Republicans Demand Social Security And Medicare Cuts, Is It Reported? And A Note From A Sheep No More About the Left/Right False Paradigm!

NOTE FROM A SHEEP NO MORE:  The author of this article focuses on the left vs right paradigm, and one can clearly see from his writings that he has been indoctrinated into the left democratic party. Those who are awake and view A Sheep No More's content know that there is NO two-party system. They are also aware of the fact that the left/right, "he said" "she said" bantering back and forth is nothing but a dog and pony show to keep the slave population under control by eliciting infighting among them via the divide and conquer agenda. Both parties work for the criminal elite and do not represent the people. The New World Order (NWO) plan is on full warp speed and both the media and politicians just playing their respective roles.

Austerity is the plan to rape Americans further of any benefits that they paid into for future utilization. America will see no difference in actions from these political pundits than did Greece and/or Spain. For the sleeping masses, this will create exactly what the criminal elite desire. More loyalty for their respective "brainwashed"  party and more division and  infighting with their fellow man/woman slave. When slaves fight, they do not unite and rise up against the controlling elite establishment. The plan has been in place for a long time; economically build America up through the use of their slave's labor, then steal their slave's assets leaving only the very rich and the very poor. This makes for a better, more obedient slave system or slaves that eventually die off due to extreme poverty.

Article commences below:

by Dave Johnson

Republicans are demanding cuts in Social Security and Medicare if Democrats want to change the terms of the “sequester.” I’m sure their Tea Party “base” would be shocked if they understood this. So would most Americans. So is the media giving Americans the information they need in order to make informed decisions?

Yesterday The Hill reported, in House GOP says sequester is leverage in next budget battle, that Rep. Paul Ryan is pushing for cuts in Social Security and Medicare:  

In a meeting with House conservatives, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), told rank-and-file lawmakers that, as the party’s chief budget negotiator, he would push instead [of killing Obamacare] for long-term reforms to entitlement programs in exchange for changes to sequestration spending cuts that Democrats are expected to demand.

[. . .] Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) said that during the GOP meeting, Ryan pointed to sequestration as the party’s leverage with Democrats and said the Republican negotiators would not accept revenue increases in exchange.

“We’re going to try to push for some substantial reforms on entitlement spending and our backstop is sequestration,” Salmon said in describing Ryan’s remarks.

Most American’s don’t read The Hill. And most Americans don’t know that “long-term reforms” to “entitlement spending” specifically means cuts to Social Security andMedicare.

Reuters is pretty much the only outlet carrying this news, in U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan wants narrower focus for new budget talks,

Ryan, who will lead Republicans on the panel, said there was a better chance of finding common ground with Democrats on “smarter” spending cuts to replace the across-the-board reductions to discretionary spending. He said those include reforms to “entitlements,” which include the Medicare and Social Securityprograms for the elderly, Medicaid healthcare for the poor and some farm subsidy programs.

That’s about it. So let’s go back to a few weeks before The Hill’s report, and see if there have been reports in the major media that spell out for the public that, having dropped their demand to get rid of Obamacare Republicans are demanding cuts in SocialSecurity and Medicare.

On October 8 Ryan laid it out in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Paul Ryan: Here’s How We Can End This Stalemate, in which he called for cuts in Medicare and SocialSecurity,

To break the deadlock, both sides should agree to common-sense reforms of the country’s entitlement programs and tax code.

… We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs.

… mandatory spending—which mostly consists of funding for Medicare, Medicaidand Social Security—will grow by $1.6 trillion, or roughly 79%. The 2011 Budget Control Act largely ignored entitlement spending. But that is the nation’s biggest challenge.

(Note that later in this op-ed he explains that “reform” of the tax code means “lower the rates.”)

Here is NBC News, October 17, actually saying it, in Fiscal deal opens door to big tax and entitlement changes,

The deal struck Wednesday in Washington could make it easier for lawmakers to make big changes to tax policy, spending and entitlement programs.

… This blueprint could be the vehicle for major policy changes intended to reduce budget deficits and debt. These might include tax increases and curbs in the entitlement programs such as Medicare.

I can’t find much else. Can you? Do people you talk to understand that Republicans are demanding cuts in Social Security and Medicare? How do you think people would react if they understood this?

To many in the voting public the word “entitlements” does not translate to “Social Security and Medicare.” Ryan and the Republicans understand this. This is why they talk about “reforming” something that is not clearly understood as Social Security and Medicare.

So again, have any major news outlets explained to the public using words that the public understands that the Republican position in the current budget negotiations is a demand to cut Social Security and Medicare?

About the author: Dave Johnson is a Fellow with Campaign for America’s Future and a Senior Fellow with Renew California. Dave is founder and principal author at Seeing the Forest, and a blogger at Speak Out California. He is a frequent public speaker, talk-radio personality and a leading participant in the progressive blogging community.

SOURCE