Until we figure it out, we are in trouble.

Class matters. Race matters. Gender matters. Age matters.

Obama isn't doing this because he has to. He's doing it because he wants to.

He campaigned on cutting Social Security and cut it he will all under the guise of "fixing" it. David Brooks reported back in March 2009

These paragraphs were the result of the anonymity Brooks gave to the Obama White House (emphasis in original):

    Besides, the long-range debt is what matters, and on this subject President Obama is hawkish.

    He is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending. link

The president said today that any deal was going to have pain for everyone, but I don't believe that - I think corporate profits, bonuses, dividends, CEO salaries are all going to go up and up and up.  Wall Street isn't going to suffer, the banksters are not going to suffer, insurance companies are not going to suffer.  Who will?  Average Americans.  People on the cusp of retirement.  Old people, poor people - they will suffer.  It's beyond offensive that inflicting pain upon people who simply have no recourse is considered some kind of great accomplishment, that making liberals mad is considered a badge of honor by someone who carries a (D) after his name.

This is just insanity.  Economic suicide.

Republicans will have ongoing orgasms of delight watching Obama destroy the jewel in the crown of the Democratic Party.

Clobbering Social Security will be blamed on Obama and Democrats and only on Obama and Democrats.

Beyond the politics, cutting Social Security is the depth of infamy, an act exposing Obama's complete lack of understanding of nation.  Unfortunately it's not just Obama, it's the whole feeble elite class in government, business, education and the media.  We have no leaders, just sniveling little managers.

You're damn right it's class warfare, we should be saying.  We're at war with money junkies who have no class, who really don't care if you can get a job or not, or stay in your home, as long as they can rake in as much money as they can.

Obama has an opportunity to improve his standing among independent voters -- many of whom deserted the Democrats in the 2010 midterm election -- by working with Republicans toward bipartisan deficit-reduction measures.

Kohut pointed out several times that Obama and the Republicans are proposing things almost completely opposite what the public wants to have done.  The public by two to one favors tax increases, some cuts, but not messing with the social safety nets (SS, Medicare and Medicaid).  Affluent Republicans don't mind if SS and Medicare are screwed with, but middle, lower, and poor Republicans do not want these TOUCHED.

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, surprisingly, when you ask about what is more important, preserving benefits for Social Security and Medicare, by 2-1 -- or reducing deficit or the debt -- 2-1, people say, preserve -- preserve our benefits.

There is very little give there. Now, Republicans are of the view -- more of the view that reducing the -- reducing the deficit should be given high priority. But even among Republicans, it's really interesting. There is a big income divide. Affluent Republicans say it is more important to reduce the deficit, but poorer Republicans, middle-class and lower-middle-class Republicans say, no, no, protect our benefits.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And have -- are these attitudes, Andy, that have changed over time, with all the attention that's now being given to the size of the debt and the urgency of the problem?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, a lot -- people are willing to do a lot of things to reduce this deficit. Concern is at an all-time high.

But when it comes to entitlements, there's no movement. It really is rock-solid when we see 2-1 margins.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, again, entitlements meaning Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

ANDREW KOHUT: And even Medicaid. Having states raise the -- make it more -- reduce eligibility for Medicaid, not 2-1, but a solid majority say, no, let's not do that.
SNIP
ANDREW KOHUT: And that is completely opposite to public opinion.

When we say, if push comes to shove, if you have to do something, what would you rather see with respect to these entitlements, revenues increased, or taxes increased, or benefits cut? People say, raise taxes, raise costs, but don't cut those benefits.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you see that across the board?

ANDREW KOHUT: See that across the board.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Republican -- what about Republican vs. Democrat?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, there is a gap on this, but when you get such large 2-1 margins and you have this class division within the Republican Party, that is potentially big stuff come election time. There will be a huge cry and howl if benefits are seen to have been -- to have been cut here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And so I hear you saying some of the public reaction is going to depend on how this is packaged, how it is described to the American people, whatever -- if they come up with an agreement.

ANDREW KOHUT: Right.

I mean, there is support for raising the contribution cap, of doing some things like that. But the notion that the retirement ages will be delayed or in some way people are going to have to pay a larger share of their Medicare costs out of their pocket, all of those things are very, very unpopular.
(My emphasis, and do note how Woodruff reacts to Kohut saying people want one thing, Obama and R's are doing the opposite, so the takeaway is -- how it is going to be SPUN. Oh, she is a true Versailles courtier.)

Obama does not work for us. Repubs do not work for us.  ConservaDems do not work for us. Who does?

I'll take the lumps on behalf of team Obama supporters on this because it doesn't look fantastic at this point, but I am keeping the faith.

I don't think Obama wants this to be passed that way though.  He wants this to be his big truly bipartisan victory.  I don't think the GOP is dumb enough to jeopardize this opportunity to gouge out spending cuts that might be gone if the Dems are the party that passes the bill in the House.

The Senate seems like a piece of cake regardless, most of them love this sh*t on both sides of the aisle, Durbin has been making a fool out of himself at the prospect of a Grand Bargain.  

Kent Conrad meanwhile occupies the WTF?? position with his 50/50 proposal.  What a joke.  Did he intentionally wait until the last minute to introduce it (yes)?