Oct 12, 2013

Status Of The Shutdown And What It Portends For The Future

     Here are a couple of excerpts from pundits, suggesting that we're nearing a solution to the current impasse but that even though Social Security and Medicare are safe, any government benefit that older white voters perceive as going to the undeserving will continue to draw fevered opposition from the GOP:
     Jonathan Bernstein writing for the Washington Post:
Republicans do seem to be getting ready to surrender (although they seem to have only reached the stage at which they’re asking for rewards for surrendering; it may take a while longer for them to fully understand the concept). A true economic disaster may yet be avoided. But everyone should remember just how irresponsible they’ve been on this one.
     Ronald Bernstein writing for the National Journal:
Veteran Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who has studied the two parties' coalitions since the 1980s, recently conducted several focus groups with GOP voters that probed this passion. He concluded that the roaring sense of embattlement among the almost all-white tea party and evangelical Christian voters central to the GOP base draws on intertwined ideological, electoral, and racial fears. ... 
Greenberg's analysis echoes the findings of other scholars, such as Harvard sociologist Theda Skocpol, whose studies have concluded that the tea party's most ardent priority is reducing government transfer payments to those it considers undeserving....
House GOP leaders flailing for an exit strategy this week are again suggesting broad negotiations that will constrain entitlement programs such as Medicare. But our latest polling shows older and downscale whites overwhelmingly resist changes in Medicare or Social Security, which they consider benefits they have earned—and pointedly distinguish from transfer programs.
Those findings suggest that the real fight under way isn't primarily about the size of government but rather who benefits from it. The frenzied push from House Republicans to derail Obamacare, shelve immigration reform, and slash food stamps all point toward a steadily escalating confrontation between a Republican coalition revolving around older whites and a Democratic coalition anchored on the burgeoning population of younger nonwhites.


Anonymous said...

Well, one positive that I have gleaned from this is that Medicare and Social Security retirement are not considered "freebees".

Anonymous said...

S.S. and Medicare are safe?

Wonderful news if true.

Anonymous said...

I find it repulsive that numerous disabled claimants with appeals in federal court are currently "stayed" pending this ridiculous situation in Congress.

Anonymous said...

Could someone, anyone, please tell me when buying heath insurance, planning for retirement, following immigration laws, and paying for the food you eat became something dependent on a person's race or age? What year was that? When was it that it became OK not to be personally responsible? How do people handle such needs in other countries throughout the world? There are differences based upon culture, but a more common truth is that it is wrong to steal. It is wrong to take away that earned by someone else. It is wrong to reward the lazy and those who believe they are exempt from the rules.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous Dem senate aid suggests WH is growing soft now that Dems are winning.

"I do fear the WH is up to something bad. Obama says over and over "I will not negotiate", but we know he loves to cave".

This amongst reported growing tension between senate dems and the WH.




Anonymous said...

"The purpose is to create an atmosphere of great fear, chaos and confusion in which the public is hoodwinked into passively accepting changes in Social Security and Medicare- in order to SAVE THE COUNTRY".

We're being played for fools.

The president is a fraud, representing neither the people nor Democratic principles.

He represents a clear danger to Social Security.

Behold as this fraud, acting at the behest of his corporate masters, snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, damaging not only Social Security, but putting at risk the Democratic party control of the

Anonymous said...

1:09 - There are no "disabled" claimants pending appeals at federal court. Those claimants are just alleging disability - after having been found to be not disabled by the DDS intitial evalation, DDS recon, ALJ decision, and AC review.

Anonymous said...

I was found disabled during judicial review after"DDS intitial evalation, DDS recon, ALJ decision, and AC review"

This country is becoming more and more diverse. Electing republicans now will not change that. It will perhaps or maybe only hurt poor whites.

Anonymous said...

The poor? Very few "poor" people in the America, very few.

Anonymous said...

1:09 - There are no "disabled" claimants pending appeals at federal court? Seriously? An ALJ decision no more makes someone disabled or not than a jury makes someone innocent.

Secondly, what about claims that will be remanded and paid back to the origional AOD? If an Agency determination is the sole measure, cleary there are a large number of disabled people in the federal court system.

@ 6:50 PM, October 12, 2013, I'm glad you found relief in the federal courts. It stinks that that's what it takes some times.