Hope you've had breakfast...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/budg-j23.shtml
Obama steps up campaign for “tough choices” on Medicare, Social Security
By Patrick Martin
23 July 2011

In a town hall appearance at the University of Maryland and a column in the newspaper USA Today, President Obama on Friday stepped up his campaign for what he called “tough choices” on Medicare, Social Security and other core domestic social programs.

(...)

Obama boasted, “I’m willing to cut a historic amount of government spending in order to reduce the deficit. I’m willing to cut spending on domestic programs, taking them to the lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower” (whose presidency ended in 1961).

(...)

Obama sounded the same theme in his USA Today column, which was headlined, “Go ‘Big’ on Debt Deal.” He reiterated the line that Washington must cut spending just as families hard-hit by the recession do, although the effect of the spending cuts is to inflict more social misery on working class families by eliminating jobs and social benefits on which they depend.

He said, “I'm willing to take on the rising costs of health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid,” claiming that this was necessary to “meet our obligations to an aging population.” This echoes the language of the House Republicans, who adopted a budget in April calling for the phasing out of Medicare for everyone under 55 and proclaimed this abolition of the program an effort to “save Medicare.”

(...)

Soz if the rest of the country is still WATCHING this slow motion train wreck. la'ti'da

Is there a "Tough Choices" banner behind the podium?

would be if there was not so much at stake.

Or was it a dream?

This is not the man I voted for. I don't know who it is.

effectively did was put the programs that had been the foundation of the Democratic party since their inception on the chopping block in exchange for eliminating a few tax credits

Was it worth it?

I think not. He has now caused much anxiety in ranks of progressives by suggesting cutting social security and medicare, and at the same time was rejected by the republicans who had no intention of negotiating in good faith.

When the campaign gets underway for 2012, how is he going to convince people that he will protect social security and medicare after this fiasco?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No surprise coming from the World Socialist.

He said, “I'm willing to take on the rising costs of health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid,” claiming that this was necessary to “meet our obligations to an aging population.” This echoes the language of the House Republicans, who adopted a budget in April calling for the phasing out of Medicare for everyone under 55 and proclaimed this abolition of the program an effort to “save Medicare.”

Two parts:

Part 1 - He said, “I'm willing to take on the rising costs of health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid,” claiming that this was necessary to “meet our obligations to an aging population.”

Part 2 - This echoes the language of the House Republicans, who adopted a budget in April calling for the phasing out of Medicare for everyone under 55 and proclaimed this abolition of the program an effort to “save Medicare.”

Place the two statements together, and it reads "Obama wants to abolish Medicare for people under 55." Of course, nothing other than the arrangement of the two statements and the laughably vague notion of "echoing" even suggests such a claim; it consists solely of the pairing of these two parts together. The technique is that of any liar and propagandist. This from an analyst who would presumably trumpet some so-called "scientific" approach to social problems: is "echoing language" a method for streng wissenschaftlich analysis now? Incredible.

of informed commentary? I am shocked!

There is quite a bit of good analysis on the WSWS, usually on labor issues. I don't think that because something is partisan, it can't provide good analysis. Everything is partisan in one way or another.

I'm looking at the language used in this particular article by this particular writer at this particular time. It is liar language, propaganda language, a rather old technique of pairing unlike things in order to suggest similarity.

But he's still happily digging away at his Democratic Party political grave.

Determined to bury the entire Party along with himself. And we're just supposed to be the collateral damage.

:-)

They're not exactly looking for a rejuvenated Democratic Party, after all, since they are a competing political party, yes?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am amazed to still find folks who don't even believe he SAID it! A quick look through the forum finds repeated dares to "PROVE IT" (that he has SAID these things!)

I don't get that mentality at all.

And for members who pounce on any of a sundry number of SOURCES, I remain unimpressed. When we post a link we are sharing something that another person has put out on the world wide web identify themselves. And are taking responsibility for their opinions. Conversely, those who ATTACK these public sources are hiding behind an anonymous identity in a very small, specialized niche corner of www.

It is also perfectly acceptable to point out a source's biases and motives. Let's not pretend that such legitimate critique is somehow out of bounds. The WSWS has every interest in promoting underhanded propaganda in this case, and posts above were fairly specific in exactly HOW they were doing so. Huffing and puffing and calling such critiques a simple attack on the source is a sad dodge that you are certainly better than, most days.

I think there is some wsws stuck to the bottom of your shoe... :eyes:

Or something.