform entitlement spending, says one top former Republican official.

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who has paired with former Clinton administration Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles in a bipartisan push for deficit reduction, said Tuesday Obama will have a "failed presidency" if he doesn't take on his own party when it comes to Social Security and Medicare reform.

"[Obama] knows what to do and if he doesn't get a handle on entitlements and the solvency of Social Security, he will have a failed presidency," Simpson said at a Politico-sponsored event. "And if he wants to have a legacy of the new FDR or the second whatever that is that drives him that's fine with me, but he will have a failed presidency unless he deals honestly with these programs without cutting the poor and the wretched and all the rest. I don't think he wants that at all. He's too smart."

Obama and Republicans have been negotiating since 2011 on how to cut spending and lower the country's $16 trillion debt. Obama has floated Social Security reforms-including lowering the annual rate of benefit growth-that the most liberal in his party oppose, but Republicans have said he isn't willing to go far enough to achieve meaningful reform.

Federal entitlement spending, including programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, made up 44 percent of the federal budget in 2012, according to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

Simpson said he's optimistic that with the 2012 election behind him, Obama will be willing to deal.

"The political guys have hopefully all gone home now and they were there for a purpose and it worked: get him re-elected," he said. "So now maybe, maybe, just maybe they'll sit down and do policy for the best interest for the country without the howling, shrieking, keening wail of the coyotes using emotion, fear, guilt, and racism to beat your brains in."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/19/simpson-obama-headed-for-failed-presidency-without-entitlement-reforms

Posted on Feb 19, 2013 4:03:42 PM PST
D. Mertins says:
Final plan

The final plan,[12] released on December 1, 2010 reduced the federal deficit by nearly $4 trillion, stabilizing the growth of debt held by the public by 2014, reduce debt 60 percent by 2023 and 40 percent by 2035. The deficit would be eliminated by 2035.

Outlays would equal 21.6 percent of GDP in 2015, compared to 23.8 percent in 2010 and would fall to 21.0 percent by 2035. Revenues would rise from 14.9 percent in 2010 to 19.3 percent in 2015 and would equal 21.0 percent in 2035.

Built off a baseline called the "Plausible Baseline", which closely resembled the Congressional Budget Office's Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the plan achieved roughly $2 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue increases. The Plausible Baseline built off of a current law baseline by assuming that the 2001/2003 tax cuts were extended except for those above $250,000, the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax would continue at 2009 levels, the Medicare physicians pay freeze would continue and war spending would decrease based on current administration policy.

The final plan was broken down into six major components (savings are 2012-2020):

1. $1,661 billion of discretionary spending cuts by putting in place discretionary spending caps into law lower than what is projected to be spent.

2. $995 billion in additional revenue with $785 billion in new revenues from tax reform by lowering income and corporate tax rates and broadening the base by eliminating tax expenditures. An additional $210 billion in revenue is also raised in other revenue by switching to the Chained-CPI and an increase in the federal gasoline tax

3. $341 billion in federal health care savings by reforming the Sustainable Growth Rate for Medicare, repeals the CLASS Act (which has already happened), increase Medicare cost sharing, reform health-care tort, change provider payments, increase drug rebates and establishes a long-term budget for total federal health-care spending after 2020 to GDP + 1 percent.

4. $215 billion in other mandatory savings by moving to the Chained CPI for all inflation-indexed programs, reform the military and civil service retirement system, reduce farm subsidies, reduce student loans and various other reforms.

5. $238 billion in Social Security reform, to be used to ensure the program is sustainably solvent in the infinite horizon by slowing benefit growth for high and medium-income workers, increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 by indexing it to longevity, index cost of living adjustments to the Chained-CPI, include newly hired state and local workers after 2020, increase the payroll tax cap to cover 90 percent of wages by 2050 and creates a new minimum and old-age benefit.

6. Budget Process Reforms by creating discretionary spending caps and caps total federal revenue at 20 percent of GDP.

An additional $673 billion is saved due to lower projected spending interest payments as a result from lower deficits.

Posted on Feb 19, 2013 4:23:21 PM PST
Don says:
I see nowhere in your article that Mr. Bowles made any such statement. Simpson is credible only by his pairing with Bowles. Otherwise he is just another Republican loudmouth.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 4:25:37 PM PST
south texas says:
a repbulican loud mouth chosen by president and both houses to make suggestions of what needs to be done. also both of these men lead and did a great deal while in office. your president wanted this and then ignored them.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 5:13:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 8:47:16 PM PST
D. Mertins says:
Simpson and Bowles both have retired now and have nothing politically to gain from this.

Unlike the King, they have financial credentials and care about our Country's future.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 6:11:24 PM PST
D. Mertins says:
It's not my article but the very first line states the obvious.

Posted on Feb 19, 2013 8:46:17 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 9:12:43 PM PST
D. Mertins says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 9:17:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 9:35:57 PM PST
D. Mertins says:
You sound just like Nobama...... and folks like you will make everyone's retirement more bleak..... Especially the poor...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 9:24:45 PM PST
Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 7:14:06 AM PST
but their people have zero expertise except in lying

ooohh......
i see what you mean

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 7:34:06 AM PST
sotex says: "a repbulican loud mouth chosen by president and both houses to make suggestions of what needs to be done. also both of these men lead and did a great deal while in office. your president wanted this and then ignored them."

sotex,

Here's a quick reminder of just what happened to Simpson-Bowles. It doesn't seem that the failure was the result of "your president" ignoring them. (Who's the president in south TX?)

