OMGLOLWTF WHUT?!

As those on the left of the political spectrum in the US react with outrage to the report that Obama is willing to treat Social Security and Medicare as bargaining chips with the Republicans, Obama has responded by acknowledging that "there is going to be pain involved politically on all sides" during debt negotiations.

Yep. That was definitely my biggest objection. That it might be politically unwise to dismantle the nation's social safety net.

Blink.

I mean, that is some profoundly clueless shit, right there.

Don't get me wrong. It is politically unwise. But I think most of us are rather more concerned about leaving people to eat dog food until they die in abject poverty without heat or healthcare, than concerned about whether the assholes who refuse to tell the rich and corporations that kicking a little bit more into the kitty is JUST PART OF LIVING IN A DECENT SOCIETY get reelected.

Let them eat bootstraps!

I'm So Glad We Elected a Democrat, Part One Billion and Five

Hell to the no:

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

What the everloving fuck. That was a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad plan when George W. Bush proposed it, and it's a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad plan now.

At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation's budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

"Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don't believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance," said a Democratic official familiar with the administration's thinking. "These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by."

Yes, it would be a real mistake for Democrats to let pass the opportunity to unwind all that socialist claptrap instituted by that loser FDR. Why let the Republicans get all the credit for ruining the country?!

For the record, although I sincerely doubt there's any confusion about this outside the White House: All the times I've written some variation on, "I hope Obama is a more successful president than Bush," that did not mean, "I hope he is more successful at DISMANTLING THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET."

Gilded Age News

Whoooooooooooooooooops this is why pretending that global corporations have even the tiniest shred of patriotism is a terrible idea:

Less than three years after receiving $10 billion in bailout money from American taxpayers, Goldman Sachs informed its employees recently that it will fire 1,000 workers in the United States and elsewhere, shifting their jobs to the cheaper Singaporean labor market.

...Goldman Sachs has also worked to [inoculate itself from the impending blowback] by hiring former Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (NH) as an "international advisor." It is not unreasonable to assume that Gregg's 26 years in Washington will help the investment firm's attempts to placate critics.

Ha ha remember when President Obama nominated Judd Gregg to serve as Commerce Secretary? GOOD TIMES!

Anyway, over at the Atlantic, Daniel Indiviglio makes the point that Goldman Sachs is eliminating the same sort of jobs here that it's taking to Singapore, where the standard of living doesn't make the reorganization a cost-saving maneuver. So why the move? Well, one issue is the shitty US economy. (You didn't actually think global corporations would stick around and help rebuild the economy they ransacked for profits, did you?) The other is the possibility of tougher regulations. Faced with the terrible specter of being forced to do business with some semblance of responsibility, accountability, and ethics, Goldman Sachs is taking its jobs and going somewhere else.

So this move may be best characterized as a bet against the U.S. economy and a way to escape some new U.S. regulation. Put simply: the U.S. is not the place to be anymore for big banking profits.

Seeing Goldman begin to take these steps isn't great news for the U.S. The bank tends to be out in front of the economic trends, as it was with its bet against mortgages in the final days of the housing bubble. If Goldman is right, then the U.S. is going to be in for a rough time over the next decade or so. And other Wall Street firms moving more workers overseas will make matters worse, as the U.S. will lose out on some of its highest paying jobs and the contribution to GDP growth that some lost banking profits would have provided.

Awesome.

The Invisible Hand is hailing a cab.

Phew!

If you were worried that the Obama administration might insist that any deal to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2 would include an end to former President George W. Bush's controversial tax rates on the wealthy, don't worry! IT WON'T!

The White House, seeking an agreement to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2, on Monday said it would not insist that any deal include an end to former President George W. Bush's controversial tax rates on the wealthy.

See?

The White House said the president is pushing the GOP to agree to eliminate some tax breaks for businesses and loopholes for wealthier taxpayers, but is not seeking to eliminate the across-the-board rates introduced by President Bush. That means taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 annually have gotten a reprieve.

It's about time that taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 annually get a reprieve from the unrelenting threat of having to pay slightly more taxes during an economic crisis caused by deregulation of businesses they disproportionately run while the nation is at five wars they disproportionately support!

The entire middle class is a small price to pay for a modern Gilded Age.