"The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 53-46, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it.[5] Thereafter, President Obama established the Commission by Executive Order 13531. Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), after his appointment to co-chair the Commission, criticized the former supporters who had voted against the bill, saying that their purpose "was to stick it to the president."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform

Lots of other sources that can verify the reason the Simpson-Bowles commission wasn't acted upon.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 7:44:03 AM PST
Ice King says:
Maybe if you hadn't built a reputation for saying liberals want people to die to further their agenda and 99% of your posts weren't just made up garbage people would take you more seriously.

Or have you decided to make this alt more reasonable?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 7:52:33 AM PST
DEEZUS says:
You guys seem to know a lot more about that book than any liberal that I've ever met.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 8:00:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 8:04:23 AM PST
south texas says:
you are missing four democrats and what about the two indepents? i did not see a pr campagin by obmama speaking of this issue? i did not see reid pushing for this on tv?

''First, it should be fairly clear why the White House figured Simpson-Bowles was a nonstarter. They thought that if they endorsed it, Republicans would oppose it en masse, and hang every unpopular tax increase and spending cut around the White House's neck. In retrospect, I think the White House miscalculated here, but it's easy to see why they made the decision they did. The proposal the White House ultimately released included far fewer tax increases and security spending cuts than Simpson-Bowles.''

''Congress has already passed 70 percent of the discretionary cuts. Under the Budget Control Act, discretionary spending will be $1.5 trillion lower from 2013 to 2022 than was projected in the Congressional Budget Office's 2010 baseliner. That means that 70 percent of S-B's cuts to discretionary spending are done.''

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 8:10:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 8:13:31 AM PST
sotex,

Read the link rather than attempting to cherry pick issues that were specifically addressed. Or, you could research the history yourself.

"Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), after his appointment to co-chair the Commission, criticized the former supporters who had voted against the bill, saying that their purpose "was to stick it to the president."

Who vowed to make Obama a one term president and took every opportunity to "stick it to him"? I think Alan Simpson; whose credentials you've defended; made a concise comment that speaks for itself.

EDIT: The two paragraphs you added to your post are in quotes. You don't use quotes for your comments and there are no spelling errors. Where did you cut-and-paste the quotes from? A citation is always appreciated as one can read it for context and accuracy.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 8:22:07 AM PST
south texas says:
washington post and thanks for the grammar attack which i really do not care. you are cherry picking knowing that the two paragraphs are not cherry picked but fact.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 8:45:54 AM PST
No attack, just an observation.

The Wash Post when? Who wrote it; it's clearly an op-ed and op-eds are known to bend and cherry pick facts. That it was written does not make it a fact.

The issue was the history behind the failure of Bowles-Simpson to be adopted BY CONGRESS rather than your claim that the president ignored it.

Posted on Feb 20, 2013 10:51:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 11:02:59 AM PST
D. Mertins says:
You'd think the Dem's would like Sequestration. 50% is coming from the military while the rest takes a little bit from a lot of different discretionary programs.

In other words, Republicans will get hurt more...... What's not to love?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 10:52:57 AM PST
I read it once to see what the conservatives were talking about. It certainly wasn't as pure evil as I'd been led to believe.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 10:54:36 AM PST
DEEZUS says:
I figured it was all Deicide and King Diamond records with ritual sacrifice...

...and SOCIALISM!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 11:05:52 AM PST
DEEZUS: (Ref to Saul Alinsky) "You guys seem to know a lot more about that book than any liberal that I've ever met."

That's probably true. That's also the problem. Perhaps, you should do some research before voting for politicians whom you know nothing about. One would be hard pressed to find someone who has had a stronger influence on todays progressive party's tactics, than Saul Alinsky.

Obama and Hillary have been particularly motivated by Alinsky, this is a well documented fact. So when their liberal supporters enthusiastically boast that they, themselves, are unfamiliar with Alinsky's work...they are merely flaunting their ignorance, regarding a pillar of the progressive movement.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 11:09:49 AM PST
Meghann says: "I read it once to see what the conservatives were talking about. It certainly wasn't as pure evil as I'd been led to believe."

Things seldom are outside conservative-winger land.

One has to appreciate the difference between conservatives and conservative-wingers. To a winger, everything outside winger land is scary and threatens to initiate the apocalypse.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 11:11:01 AM PST
DEEZUS says:
I've yet to vote for Saul Alinsky.

Please post the documentation.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 11:28:39 AM PST
sotex says: "washington post [op-ed is] not cherry picked but fact.

Any more information or sources to support that 'factual' op-ed? You've been unusually silent since asked about that.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 12:03:12 PM PST
Sozey: "Things seldom are outside conservative-winger land."

If you choose to remain in the liberal bubble, that's cool. However, if you're gonna vote, get informed.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  10
Total posts:  97
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2013
Latest post:  Feb 21, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions