Obama: Dems don't get enough credit for willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare

[MannyGoldstein]

After I was recently excoriated and accused of being (among other things) a paid Republican infiltrator for stating the plain and obvious truth that Obama and Congressional Democrats have offered to cut Social Security and Medicare, I find yet another DU post with yet more info demonstrating their unabashed willingness to assault working Americans:

From the NY Times Obama Is an Avid Reader, and Critic, of the News

"He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security"

(Thanks to eridani for finding this)

So, fellow DUers: please do the President a favor and give him and Congressional Democrats "enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security". Face up to the facts, for goodness sake.

Yes, I'm a broken record. But unfortunately that seems to be what it takes to get folks to realize that their futures are about to be Grand Bargained away once the election is over.

Obama's infinitely preferable to Romney. But we must take a stand that even though we'll re-elect him, we won't stand for "free" trade, Social Security and Medicare cuts, and other raw assaults against the 99%. It must end.

[Bonobo]

1. Not a "broken record", Manny.

A "pitching machine".

Get it right.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Sorry.

Brain's a little frazzled from all the crap I've taken lately.

[sabrina 1]

22. No crap from me. I am for truth and facts regardless of how inconvenient. Sticking one's

fingers in one's ears, over one's mouth and covering one's eyes, is what got us here.

It's not personal, politicians listen to those from whom they need the most and who yell the loudest. Election season is the only time they need anything from the people.

I am sending your OPs and any others expressing these concerns, to my Senators and Reps and asking them when we can expect them to start publicly declaring that Democrats are the party who will fight like hell to stop any cuts, and all the disguises they come under, as if their own lives depended on it.

No point in wasting these OPs. Send them to your Reps so they get to hear from the people because you speak for the people, Manny.

Ignore the naysayers, do what FDR did, welcome their attacks.

You are doing what a good citizen does.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Sabrina, without you and a few others I'd feel pretty awful.

The war on the 99% makes me angry as hell. I think you feel the same, as do a growing number of others.

The solidarity keeps me going.

Let's fight the good fight together!

[Skittles]

29. I AM WITH YOU MANNY

YES INDEED

[WillyT]

48. ME TOO !!!

[woo me with science]

58. HEAR, HEAR! nt

[sabrina 1]

82. There are more with you than against you.

The issues facing the people this time are way, way too serious for business as usual. We were too trusting the last time, we didn't ask the right questions. We can influence them NOW, but afterwards? Too late.

I am of the opinion, and I am speaking only for me, that the 'strategy' of demanding that that people remain silent 'because there is an election coming up' is a Corporate Strategy. What better way to ensure that our Reps have the undivided attention of Corporate Lobbyists than to silence the people.

Bottom line, Reps listen to those who yell the loudest. We were too quiet and gave them the impression we were willing to simply trust them.

Politics, I've learned, is about bargaining. Lots of bargaining has been going on over the past few years. The only people NOT included in that process, were the American People. This time they need to hear from us loud and clear. It is our duty.

You are doing the right thing. And a majority of people agree with you.

[whathehell]

97. You can count on me for support, Manny...I'm an old school FDR Dem all the way.

And the OP is correct -- We must vote for Obama in the Fall, but where in

the God Awful HELL does he get his ideas about "Democrats" and what they

"want to take credit for"?...What's wrong with him?....I'm 62 and I'm just

WAITING for someone to TRY and cut into my Medicare and Social Security.

after working, like my spouse, a lifetime to collect it.

Who the ef schooled Obama in Dem poltics?...SS & Medicare are THE signature issues

THE signature issue of the democrats, and without them, there IS no democratic party as far as I'm concerned.

[OnyxCollie]

100. YARGLE BARGLE BLARGH!!!

[emilyg]

116. With you.

[Vincardog]

253. You are so correct. That is why we have to destroy the faux "Conservatives" and drive their allies

out of our party. For all those "Party above Policy" posters who want to claim we have to allow Third Way Democrats in so we can have majority. I say what use is the majority if you are ignoring the will of the people?

If the Democratic candidates would run on the clear message that:
If elected they will;
1 Provide universal single payer health CARE.
2 Eliminate the CAP on SS.
3 Use the money to give an immediate 35% raise to SS recipients and enact an automatic inflation adjustment.
4 Pass laws to guarantee the SCOTUS is required to abide by ethical restrictions.
5 Federally fund all future Federal elections.
6 Eliminate machines from vote counting.

I guarantee they would take back the House, maintain the Senate and win the WH.


What are the reasons they are giving us to vote Democratic now?

[bvar22]

260. Solidarity!!!

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens."---FDR

FDR stipulated the above as Basic Human Rights,
and NOT commodities to be enjoyed by some,
and sold to others by For Profit Corporations.
THAT is the Democratic Party I grew up with.

There was a time, not so long ago,
when voting FOR the Democrat
was voting FOR the above values.
Sadly, this is no longer true,
and I will not rest or STFU until the direction of OUR Party
is once again headed in the direction established by FDR, LBJ, and my Working Class UNION parents!!!


"New Democrats"???!!!!!
What the hell was wrong with the Old Democrats?


---bvar22
A mainstream/Center loyal FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT for over 40 years,
now relegated to the "Fringe Left Wing" of the New Democrat Centrist Party.
I haven't changed.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Beartracks]

266. This!!!

"Adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment" ***is*** freedom.

=========================

[L0oniX]

267. The right thing to do or "good fight" is not always a matter of political party.

We are approaching the day here on DU when we will not be allowed to criticize Dems for anything until the 2012 election is over without risking a pizza delivery. Truth might take second place. The Dem party is not immune to the blind lock step. It will be considered to be more important to make sure and do everything possible to keep any and all Dem's in office irregardless of the possibility that some Dems might not give a sh*t about the poor and elderly. IMO it's all about the money no matter what the political party is. We have drug companies that don't care about the cure but only profit ...and the same with the MIC and health insurance corporations. They are all vampires sucking the life out of us. Yea I will fight the good fight to help Obama be re-elected but I don't trust that the future of the poor and elderly is as safe as it has been before political turn coat asscarrots put SS, Medicare and Medicaid on the table. When a country doesn't care about its poor, handicapped and elderly it no longer can boast any kind of moral high ground.

[obxhead]

270. The war on the 99%, by the 99%, is what really gets to me.

So many will deny facts or fight for things against their own best interest. It's mind boggling at best.

[AverageJoe90]

175. Good point, Sabrina.

Obama's been a decent leader but we HAVE to keep letting the Dems know that, even though they're the better party by a long shot, that they still have to answer to us, the voters, no matter who wins big in the House & Senate races this year.

[Zalatix]

25. Like Sabrina said, no crap from me. I'm with you all the way on this.

[riderinthestorm]

2. K and an R and a

for the thought of ANY Dems who will sell us out.

[KG]

3. Erskine Bowles praises Paul Ryan, budget plan

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/erskine-bowles-praises-paul-ryan-budget-plan-video-003642883.html

[still_one]

68. That asshole is not in power, and even Obma reject the bowel simple mind plan. /nt

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Obama only rejected parts of the plan

such as cutting defense spending.

He did not reject cutting the average Social Security recipient's payments by more than 20%

[still_one]

101. The end is he didn't pursue that further. But entertain this, let's give him the benefit of the

Doubt, we don't have much choice. Anyway, assume the bullshit from his first term was assuming he could compromise with the rethugs

It should have been obvious after 6 months in office, but it either wasn't or he wanted to cut, incidentally, cut only if the 1% would pay more taxes, which the rethugs would not go for. Maybe he knew that and called their bluff

My point is I suspect if Obama wins a second term he will not put up with bending over for the rethugs

In fact I suspect he will move to a progressive agenda

[bornskeptic]

199. The Bowles-Simpson proposal does not reduce average SS benefits. It increases them.

It does not increase them enough, but claiming it reduces them is nonsense.
No complicated computation is needed to see that is the case.

1. The Bowles-Simpson proposal would increase SS revenue by raising the cap on income subject to SS tax to include 90% of earned income, which would mean almost a 10% increase in SS revenue.
2. Nothing in Bowles-Simpson increases administrative costs.
3. All money which goes into SS that is not spent on administrative costs is eventually paid out in benefits.
4. Therefore, under Bowles-Simpson more is paid out in total benefits, so the average benefit is higher.

You're probably looking at the comparison of actual benefits under Bowles-Simpson with benefits that would be provided under the current schedule of benefits. That's an important comparison to be made, but don't be dishonest about what you are comparing. Under current law benefits will be cut to only the amount payable from current receipts, which will involve something like a 23% cut in benefits, whenever the trust fund is depleted. Nobody can say for sure when that will happen, but it certainly will be before 2050. Page 55 of the Fiscal Commission report compares the result of comparing benefits under the Bowles-Simpson proposal to benefits under current law in 2050.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
You can see that benefits for everyone in the lower four income quintiles would be higher under Bowles-Simpson than under the current law, and that those in the lower two quintiles would receive benefits as high or higher than under the current schedule of benefits, compared to the 23% less beneficiaries will see if the law isn't changed. In addition to increasing average benefits, the Bowles-Simpson plan would make Social Security considerably more progressive. It's far from ideal, but it would be a huge improvement on the status quo.

[ozsea1]

224. so, given their reputation and track record

you trust them to hold to this faustian bargain? And you're the skeptic?

No thanks. Peddle that nonsense elsewhere.

[bornskeptic]

237. They Have no power to hold to any bargain.

They simply made a proposal, which should be evaluated on its merits. Whether you or I like the authors has no effect on what the outcome of implementing the proposal might be. Yes, I'm a skeptic, and when people lie about facts which are available for anyone to see, Whether the liar purports to be a liberal or a conservative, I'm not going to be praising the liar like a good little dittohead.

[ozsea1]

245. If you're implying that the OP lied

based on the link that you provided above, then I'd say your sense of 'fair and balanced' is self-delusional.

[eomer]

279. That appears to be incorrect; do you have a source?

A shortfall of funds would delay payment but not change the benefit amount that is owed.

Congress occasionally legislates in such a manner as to restrict its own subsequent funding options. An example is contract authority, described in Chapter 2. Another example is entitlement legislation not contingent upon the availability of appropriations. A well-known example here is social security benefits. Where legislation creates, or authorizes the administrative creation of, binding legal obligations without regard to the availability of appropriations, a funding shortfall may delay actual payment but does not authorize the administering agency to alter or reduce the “entitlement.”

http://www.gao.gov/assets/210/202437.pdf

[eomer]

280. Here is another source, an explanation of (and based on) the above source:

An entitlement by definition legally obligates the United States to make payments to any person
who meets the eligibility requirements established in the statute that creates the entitlement. A
provision of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, however, prevents an agency from paying
more in benefits than the amount available in the source of funds available to pay the benefits, in
this case the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust
Fund.

Section 1341, in relevant part, provides that:

An officer or employee of the United States government or of the District of Columbia
government may not—
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an
appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;
(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an
appropriation is made unless authorized by law; ....
The Antideficiency Act prohibits making expenditures either in excess of an amount available in a
fund or before an appropriation is made. It would appear to bar paying more money in benefits
than the amount of the balance in the Social Security Trust Funds primarily because, as noted
earlier, disability and old-age and survivor benefit payments shall be made “only” from the
Disability Insurance Trust Fund and the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund,
respectively.⁵⁶

Violations of the Antideficiency Act are punishable by administrative and criminal penalties. An
officer or employee who violates the act’s prohibitions is subject to appropriate administrative
discipline, including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal
from office.⁵⁷

An officer or employee who knowingly and willfully violates the act can be fined
not more than $5000, imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.⁵⁸

If the Social Security Trust Funds should become insolvent (i.e., unable to pay scheduled benefits
in full on a timely basis), it appears that beneficiaries who should file suit to be paid the
difference between the amount that receipts allow paying and the full benefit amount to which
they are entitled would not be likely to succeed in getting the difference. The Supreme Court in
Reeside v. Walker,⁵⁹ held that no officer of the government is authorized to pay any debt due from
the United States, whether reduced to a court judgment or not, unless an appropriation has been
made for that purpose. To support its holding, the Court cited Article I, § 9, clause 7 of the
Constitution, which states that, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence
of appropriations made by law.” The Court reaffirmed this principle in Office of Personnel
Management v. Richmond.⁶⁰

Consequently, unless Congress amends applicable laws, it appears
that beneficiaries would have to wait until the Trust Funds receive an amount sufficient to pay full
benefits to receive the difference between the amount that can be paid from the Trust Funds and
the full benefit amount.

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss2.pdf

In other words, your premise is incorrect unless something has changed and the above is no longer extant. On the contrary, the benefit amounts of social security are defined independently of funding and are an entitlement owed to the participants whether funds are available or not. In the event that funds are insufficient then the timing of the payments will be delayed but the benefits owed does not change.

This would mean that, contrary to your assertion, a change that decreases the cost-of-living adjustment does represent a cut in benefits.

It would also mean that, contrary to your assertion, legislation that increases the funding of social security is not an increase in benefits since, again, benefits owed are independent of funding levels.

I welcome hearing something back (something definitive and sourced) that supersedes these sources (if such is the case); one of the main reasons I'm here is to learn.

So to summarize, the only way for lower benefits to be owed is for legislation to be enacted by Congress. If funds run short then Congress would have to cut benefits or else Social Security will go into a position of owing people benefits that haven't yet been paid and have to be caught up when funds do become available. To prevent Social Security going into arrears on its payment obligations, Congress will have to either cut benefits or increase funding. The progressive position (and my position) is that Congress should increase funding and not cut benefits. But whichever position you favor (the progressive one or the other one), a cut in benefits by Congress is still a cut in benefits and an increase in funding is not a change in benefits but rather a solution that allows timely payment of the benefit obligations that already exist.

[MannyGoldstein]

285. Simpson-Bowles eventually cuts average benefit by 22%

This was determined by the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/FiscalCommission_20101109.pdf

[rudycantfail]

79. Why did Obama appoint that asshole?

[still_one]

104. To show he was willing to compromise. That isn't going to happen again I believe if Obama wins

The first 4 years he was called every name in the book, and treated with complete disrespect by the rethugs

If he wins there will be payback for that treatment

[rudycantfail]

114. It is naive to believe that President Obama is that naive.

Get real.

[still_one]

117. He is not naive, but I believe he thought he could compromise with them. He didn't factor in that

At least 30% of the republican party today are rabid racists

There was a recent poll which indicated about 50% of the populous do not know what religion he is, and 30% believe he is a Muslim

But one thing for sure Obama will now campaign that he will protect social security and Medicare from the republicans who want to destroy it

[rudycantfail]

122. Sell that shit to somebody else

please.

[still_one]

123. So what are you going to do not vote for president?

[rudycantfail]

127. That's not your business.

Are you going to continue to bullshit people on this board?

[MannyGoldstein]

128. I like the Clash. A lot.

Saw them three times.

Please vote for Obama. The alternativevis horrific.

[Vanje]

289. Manny is right.

Manny is ALWAYS right

[still_one]

158. I am stating opinion. You don't like tough!, maybe it is you who are bullshtting people. You don't

Know me from jack so the stop the insults

In fact you don't have a constructive remedy to suggest do you

[AverageJoe90]

176. I hope so.

Truth is, he's already started kicking major ass as it is. You know why I think that is?
Not only is he truly committed, but because We, the People, have asked it of him, and have made ourselves loud and clear.
If we are particularly lucky this year, and also get to recapture both the House and Senate, then maybe we can really get things done.

[SomethingFishy]

214. Yeah sure there will...

Payback.. like we got payback for the crimes the Bush administration committed? Like all the bankers who went to jail for defrauding the American people?

Who are you kidding? All they did was call Obama some names and obstruct his administration. It's not like they committed a crime. We don't punish criminals why would we punish bullies?

[ProSense]

4. It was

pointed out in this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1127602), that the quote is not direct, but editorializing and completely without context. Yet you started another thread implying that it's a direct quote or paraphrase of a direct quote.


Everyone know that the the cuts the President proposed are not to benefits, but rather to wasteful spending.

Wasserman Schultz: ‘Obamacare’ Added 8 Years To Life Of Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021118796

Howard Dean: "You Can't Convince People That A Dem Is Going To Cut Medicare"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021120987

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 is a cut in wasteful spending?

Cutting future Social Security benefits is a cut in wasteful spending?

I guess spending money on retirees is wasteful in your book, but not in mine.

Have a good evening.

[ProSense]

10. You do

"Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 is a cut in wasteful spending?"

...not have a link to any such proposal by the President because he made no such proposal. It's an inaccurate statement.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. It's widely reported that he proposed it last summer

During the fully-fake debt ceiling "crisis". Google it yourself if you honestly don't know that.

[ProSense]

16. No, it wasn't and

"It's widely reported that he proposed it last summer"

...news reports of rumors is not a proposal. There is no proposal by the President to do any such thing. So you're knocking down a straw man.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Well..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-the-obama-administration-is-open-to-raising-the-medicare-age/2011/07/11/gIQA7sTiaI_blog.html
http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/23/the-inside-story-of-obama-and-boehners-second-failed-grand-bargain/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/white-house-we-thought-we-were-down-to-the-details.php

Etc.

[ProSense]

26. "When he hears"

Those are rumors from last July.

Those are not proposals. Again, there is no such proposal, you'r batting down straw men.

Here's some good info, though:

Bernie Sanders: Ryan Budget Facts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021127836

Dude is trying to kill Medicare and Social Security.

[speedoo]

34. Thanks for shining some light on this ProSense.

I really appeciate it.. Getting very tired of this "issue".

[ProSense]

36. It's a bit funny

Cutting Social Security and Medicare is the worst thing a politician can do.

The RW is trying to convince the public that Obama did just that.

People are claiming that he plans to do just that, but that he's not as bad as the other guy so they'll vote for him.

Makes no sense. Frankly, the only reason to continually push the claim that Obama want to cut Social Security is to turn off voters.

[SunSeeker]

145. Thanks for the sanity, ProSense.

I couldn't agree more. The only reason to continually push the claim that Obama wants to cut Social Security is to turn off voters.

It is so frustrating to see this strawman argument on DU. I thought we had rules against this kind of crap during campaign season.

I've come to rely on you and your command of the facts. Thank you for your patience and persistence.

[JNelson6563]

221. I'm lolz@the fools rushing to rec more lies

I often wonder if I've gone to FR by accident. Crazy that you are refuting lies about our Dem President on a Dem site during an election season but there it is.

Julie

[joshcryer]

45. lawl, you forget 2008 so easily.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/clinton_obama_and_the_social_s.html

Stephanopolous: You've also said that with Social Security everything should be on the table.

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?

Obama: Everything should be on the table.

Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?

Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.

Granted, I don't recall him ever proposing raising the retirement age.

[ProSense]

59. "Everything should be on the table. "

Campaign speak. That's not a proposal.

"Granted, I don't recall him ever proposing raising the retirement age."

Wasn't that my point?

Any hoo, I've come to my senses: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

[joshcryer]

63. I just think it's important that he did say it was on the table.

Which people falsely attribute to being his policy position.

It may be it may not be.

He certainly hasn't said he'd be against it if it was seriously proposed.

Which leads one to believe he's open to it, as per his own quote.

[JackRiddler]

110. Even with a direct quote you peddle this denial.

Who do you think is buying it?

[ProSense]

124. Yeah,

"Even with a direct quote you peddle this denial."

...I'm like that when faced with a "direct quote" from a pre-Presidency campaign interview that states "everything is on the table."

I mean, how can anyone confuse that with a proposal by the President to cut Social Security?

[woo me with science]

134. Many, many direct quotes.

A great post by eomer:

What President Obama meant is plain. It doesn't require interpretation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1119041


Some I compiled a while back (some overlap):

Be careful what you ask for. Here's your reality sandwich.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130




And, of course, Obama's own words:

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

-President Obama, July 22, 2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

[joshcryer]

161. What bugs me is he's criticized for doing what he said he'd do.

I mean if there's one thing about politicians that you want it's consistency.

It also matters that the President isn't a dictator and even if he wanted to propose, say, raising the retirement age (he has not done that, his proposal is about raising the cap, which some defenders of the top 5% here are against, mind you) he'd need a House and a Senate to sign off on it. The teabagger House wouldn't sign off on raising the cap (Bernie Sanders' proposal) because it would be a bigger hit to the richest people. The Senate would waffle.

So as far as this non-dictator for domestic policy President is concerned, nothing gets done until the next congress, and that's assuming it's a sane one and not as incompetent as the 112th.

But no doubt in my mind he'd raise the retirement age if he could get a reasonable budget out of it. (Again: he can't pass law, but he'd sign a law if it was passed, I don't see him pushing for a raise to the retirement age.)

[progressivebydesign]

80. Thank you! You're absolutely right... and Romney has been trying to paint the cuts that way too!

I honestly don't understand why some people come here intent on pissing all over the Democrats that actually have a chance of winning.

[leftstreet]

6. DURec

[tk2kewl]

7. K&R

[JaneyVee]

9. Thats mostly just bi-partisan politik-speak. Calling their bluff.

There's no reason to believe that they thought there was any chance in hell the GOP was willing to co-operate. It's more of a election season talking point to say "look, we tried working with them". The GOP has NEVER been serious about bi-partisanship.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Sounds good but it is still dumb as dogshit

Who the hell is going to consider voting Democratic but only if we display willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare? Who the hell is this all important segment of the electorate.

You know what? Fuck em. I'd seriously prefer to lose without them than win with them because you don't have to win to maintain. Nary a TeaPubliKlan President nor any TeaPubliKlan has killed the programs yet. That takes collusion.

I don't buy it, Obama went to the well over and over, knowing it previous overture had done nothing but piss of Democrats and allowed the waters to be muddied on who is on what side.

I think I'm only slightly less concerned that he STILL thinks this is fruitful tactic is the point man, than I am about his intent which considering his relentless pursuit of this bum assed "bargain" is likely exactly what he is actually trying to do. In fact, there is nothing to gain from ceding the frame at all and the error should have been repudiated and allowed to teach a distinct message, if you even in jest or gamesmanship, even think out loud about cutting these fundamental safety nets we will savage you and cast you out on animal reflex which in turn reminds the TeaPubliKlans that if they want that fight it will mean blood and teeth on the floor, at bare minimum.

Standing for something will earn more votes than any of this phony ass "chess" shit, granting the best of intentions.

[JaneyVee]

57. I disagree. I believe it was all just political theater.

It always is.

[me b zola]

131. Tired of theater, I need to be represented

I'm 49 years old. I'm sick. I'm poor. I need to be represented. This isn't a game for me. And any...ANY...politician who behaves as though this is a game can kiss my vote good-bye.

[JaneyVee]

171. I completely understand. But w/ GOP obstruction the way it is political theater is all that remains

They have to make it look like they're doing something even though they know they will accomplish nothing as long as the far-right is more than willing to obstruct at every turn.

[TheKentuckian]

201. Even as mere theater such talk should be a "hanging" offense

The most conservative position allowed to be espoused and be an elected official in this party should be maintaining the current design and benefits of these programs, with a heavy preference for expansion.

If we reflexively decimate any on "our" side, it would also have the benefit of cooling the heels of the opposition because they would know any effort to cut, privatize, or end these programs would result in a fight to the death with a bear protecting her cubs, at the bare minimum.

Again, if this is theater then who the hell is the audience and when will the show change since the response sucks?

If it is a tactic then why keep going to the well, considering the results? It isn't softening TeaPubliKlan positions, it isn't making independents think of him as "reasonable" (a few eye and ear fulls of Weird Willard did that), and it does nothing at best and causes harm at worst with his own base.

Hell, more harm is done ceding the frame to the nutters and contributing to a false public narrative willfully pushed by the corporate media than even the most optimistic estimate of potential benefit.

If this is a tactic, then we are well past time to drop it. The "theater" theory starts getting goofy once Simpson-Bowles didn't go because he well exceeded all due diligence already. The TeaPubliKlan sponsors jumped ship on the original binding proposal, I'd have stopped then and just beat them on the head with it from that moment on but he goes a step further and pushes another commission and loaded it up with mostly enemies of the social nets and corporate heads, again more than even handed. I'd also speculate that Pelosi and Reid were counseled not appoint firebrands.

That wasn't enough, the "show" had to go on despite having no positive impact and arguably some negative and he has kept supporting various gangs and has actually passed some austerity via "the trigger" on the last "gang" but has promised to keep trying.

To me that seems a hell of a lot more likely that the pursuit is genuine. The effort of a rouse just doesn't seem to worth the piddling upside (if any).

The tactic is stupid enough at this point having proved worthless on the better days, if true, that it reflects only somewhat better than if the truth is he intends an austerity agenda.

[bbgrunt]

204. +2

[JaneyVee]

271. The audience is Independent/Centrist voters who want DC to become unbroken.

Not saying it's good, but something like 86% of the electorate already has their mind made up who they're voting for. This is both sides making a jump for the other 14%. Yes, it sucks, but IF Social Security is cut then I will judge accordingly.

As of now we have a President who hasn't cut SS vs. A candidate foaming at the mouth to do just that.

[limpyhobbler]

62. +1 what he said

[woo me with science]

12. K&R

No more lies and rewriting of history from the Third Way. We must face this head on and make it a campaign issue, because Catfood Commission II is readying itself as we speak.

[ProSense]

13. Priebus: Obama Is ‘Stealing’ From Seniors And Has ‘Blood On His Hands’

Think Progress provides facts, posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021116751

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Are you equating me with Priebus?

Seems like you are.

[ProSense]

18. No, I'm equating

"Are you equating me with Priebus?"

...inaccurate statements that the President cut or proposed cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

If you're not making the case that the President has cut those programs' benefits, then the answer to your question is no.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. "He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else."

- Benjamin Franklin

[ProSense]

33. He's good at

keeping those who are predicting that he'll cut Social Security waiting.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. He's been as successful at that

as he's been at ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and at ending this depression.

(Note that success at the last two things would be good.)

[woo me with science]

69. And jailing the banksters.

DOJ will not prosecute Goldman Sachs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021102435

Morgan Stanley caught price fixing and gets to keep most of the profits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021124913

[woo me with science]

37. War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
The chocolate ration has been increased.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.

There's no memory hole here, Prosense. You can't rewrite history.

[ProSense]

49. Spin is righteous. n/t

[woo me with science]

52. That you believe that is patently obvious. nt

[ProSense]

61. So when

"That you believe that is patently obvious. "

...when you posted "war is peace" you actually believed that?

Good to know.

[just1voice]

14. "their futures are about to be Grand Bargained away" = very well said

I've talked to a lot of democratic voters over the last few months and they are all very well aware of that exact sentiment and many are simply not going to vote this year.

I'm voting but, others think it's a waste of time and it's almost impossible to convince them that it'll make any difference exactly because of that feeling of being betrayed and their futures being betrayed.

You hit on a key point with this post. The Obama admin should make it very clear before the election that they have no intention whatsoever of cutting any deals with 1%er repukes, aka republicans, regarding anything economic, otherwise a lot of people are simply going to sit out the election.

[whathehell]

112. As a lifelong yellow dawg dem I was SHOCKED to hear Obama "offer" cuts in SS and/or Medicare

and regardless of WHAT he says now, I want to say "Mr. President, those things were not and ARE not

YOURS to bargain with.

I was appalled and I got the impression that he was subsequently "given hell" for it by most of

the other old time Dems like Pelosi and Conyers and such, but I really don't know. .

[julian09]

226. Stupid threat hope they enjoy Rmoney presidency

they can tell their kids they got theirs too bad they were born too late. Don't people realize that there is a huge deficit faceing the country. Obama is trying to preserve, medicare, sos, medicaid for future generations. SOS is the easiest to solve.

[just1voice]

228. Excellent points that I tell them, the problem is they don't trust him

and why should they, he's lied about almost everything that's progressive. He's held zero torturers, bankers and war mongers accountable while increasing a right wing agenda of "austerity" via Bush tax cuts for the rich and continuing to work with for-profit health care frauds and banking frauds.

You tell them and me, although I'm voting for Obama anyway, just why they should trust someone who's repeatedly lied to them.

Go ahead...

[julian09]

283. He is not the attorney general, secondly how many jobs would all those charges create?

They say he didn't do anything as it is, what would have been done if congress was further divided than it is.
He extended tax cuts in order to make sure middle class cuts were extended and unemployment benefits were extended.
He is not an austerity proponent, he has several, jobs bills in senate waiting house approval, 14 tax breaks for small business.
He can't get another stimulus through senate,let alone the house. Health care, he got what he could, with changes to come later.
Do you think he could get single payer, when public option wasn't possible?

You're not the only one disappointed, he was foolish to believe he could have a bipartisan congress.
After, all the GOP leadership 14 in all conspired while he had his inaugural ball to let nothing get through congress that would make him look good. They were cutting him and the american people at the knees before he even sat in the oval office.

It would have been just great, to have him or Holder prosecuting all the previous administration, while the world economy was on the edge. Bush started TARP.

[MNBrewer]

17. It must be frustrating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

Nobody wants to believe the truth.

[Angry Dragon]

19. I think the only way to settle this is

to have someone ask the President what he would like to see happen with SS, Medicare and Medicaid

[ProSense]

23. No, that

"I think the only way to settle this is to have someone ask the President what he would like to see happen with SS, Medicare and Medicaid"

...isn't going to settle it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1114894


Wasserman Schultz: ‘Obamacare’ Added 8 Years To Life Of Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021118796

The President also enacted the largest Medicaid expansion since the program began.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

[riderinthestorm]

35. Has anyone ever

told you that your post construction is supremely annoying?

I never open your posts anymore since your construction is so shitty. I'm only reading you since this is a Manny Goldstein thread. Otherwise your habit of posting 1 or 2 words in the title, followed by a quote, followed by your commentary and a link just pisses me all the hell off.

Just make a complete sentence for fucks sake.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. x2

[ProSense]

53. Yes

Has anyone ever told you that your post construction is supremely annoying?

...it has been said. Thanks for noticing.

[choie]

73. amen, riderinthestorm and

amen, manny goldstein

[Webster Green]

137. +1000

I was just about to post a similar remark. I guess Pro Sense thinks it's cute or something.

Annoying was a good choice to describe it. Makes me fucking dizzy trying to read it.

[ProSense]

139. No

"I guess Pro Sense thinks it's cute or something. "

...I don't. You know what annoys me: +1 or +1000. I suppose that's "cute"

To each her/his own.

[Wait Wut]

238. [phone]

[bvar22]

192. +1000

[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[uponit7771]

164. Prosense, please keep offering facts no matter what....fudrs hate facts big time no matter what the

...format

[riderinthestorm]

185. Nothing to do with the quality of what's in ProSense's posts. His post construction is awful nt

[Doctor_J]

193. We shouldn't have to

He and the rest of the Dems should make a stark campaign issue out of expanding, not cutting (or slashing), Medicare and SS, period

[Angry Dragon]

208. I agree

but do not hear a lot of voices saying that (politicians that is)

[Le Taz Hot]

20. Keep speaking up, Manny.

We have to get this stuff out in the open and make our elected officials accountable to US. K & R

[woo me with science]

46. +10000

We must talk about it every day, and demand that the President and other Democrats respond.

[snooper2]

47. if you repeat a lie long enough...

[limpyhobbler]

24. It would be alot better if we could vote for someone commited to not cutting these programs.

We are all voting for Obama knowing what the score is. Our ability to influence anything after the election will be minimal. The system is just broken because it leads us into these kind of traps.

[ProSense]

31. "We are all voting for Obama knowing what the score is."

I don't think all of us are voting for Obama because we believe he's going to cut Social Security.

In fact, I'm certain a lot of people are voting for him to prevent that.

[limpyhobbler]

39. Well yeah we all want to prevent it. But I guess

it's just that a lot of us don't trust him 100%. He might try to strike a "grand bargain" type of plan with the gop that raises the age for SS or Medicare, or anything.

We need reassurance.

It's not just a few people on DU. It's a pretty common theme on the shows and podcasts I listen to.

[ProSense]

67. Who

"But I guess it's just that a lot of us don't trust him 100%."

...trusts a politician "100%"?

"We need reassurance. "

I found reassurance his comments, but I have no idea what he's going to do. I also don't need to panic over straw men or rumors, especially when they're a year old.

[limpyhobbler]

118. The fact that we even have these discussions shows there is a problem.

The President could come out and make one clear statement about things that are off the table, benefits that will not be touched, cut, slashed, mashed, or otherwise molested. And that would be the end of it. Or at least it would silence most of this griping you hear from the left.

Nobody's in a panic. But we are talking about how to protect SS and Medicare from compromises. The number one thing is probably to try to win big in the House and Senate.

[ProSense]

121. No,

"The fact that we even have these discussions shows there is a problem."

...it shows that someone keeps posting the same mischaracterization of the cuts made and stirring up debate over speculation that has no basis in fact.

President Obama isn't talking about cutting Social Security or Medicare. He has strengthened both programs.

[kurtzapril4]

257. Then WHY

doesn't he just come out and say it? In plain, unambiguous terms. Why doesn't he just come out and say that "I will not allow Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid to be touched in any way, shape, or form?"

WHY?

If that is what he truly believes, then why is it so damn hard to say it?

[SidDithers]

28. Keep trying...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

56. We will, you Better Believe It!

[SidDithers]

88. You really miss your tombstoned little buddy, eh?...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

103. It is kind of silly, isn't it?

You can still use it, though don't let me stop you! Just joining in the daily tributes which I thought you thought were a great idea.

Guess I was wrong???

[SidDithers]

113. BBI was a long-time troll that you defended day in and day out...

that you think the posts that mock him are "tributes" is unsurprising.

It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

119. You mean like you supported Lozocola and Obamanaut???

What a silly game this is. But seriously, everyone knew Obamanaut was a right winger for years.

Why are you so upset anyhow? I was just having some fun. But when you all can't forget the guy, I assume it's a tribute and just wanted to join in the fun. Why can't I play too?

Lighten up Francis and remember: 'Nothing is real on the Internet'.

[SidDithers]

120. For you, it is a tribute...

that's the difference.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

125. I'm puzzled. You start a game, I try to play, and you get upset.

Why can't I play too?

[SidDithers]

147. I'm not the one that's upset about BBI being shitcanned...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

151. That's hard to believe. You can't seem to forget him. He's always on your mind!

Anyhow, what does any of this matter since nothing is real on the Internet? No one can get upset, or hurt. Even though you definitely seem to be upset, it's not possible, you can't have emotions on the internet. You can't feel anger or fear or feel hurt.
You're just imagining things if you feel any of those emotions.







But you CAN bring down an election on the Internet!! Lol, Internet logic, it's a riot.

[SidDithers]

173. So many distortions in one post...

Well done.

So, when you said "Better Believe It" in your first reply in this subthread, were you suggesting I was like BBi, or were you suggesting Manny was like BBI?

Sid

[truth2power]

32. I would like to thank you for all you do, Manny....

It will all come out in the wash. Wait and see.

[berni_mccoy]

38. There have been many attempts by the Republican Controlled House to cut these programs

And yet, none of them have succeeded to pass the Democratically controlled Senate or Obama's Desk.

[ProSense]

41. He's secretly

waiting for his second term to joining Romney is screwing "you people."

[Marr]

43. Don't worry-- I've been assured that offer was just another piece of 8-dimensional chess.

As several prominent apologists have assured me, Team Obama knew that the Republicans would not accept any offer, so they offered utter capitulation to demonstrate that fact. Nevermind that it severely pissed off their base-- it was just genius politics!

Of course, you have to ignore the fact that the Republican establishment was working overtime to bring their loony Teabagger wing into line and make them accept "yes" for an answer. And you have to ignore how obviously frustrated and angry the entire political establishment was (from the White House to the GOP establishment to the corporate media) when they failed to do so.

It was all just a brilliant ploy to risk everything in exchange for... eh... nothing in particular. Brilliant, I tell you! Chess!

[woo me with science]

50. And publicly validating Republican lies about the economy

and what actions are needed to fix it?

That was just an unfortunate side effect.

No Grand Bargain, ever again. No austerity. No cuts. No slowing of benefits. No raises in age of eligibility. It is time for the people to be heard.

[rudycantfail]

102. It's also saying to America that the the top Dem

acknowledges that social security is linked directly to the national debt. And of course, social security was never linked until the Obama inspired payroll tax holiday.

If I really wanted to protect and defend social security from the vultures, I don't think I'd do it this way.

[sabrina 1]

169. Lol, you got it down perfectly. I thought it was just me. That story is so outlandish

that I keep thinking they are kidding. But ask Josh, he really believes it. And that last sentence, when I ask WTF would have been the point of risking all that? I don't know if you were told the same thing, but the whole, incredible gamble was supposedly so that Obama 'would like the bigger man'. Unbelievable.

And they think this should be somehow reassuring to people? That's like trying to convince someone that they should be impressed with their gambling husband for taking their Life Savings, walking into the nearest Casino and putting it all 'on the table'. After a miracle happens and he lucks out and doesn't lose it all, then telling you 'see, he knew this would happen'..

Unbelievable the stuff they try to sell the people.

[Marr]

209. Yep. It really seemed to me like that whole year and a half or so of the "debt crisis"

was just a big piece of political theater, meant to crescendo with the "Grand Compromise". It just felt like a phony, rhetorical drama to me, all the way through-- from the Catfood Commission, to tying Social Security to the debt with the Payroll Tax holiday, and the incessant fearmongering about how absolutely essential it was to get that deal passed because of debt ratings, etc.

It seemed like the moment came to produce the final product, ie, cuts to Medicare/Social Security, and the moronic Teabagger wing didn't play along. They couldn't even handle a *phony* compromise, and it wrecked a year+ of political stagecraft.

[DonCoquixote]

44. But we must take a stand that even though we'll re-elect him

That alonme give you more cred than jane hamsher or ted rall, thank you.

[still_one]

54. The difference is one wants to privatize and destroy social security. / nt

[woo me with science]

65. "The Obama administration is pushing a set of policy changes...

aimed at encouraging use of commercial annuities within workplace accounts as a way of plugging the guaranteed income gap - an idea that can work for those who have actually accumulated savings...."

Reuters - Tuesday Aug 7, 2012
"Why you may retire in poverty"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-column-miller-poverty-idUSBRE8760VW20120807

It took Nixon to go to China...

[bhikkhu]

55. A quote from who, based on what?

The article is bit fluffy - it makes its point well enough, which has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is just an opportunistic snip of a quote by someone who is not the president, who gives no indication of a source or justification for the quote. Its a toss-off. If you want to know the president's actual stance on Social Security or Medicare, you don't exactly have to track down anonymous informants, decipher hidden codes, or crack some grand conspiracy to find the real truth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/seniors-and-social-security and so forth

[TomCADem]

60. The Post Echoes The NRCC's Talking Points

I think this shows the power and strength of the Republican messaging machine such that some liberals inadvertently find themselves reciting right wing talking points chapter and verse. This illustrates the power of the corporate media that even liberals don't even know that they are reading from the same script as the Republican party when they see the same talking point in some characterization by a NY Times writer.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243473-gop-concerned-ryan-could-cost-party-house-and-senate-seats

It calls for candidates to follow the model the party used to win an open seat in Nevada last summer in which now-Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) hammered his Democratic opponent on the spending cuts.

The main focus of such a strategy, according to a slideshow and video circulated by NRCC Political Director Mike Shields, is to stay on the offense and tie Democrats to Obama’s healthcare law, an argument Republicans believe they can win.

The presentation tells candidates to fight back on Medicare until the issue becomes a tie then refocus the debate on the economy. To do so, Republicans are advised to tie their opponent unequivocally to Obama’s law, highlight the law’s cuts to Medicare and offer counter-messaging that uses credible outside spokespeople — like seniors, or, in Amodei’s case, his mother — to convince seniors that Republicans are in the right on the issue.

[MannyGoldstein]

64. "We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with..."

From your link: "We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations"

Now please read this re: Obama's cute use of the word "slash":

Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security

But then there was this little issue of the Washington Post story posted Wednesday night that reported Obama was offering “for the first time ... to tackle the rising cost of Social Security.” This had set off alarm bells among Obama’s progressive base, and led Carney to put out a statement denying there was anything new in the White House’s position on Social Security.

The denials continued on Thursday. And that’s where the verbal dancing got particularly entertaining. Back in January, in his State of the Union address, the president “talked about his openness to doing things to strengthen Social Security, things that would not slash benefits,” Carney said.

Carney’s statement appeared, however, to leave open the possibility that the White House could accept some kind of benefit cut.

So, a reporter asked, what does “slash” mean?

“Haven’t you got, like, a dictionary app on your iPhone?” Carney replied.

Q: Well, it’s a word that you use instead of “cut.”

Carney: “Slash” is, I think, quite clear. It’s slash. It’s like that. (Carney makes a slashing motion with his hand.) It’s a significant whack.

Q: So it means a significant …

Carney: I’m not going to put a numerical figure on it.

Q: So it means a significant cut.

Carney: I think slashing is a pretty sharp, direct …

Q: It’s not the same thing as cutting – the point is, it’s not the same thing as “cut.”

Carney: It’s slash. (Laughter.) And I don’t mean the guitarist. (Laughter.)

Q: A pledge to not slash benefits is not the same thing as a pledge to not cut benefits.

Carney: I’m not – again, we’re talking about a policy enunciated by the president back in January, and that is …

Q: This is a diction you guys have chosen.

Carney: No, no, I get that, and we did choose it, and the president used it. But I’m not here to negotiate the semantics …

Q: Just so everybody understands – just so everybody understands, when you say “slash,” you don’t mean “cut.”

[TomCADem]

70. Resembles Scott Brown's Attack On Elizabeth Warren

Who knew that the GOP was the right side of this debate?



http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/08/13/mass_dems_use_ryan_pick_to_target_gop_sen_brown/

Asked for comment on Romney's choice of Ryan and if there are any major areas where Brown and Ryan disagree, a spokeswoman for Brown said it's Warren who wants to gut Medicare in order to help pay for federal health care initiatives.

"She supports cutting more than $700 billion dollars from current Medicare beneficiaries and raising Medicare taxes by $317 billion in order to pay for the new federal health care bill," Brown spokeswoman Alleigh Marre said in a statement. "That's wrong. Scott Brown believes we shouldn't make changes to Medicare that affect current seniors."

Warren said Brown is "just flat wrong," and that the 2010 health care law puts Medicare on a more solid footing.

Romney tapped Ryan on Saturday as his choice for vice president on the Republican presidential ticket.

[ProSense]

75. And people

wonder why the GOP talking points are so effective.

Oh, and for all those older Americans who voted GOP last year because those nasty Democrats were going to cut Medicare, I have just one word: suckers!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/privatizing-medicare/

[joshcryer]

98. It's typical.

[ProSense]

72. Not only is

"Now please read this re: Obama's cute use of the word "slash": "

...that piece a year old, but it's also a Q&A with Carney, not Obama.

So your OP is based on the "cute use of the word 'slash'" by Carney a year ago and not an actual proposal, past or current.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. Remind us of what position Carney holds

and whose parsing he's trying to elucidate?

[ProSense]

81. It's not President. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

94. Does he have any association or affiliation with the President?

Perhaps a title of some sort?

[ProSense]

99. Yeah, but you do understand that he's not the same person as the President, right?

[MannyGoldstein]

132. What's his job title?

My memory must be going.

[ProSense]

141. Not President, and his name is not Obama. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

286. So he wasn't referring to the President's words?

Well that's interesting.

[sabrina 1]

74. Wow, an actual good reporter. Refusing to accept the double talk.

[bhikkhu]

85. "It" being "to strengthen Social Security for future generations"

And how does the president saying "slashing" benefits is something that must not be done translate into attacking him on his stance on Social Security? Regardless of the baffled press secretary, Obama has been very clear in word and deed.

[Tx4obama]

66. Not All Cuts To Medicare Are Created Equal

[gulliver]

179. Actions speaking too loudly for Manny et al.

Based on Obama's actions, the so-called cuts he is reportedly willing to accept are certain to be just like the "cuts" to Medicare. The "cuts" would be on paper, politically advantageous, and calculated and counterbalanced to have a strong net positive effect on the middle and working classes. When I see more posts from Manny and the broken record squad attacking Republicans on Social Security and Medicare for a change, maybe I will take them seriously. Why bother even reading them until then? They can't judge Obama's commitment by his actions to date and can't see the true, avowed, and active enemies of Social Security and Medicare, the Republicans.

Manny's posts represent a misguided attitude that creates a false equivalence with Republicans and badly hurts the causes Manny claims to support. Maybe he would like to see a Vice President Paul Ryan spearhead a President Mitt Romney's bill on Social Security and Medicare for an all-Republican Congress. Would that be enough contrast for Manny et al to finally sense the difference?

[RC]

71. Social Security is in trouble... from our own side.

Obama will propose cuts in Social Security and major reductions in Medicare, which mark a major shift for the White House, The Washington Post reported late on Wednesday, citing people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/07/obama-puts-social-security-medicare-cuts-on-the-table/

Obama Puts Social Security and Medicare Cuts on the Table
President Obama is an overachiever. Or ... something. He proposed a mere $2 trillion in cuts during previous budget negotiations, but the White House now says the president will look for $3 trillion to $4 trillion in cuts over the next ten years. The new target comes after a private meeting with House Speaker John Boehner, who reportedly agreed to $1 trillion worth of new tax revenues — in exchange for Obama putting Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare (previously untouchable) on the table. It's unclear exactly how those programs would be trimmed, but cost-of-living adjustments have been bandied about in previous negotiations.

The Obama-Boehner meeting has congressional Democrats (already concerned that Obama would cave too easily to Republican demands) a little worried. Any cuts to those legacy Great Society programs won't be well received in liberal quarters — even the mention of Social Security in the same sentence as "cuts" gets blood pressure elevated on the left. In addition to the practical consequences of such a deal, it's not great political theater for the Democrats heading into an election year: It's a bit harder to argue that the GOP is coming for Medicare when the president opened the door.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/obama_puts_social_security_and.html

[DevonRex]

77. It is just my opinion that you're working for

the other side, like the TOS says. Just my opinion, mind. But I'm entitled to it, just like you're entitled to yours.

[MannyGoldstein]

86. I am working for the other side

for traditional FDR Democrats.

Seriously, is anything I wrote wrong or misleading? Is it possible that I'm just tired of the 99% getting screwed.

[ProSense]

90. Yes,

"Seriously, is anything I wrote wrong or misleading?"

...and it has been pointed out in this thread.

"I am working for the other side for traditional FDR Democrats."

Like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021127956#post70

[whathehell]

106. Thank you. Traditional Democrats are the only true Democrats, in my opinion,

and any who try and cut Medicare or Social Security are NOT Democrats. Period.

"Everything's on the table" my ass...Let him do that with HIS money!

[uponit7771]

165. YES!!! AbsoFunkinLutely...

[NNN0LHI]

172. FDR Democrats? Now where have I heard that one before?

[DevonRex]

197. By he time I came back everyone answered

Your question very well. I don't count you in my WE either. Nor do I count your reccers in my WE, nor all your cheerleaders up top.

You know the WE thread, right?

[sabrina 1]

89. So in your opinion, someone standing up for Democratic Principles is 'working for the other side'??

And this is my opinion, those advocating that we remain silent during election season are working for Corporate America. They are trying to silence the American People so their Lobbyists have the full attention of our Representatives.

Like the TOS says, this is a Democratic Forum. I take that to mean we stand up for Democratic Principles.

We can all play the 'you're a troll' game. But I'm a Democrat. Not just in name only. I am a Democrat because I believe in the principles espoused by my party. I am certain that my Party wants me to back them up when they stand up for Democratic Principles because they need our support, otherwise Republicans will run all over them.

Democratic Ideas are the most popular with the American People. Standing up for them is a winning strategy. But Politicians are being pressured by Corporate America and by Republicans. They NEED the people to give them the courage to fight.

And one Democrat who made that clear was NY State Attorney, Schneiderman who was pressured from all sides to let the Banks off the hook. He credited his resistance to the pressure to the People, represented by OWS with whom he met and who, he said, gave him the backing he needed.

And that is what Manny is trying to do. Let them know the people will have their back if they stand up for Democratic Principles.

[ProSense]

93. Spin and

"So in your opinion, someone standing up for Democratic Principles is 'working for the other side'??

...mischaracterizations are not "Democratic Principles."

[sabrina 1]

126. No spin in stating that protecting SS from Republicans is a Democratic principle.

Do you disagree with that?

[ProSense]

144. No

No spin in stating that protecting SS from Republicans is a Democratic principle.

Do you disagree with that?

...I don't agree because protecting Social Security is a Democratic Principle. Who would it need protecting from?

[girl gone mad]

129. So stop spinning and mischaracterizing. n/t

[ProSense]

143. You're right

"So stop spinning and mischaracterizing. "

I should join in the speculation. Why do you think President Obama hasn't cut Social Security yet: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128680

[SidDithers]

108. Let's not forget how Manny replied to this question...

If you could reverse ONE election outcome, which would it be?

Of all the presidential elections since Watergate, if you could go back and reverse the outcome of just ONE of them (knowing that would have changed history and subsequent elections most likely would have featured different candidates debating very different issues, which election would you change and why?

1976: Carter d. Ford
1980: Reagan d. Carter
1984: Reagan d. Mondale
1988: Bush d. Dukakis
1992: Clinton d. Bush
1996: Clinton d. Dole
2000: Bush d(?). Gore
2004: Bush d. Kerry
2008: Obama d. McCain

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x761367

Sid

[speedoo]

148. Thanks for pointing that out.

I now see the motive behind this "issue".

[ProSense]

153. Wow, retroactive support for McCain.

[NNN0LHI]

174. That explains a lot Sid

[leftstreet]

190. But it's true. The Democratic brand has suffered a major hit

No prez in our lifetimes has had as much political capital as Obama. The voters completely annihilated the opposition party of pro-war, pro-privatization, pro-bootstraps and handed the Democrats a serious victory. They paved the way for the hope and change they believed their elected officials would deliver.

Now four years later we'll probably get the lowest election turnout ever

[DevonRex]

202. I rest my case and it's a damn shame Manny is

still allowed to work against us even now during yet another election after categorically stating that he would reverse the results of the 2008 election so that McCain/Palin would have won.

Now he's beating Obama down in the face of Romney/Ryan who would END Medicare. Privatize Social Security. Cut Food Stamps. Do away with Pell Grants. Yet Manny still claims there is no difference. No matter WHO Obama is up against that is Manny's mantra. Manny said it best: he's a broken record.

[sabrina 1]

215. So asking that Democrats speak out loudly and CLEARLY, (see all the confusion here over

what was said and what was not?) about Democratic values and intentions when it comes to SS, is now 'working against us'? Who is US? Count me out of that US, I am a Democrat!

All anyone is asking is that the President speak about Social Security as clearly as Bernie Sanders does. Simple. The only 'US' that would be working against would be Republicans. If Sanders can do it, I have no doubt the Democratic Leadership can do it and we are going to keep on asking them to if you don't mind. Because THIS is what elections are about, for the people to let their feelings be known about the most important issues in their lives.

There is way too much confusion about exactly where the President stands, with details which should be a no-brainer on SS for a Democrat, on this issue. Some clarity now before the election is very much in order. I have no idea why anyone would not want that. Make ME wonder about THEIR motives.

[DevonRex]

220. Sabrina, there is no WE with you and me. Enough is enough. Nt

[sabrina 1]

223. If you are not in support of Democrats pushing their Party to stick to Democratic Principles

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

then are correct. There is no 'we' there. I am a Democrat, not a Republican. I chose to be a Dem, not to sit silently and watch the takeover of this Party by right wing elements. So you are correct, anyone who is willing to allow this party to turn into Republican Lite, I do not include in that 'we'.

And if you were attempting an insult there, you failed. I like to know who is fighting for the same Democratic principles I am, thanks for the heads up.

And you Better Believe It!

[DevonRex]

231. *snort* Better believe it!

[sabrina 1]

243. There, I edited and included it just for you!

[JTFrog]

212. Unreal.

Gotta love the transparency tho.

[arthritisR_US]

83. Then get him enough senators and congress people

so that they don't have to swallow those lousy compromises!

[TheKentuckian]

210. He started his push with a generational lead in the Senate and a huge advantage in the House

Nobody forced him into Simpson-Bowles, he sought it out after the TeaPubliKlans walked on the preceding binding committee.

We beat back Junior's privatization scheme from the minority, without the White House. Forced my ass. The whole push was DOA and he keep reviving it and even managed the economy shrinking trigger after the last failure and claims he will keep pushing for a "grand bargain".

If you keep trying to do things some folks are going to believe you are trying to do them and there is no guarantee that those hoodwinked are those you set out to fool. The TeaPubliKlans haven't softened their positions, the media isn't playing off of it, it didn't endear independents, it didn't blunt corporate America or the Chamber of Commerce one iota. If it is an act then it is time for the hook and pull that failed turkey off the stage and run it out on a rail.

I'm convinced but no way I was the target audience, if it was an act, I firmly believe Obama is not only tolerant of some cuts but wants some. Not privatization, not to pull the rug out from under current retirees (though comfortable with starting to "bend the curve" now by arresting payouts), but because he actually believes that some modifications are required because he surrounds himself with neoliberal figures that believe in a similar vein and HE KEEPS TRYING and pushing the issue in an environment where the more sensible changes to generate more revenue are impossible.

If he actually wanted to raise the cap then such a proposal should have come to committee and then to the floor in the first two years rather than going through supporting a binding deficit commission and then Simpson-Bowles.

[progressivebydesign]

84. I'm sorry, I don't understand the point. Are you trying to turn us against the President?

Get us to vote for Ron Paul? Or some Green candidate?

Truly. Not to be snarky, but what is the purpose? To show that you're smarter than the rest of us rubes that actually like the President and don't consider him "at least he's not Romney?"

Otherwise.. what is the point of posting this stuff all the time? The quote you posted was not correct out of context, he was talking about cuts to anything BUT benefits.

[MannyGoldstein]

91. We'd be foolish to not vote for Obama

But we'd be equally foolish to not realize what's about to be done to us, and to try and stop it.

[ProSense]

95. That's

"We'd be foolish to not vote for Obama"

..."inspirational," like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

[Melissa G]

109. Good to make noise ahead of time.

I'm remembering Obama and single payer which was just given away with no trade at all.
Manny

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. Ding! Ding! Ding!

But will anyone of import take notice?

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. Sirota is that you? Are you writing Mitt Romney's speeches these days? He made false....

claims, similar to these, in FL today. Hmmmmm......

[DeSwiss]

96. “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell

- K&R

[woo me with science]

135. +1

[blkmusclmachine]

105. I still remember Obama's Catfood Commission, and it's sequel (Part II):

I assume if Obama gets in for another term, he'll try Catfood Commission III. I suspect a second Obama term to be more conservative/"bi-partisan" than the first term. This election, the choice is between bad and worse.

[Hoyt]

107. Not gonna happen, just like it didn't a year ago.

As I've said before, I'm really not opposed to considering how some modifications might help real people. I think our problems are rather broad. For example, I'd consider lower SS increases IF say gas and food prices were better controlled and jobs picture improved for society as a whole.

Not for Ryan crud, but I think we have deeper problems than we want to admit. Taxing rich will help a lot, but not total answer.

[sabrina 1]

244. There is no need for lower increases in SS. In fact, the SS fund is large enough that

there should be bigger increases. The very fact that you believe this, shows how successful the propaganda has been, aided by Democrats who have refused to take a firm stand against the lies from the Right.

And your post is proof positive of why Manny is worried, and me, and so many, many others. Because your post demonstrates a willingness to even consider cuts in SS, and decreased benefits ARE cuts, that should never even be talked about by people who understand the situation.

Listen to Bernie Sanders if the want the facts on SS. The way he speaks so clearly on the subject is all we are asking Democrats to do so that no one will be willing to believe the false claims that SS needs to be touched at all other than raising the cap and increasing benefits.

Sorry, I am not trying to be negative towards you, but it upsets me to see even Democrats now believing the lies about SS and makes me even more worried than I was already. What it means is, what Manny is trying to say, the Dems have failed to counter the lies of the right on SS.

[Hoyt]

247. I'm not upset with you. I still believe our whole economic system needs to change.

This is a different world where many traditional jobs are gone forever, primarily because of computers. I don't know what changes need to be made, but I'm willing to put some of my SS on table. If government works out a system where Medicare copayments and supplemental insurance premiums are less, I'd be better off. If government provides incentives for small, affordable senior homes, we'll be better off. If young have better job prospects, we'll all be better off.

The old ways are just that - old. I'm not for Ryan Crud, nor letting wealthy continue to screw us, but I think our country will be better off with some significant changes. Saying "no" is just being like a Tbagger. That will get us nowhere.

Manny has been posting this crud for awhile. In fact, he still owes me $20 when i bet him in spring of 2011 that Obama would not support the SS cuts Manny said were coming in a month other two.

We need changes and I'd rather it start under Democrats than the alternative.

[sabrina 1]

249. The problem is you do not need to put any of your SS on the table. This is the big lie.

The world has always been changing. That doesn't mean SS is not still the most fiscally sound program ever and projected to be up to 75 years from now. One way to ensure this is to raise the cap and make everyone pay their fair share. That is one way the world has changed. We cannot afford any longer to support the wealthiest people as we have been doing.

Up to now, the working class has been paying their fair share and very successfully providing both for themselves and the next generation. But the wealthy have not been paying their fair share. That is what has to stop.

Ending the Bush tax cuts, raising the cap on SS is all that needs to be done, and increasing benefits for those who paid into the system, the money is theirs and there is plenty of it. That will make life easier for the most vulnerable people, we can afford it, AND it will help stimulate the economy.

But clearly they have succeeded in scaring people into thinking that they need to give up more of what they have saved and earned. That is what bothers me, that it is working. Bernie Sanders articulates the facts about all of this better than anyone. Now it's time for the Democratic Leadership to join him so that no working class person feels they need to give up any part of their SS benefits. They do not.

[Hoyt]

258. Sorry, I don't believe we can continue to segment everything into separate compartments.

We need comprehensive change that puts government more in charge of a lot of things to prepare us for the future, rather than greedy corporations.

We need to move more toward a system like Denmark where everyone is -- and is content with being -- in the same boat.

I'm not talking about giving something up with nothing in return.

I mean as far as I'm concerned they can arrange housing, food, medical care, internet access, etc., and cut my SS to zero.

We need systematic change and to get there, you can't say SS -- or the military industrial complex for that matter -- is off the table. If they leave my SS as is, but do nothing to ensure they young have access to jobs, my SS will always be in jeopardy because everything is at risk if the economy does not improve (or change in a fundamental way).

[lobezen]

111. No true self respecting TRUE Democrat

would EVER propose cuts of any kind to THE two programs that define the historic success of the party. Manny is right, we need to take a stand and insist that the only changes we will accept will be to eliminate the caps on Social Security (or at least raise them raise $250) and offer Medicare to every American from Birth to death.

[sabrina 1]

115. And everybody who knows anything about politics, knows that.

[Cleita]

222. What lobezen said.

Welcome to DU!

[whatchamacallit]

130. RECompense

for your steadfast democratic values.

[patrice]

133. You're quoting an 2-3 hand interpretation as though it were a direct quote, in an article about

the President's critique of media, not an article about what to do about Medicare and Social Security "sustainability" issues.

If you do the drill down on the supporting pieces, we see that the quote you use isn't even hearsay. The underlying articles describe this administration's analysis of sustainability issues in Medicare and Social Security and differing perspectives on those.

I saw NO mention of what to do about any of it, let alone the word "cuts". I wonder if you could direct me to the primary source of that reference instead of the secondary one that you have quoted here.

My guess is that, while this Administration must consider all possible scenarios and sort those into degrees of probability and do the work of understanding each, they are forced to address some, out of many, probabilities that have to do with these sustainability issues. The reason they might not engage in solution scenarios, TTE, "We should do this ______________ or that _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _" is because it's nothing but high speculation without the relevant Congress in which those kinds of efforts would work themselves out. And even were the analysis closer to the situation in which it would be addressed by Congress, showing one's hand, in total, too far ahead is a recipe for defeat of your solutions.

So, assuming the sustainability issues are a given, I guess the administration has a couple or three possible tactics it will consider in addressing Medicare and Social Security sustainability issues. Which one(s) will be pursued will depend upon the political configuration of the relevant Congress.

What will shape the political configuration of the Congress that will address these issues? Well, if the President enters that situation politically weakened by the propagation of the expectation that cuts are his preferred method of creating sustainability, that Congress could be comprised/dominated by those who want to take advantage of that weakened condition. If there is gridlock, as there was this last Congress, and it comes down to do what he can to solve the problems as best as possible under the circumstances, rather than handing a more dire Medicare/SS situation off to a possibly Republican President, or an even worse Congress, we have to ask ourselves what he'd do.

A different kind of Congress would get a different tactical response to the issues from the administration.

[ProSense]

136. Can anyone

help me: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128680

[HiPointDem]

138. kr. i'm sorry you're taking so much flak for posting inconvenient facts.

[ProSense]

140. The OP is an opinion not facts. n/t

[HiPointDem]

142. the op is reporting quotes from legitimate news sources. take it up with them if you think they're

lying.

[ProSense]

146. It's not a quote from the President. n/t

[HiPointDem]

154. It's a quote from the premier news organization in the country, the "paper of record," supposedly

a liberal source. It's news.

Presumably if it's false reporting, the President's team can correct it. He can go on record and say he will *not* accept *any* cuts to SS or Medicare.

So far, for some reason, he has not taken that path.

It's not like Manny's quoting world nut daily or some conservative source.

You are somewhat annoying with your insistence that black is white & day is night.

[ProSense]

155. Yeah, but

It's a quote from the premier news organization in the country, the "paper of record," supposedly

a liberal source. It's news.

...Judith Miller worked for them and David Brooks still does. A Third Way supporter wrote the column this week in Krugman's absence.

Certainly scrutiny needs to be applied. Still, it is not a quote for the President.

[HiPointDem]

157. there are reporting intelligence types in every major news organization, but it's the only news

we have.

manny quoted what is said to be the leading paper of the united states, and said to be a liberal paper.

you act as though he were quoting world nut daily or limbaugh's radio script.

it's really annoying.

[ProSense]

159. Again, it's still not the President's quote.

It's editorializing being used to equate what the President has done to strengthen Medicare to a desire to cut benefits.

[HiPointDem]

160. then let the president deny it & take a firm public stand about cuts. why doesn't he *do* that?

[uponit7771]

166. ...and let Obama deny he raped goats too....see how that works?

[HiPointDem]

168. no, i see you making a ridiculous comparison.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

187. no, its a sensible enough comparison

to me it seems like a 'since he hasn't denied/said that he won't do something, then he is planning to do it' statement from you

In that sense the comparison makes perfect sense since there is a lot of things people would not do, but you won't hear them make such statement on those topics since its foolish

[HiPointDem]

219. hardly. goat-fucking isn't a political action. social security is a very popular program, and the

media has repeatedly told us that obama is willing to bargain with it.

obama could make political points with a vigourous defense of the program, but he doesn't.

[joshcryer]

163. Any reforms = cuts.

If there's a Chained CPI it's cuts because it cuts what people get due to "new calculations." So you wind up eating more bread and less meat, etc.

If there's a retirement age increase that's 2-3 years (or more) you're not getting retirement, this is a "cut in entitlements." There hasn't been an increase in the retirement age since 1983 (though it didn't take effect until 2000).

If there's a cap increase, which is probably the best option (but the poster you're responding to hates the idea, search for Bernie Sanders' proposal), and is the option that Obama talks about in speeches, they will call it a "cut" because people will be paying higher payroll taxes (nevermind it would only be the top 5% who would get the tax increase, not the other 95%, the media would still play it as a "tax increase&quot .

[patrice]

218. THE. MEDIA. Remember? PRIVATE agendas implemented through public resources, e.g. WAR on Iraq. nt

[johnlucas]

149. What are we fighting for really?

It's so easy for Obama & the Democrats to not only stop the Republicans dead in their tracks but dismantle their whole party & the entire notion of 'Conservatism' all at once.

But they don't do it. They never do it.
They let the Republicans frame the debate & only argue on the Republicans' terms.

Put Obama back in office, get a Democratic majority in the House & Senate & THEN what.
Watch as they continue to lead us down the road the Republicans set for us anyway?

And they wonder why people stop voting or even caring about politics.
John Lucas

[uponit7771]

167. Democratic majority = fudr meme, knowing damn well it wasn't a controlling majority after GOP change

...changed senate rules defacto

[johnlucas]

198. Screw a Democratic majority. Give me a Progressive majority

I ain't got no use for the Democrats anymore. They're a bunch of weak muthas.
I'll only accept Progressives/Liberals who parade under the Democratic banner for practical reasons.

Oh I can hear it now "Well if you're not for the Democrats then why do you come to this site?"
I'm more into the UNDERGROUND of Democratic Underground than the Democratic
I haven't called myself a Democrat in years thanks to their unceasing wimpiness.
And I think the font size should be reversed on the logo of the site making Underground bigger than Democratic.

This site is not JUST for the Democrat boosters & cheerleaders.
This site is for everybody who believes in the ideals the Democrats SAY they stand by & support.
The Second Bill of Rights. Social & Economic Justice for ALL not the Elite Few.
A fair society where we can ALL rise to our potentials.

Obama even saying something like this is POISON & it makes me wish we had a choice outside of this 2-party circus they run by us every election. But we're stuck until another party can get a TV presence & can get pass the duopoly on the state ballots.

You can get every single member of Congress to be Democrat in House & Senate & it STILL won't matter if they keep giving away the store like this.
We got to fight the enemies without as WELL as the enemies within.
John Lucas

[bvar22]

254. This whole site used to be that way.

The conservatives started showing up a few years ago.
Downhill ever since.

When Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Democrats are labeled "The Far Left",
WHO is really doing the talking?

[Bonobo]

150. Has Obama ever spoken about "Lockbox"?

If not, why?

[SunSeeker]

152. Maybe he doesn't want to conjure up visions of Gore's losing campaign.

Gore's the one famous for that term, and it sure didn't help him.

[Bonobo]

156. Couldn't he come up with a different term and still assure us that SS would be off limits?

Of course you may be right about the term, but in politics, the things politicians DON'T say often portends as much as what they do say.

[joshcryer]

162. I think he believe SS is unsustainable without reforms.

His main proposal has been raising the caps. He hasn't mentioned raising the retirement age (could be because it's an election year). He did a balloon trial for Chained CPI and it didn't go over well, haven't heard him mention it, even imply it in almost a year.

Regardless "everything is on the table." Been saying it since 2008.

[SunSeeker]

213. You mean other than "I won't cut SS benefits"? Sure. Any suggestions?

I mean, Obama has already said he won't cut SS benefits. Are you suggesting he didn't say that or are you saying he needs to come up with something more catchy? What do you suggest that would be more bumper sticker-ish?

[joshcryer]

252. Obama did throw out suggestions for the Chained CPI in 2011.

It did not go over well so he backed off on that. It was a speech where he talked about "adjusting for inflation" or something like that. Code language for Chained CPI. He did in fact stop that rhetoric though when it blew up.

Other than that, yes, it's accurate that Obama the only "cut" Obama has proposed is Bernie Sanders' idea to raise the cap (which would make SS solvent until the 2200s).

[kentuck]

170. I think the President comes from a different generation...

and we can only know what we have experienced. He formed most of his mature political opinions during the Reagan years, in my opinion. There was a reason he spoke more highly of Ronald Reagan than of Bill Clinton, from a historical perspective. I do not believe he looks at SS or Medicare the same way as older, traditional Democrats look at them. Personally, his defense of these programs has seemed tepid and did not leave me with the feeling that he would protect them if push came to shove. What's more scary is that I don't feel the Democrats in the Congress or the Senate would protect them either. So long as we are spending the funds collected for SS on a defense budget of $750 billion per year, SS will continue to be threatened. I would appreciate more a President that asked for a 7 1/2% surtax to pay for such a monstrous defense budget, rather than worry myself about cutting SS or Medicare.

[NNN0LHI]

191. Where is that quote where the President spoke highly of Ronald Reagan

If you are referring to when President Obama said Reagan was a transformational president he was right about that.

Reagan transformed almost an entire generation of Americans into a group of anti-union suck asses.

That is pretty damn transformational in my estimation.

That is not speaking highly of Reagan. It is telling the truth about Reagan. I have been saying the same thing since I watched it happen.

Don

[patrice]

217. True that & He's never REALLY had to look for work. Has worked "with" those who have, but ...

It's hard to read a person's mind.

This year is very VERY important, but this Republican ticket is pointing hard at 2016.

Labor needs to get up off of its knees and stand up for ALL of the people of this country.

[JoePhilly]

177. So as soon as the election is over, Obama kills Social Security. That's your new prediction.

Didn't happen in year 1, 2, 3 or 4 ... so clearly its going to happen in year 5.

Right after he takes our guns and sends those who dissent to his secret FEMA camps.

[BlueToTheBone]

178. That's not a direct quote

find where there is a quote of the President saying that, and I will then read your post.

[leeroysphitz]

180. It's the greatest hoodwink ever.

They actually have us all scrambling to defend a Republican health care plan to our friends and family. Genius.

[NNN0LHI]

181. You really fucked up this time didn't you Manny?

Trying to pass off what someone wrote in an editorial as something President Obama said wasn't very smart.

Was it?

You probably need to lay low for a while and wait for people to forget about this one.

You Better Believe It.

Don

[MannyGoldstein]

182. Should I post The Times' retraction

or Obama's denial?

I will when they happen.

The president has clearly stated his preferences in this matter.

[NNN0LHI]

184. You expect the President to deny whatever some FDR LaRouchie accuses him of on an anonymous website

Keep doing whatever you like doing while you still can.

Don

[MannyGoldstein]

186. The NY Times is an anonymous FDR Larouchie we site?

Really?

[NNN0LHI]

188. Those who latch onto such nonsense and promote it as a truthful quote probably are

Really.

Don

[frylock]

203. wrong answer, but thanks for playing..

tell him what he's won.

[Oilwellian]

183. Manny, like you...

I will never be silent on this issue.

[a2liberal]

189. K&R for the (inconvenient) truth (n/t)

[closeupready]

194. Willingness to cut SS/Medicare is a DISCREDIT to those Dems

who fit that description. To the contrary, those Dems who seek to STRENGTHEN the programs and EXPAND them should be credited generously with that progressiveness.

K&R

[ProSense]

195. Here's a good post:

Obama/Biden vs Romney/Ryan on Medicare and the Right Wing lies on Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128915

[abelenkpe]

196. We need reporters and debate moderators

Ask all candidates to state their position on social security and Medicare now. That's what should be happening during campaign season. It's very important at the state and congressional level.

[bvar22]

200. Thank You, Manny... DURec

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens."

The "Privatization" of Social Security (Private Retirement Accounts) was an open, public goal of the DLC in the early 90s.
Those "Democrats" haven't gone away, and neither have their large single source contributors.
Vigilance in protecting the Cornerstones of the Modern Democratic Party is worthwhile.


It will be too late if it is bargained away,
Then the chorus here will sing,
"I don't see why you are so upset.
He only did what he said he would do."

As every long term Democratic Party activist KNOWS,
NOW is the time to be VOCAL and make demands.
Election Season IS the time to get Issues in the Platform
and get politicians to make specific statements On the Public Record.
After the election, THAT door is closed.
I KNOW this because I AM a DEMOCRAT.

There is certainly nothing wrong with asking The President to Go-On-the-Record
with a clear statement to protect the Cornerstones of the Modern Democratic Party.
Previous Democratic Presidents and Candidates had no problem making these statements regarding Social Security. It is not Republican Talking Points to ask this one to do the same.
I find it troubling that he has not spontaneously done so already,
and I also find it troubling that you would be attacked on a Democratic Website for asking him to do so.



---bvar22
A mainstream/Center loyal FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT,
now relegated to the Fringe Left wing of the New Democrat Sensible Centrist Party.
I haven't changed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

205. But, the cuts will be "not as bad" as Romney's. And, will be claimed as a victory.

[grahamhgreen]

206. K&R! The payroll tax holiday is also an attack on SS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/payroll-tax-cut-tom-harkin_n_1284334.html

"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Harkin slammed his own president and party for hatching the payroll tax cut deal that is expected to pass Congress Friday, saying he's "embarrassed" the Democrats are pushing a measure that begins the "unravelling of Social Security." The bill will extend a 2 percent break in the tax that goes to fund Social Security for the rest of 2012, saving families $1,000 on average.

That lost revenue will be replaced in the Social Security trust fund from the nation's general tax collections, but the plan has attracted opposition from both the left and right on grounds that it sets a bad precedent and adds the $100 billion cost to the deficit. Harkin (D-Iowa), who has long been a staunch defender of Social Security, hammered it as the beginning of the end for the program.

"This Congress will be making a grave mistake -- a grave mistake -- and reinforcing a dangerous precedent," Harkin said in a dramatic Senate floor speech late Thursday. "And I’m dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this, and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security." Harkin argued that Social Security had always been strong and protected because it was funded by its own dedicated tax stream that ensured every American would be guaranteed a basic income in their retirements, and that the program added not "even one dime to the deficits or the national debt."

But he said now that Congress was going to pay for this cut with borrowed money from the general treasury funds, the best argument of the program's defenders was gone. "With this bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit," Harkin said. He argued that a far better plan would have been to simply grant working Americans rebates on their income taxes, the way Presidents Obama and George W. Bush had done in recent years.
Hauling Social Security into the equation, he said, betrays the legacy of Democratic presidents who started the program and strengthened it over the years, from Franklin Roosevelt to John Kennedy.
"This, I believe has been the hallmark and the underpinning of the party that I've been proud to belong to," Harkin said. "Cutting the payroll tax is a bad idea, terrible idea. I'm embarrassed that it's being proposed by a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president.""

[ProSense]

207. Ah,

no: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1128963

...and even Manny will tell you it isn't: http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=443919

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=443902

[plethoro]

211. Excellent post and following discussion.

I hope we are not in some kind of 3-player, 3-level checkmate with respect to entitlements. If the payroll tax reduction is not restored, I doubt that it ever will be....

[bvar22]

250. Do you REALLY believe that the Democratic Party Leadership is going to STEP UP...

...and say,
"OK The Holiday" is over.
Its time to Raise Taxes on the Working Class!"

This "holiday" was never intended to be "temporary".
It is a permanent reduction in the independent funding mechanism for Social Security.
It was designed to be "independent" for a good reason.
Connecting the funding for Social Security to The Deficit was a gawd awful idea.

Payroll Tax Holiday Connects Social Security to the Deficit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1538388



The pattern is clear.
---bvar22
A mainstream/Center loyal FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT for over 40 years,
now relegated to the "Fringe Left" wing of the New Democrat Centrist Party.

[plethoro]

256. No, I don't. I didn't think it would be reversed when it

happened. It is now an unbalanced mechanism with employers supporting more of FICA than employees. That can't last. And all these anti-terrorism devices put in place, ie, Bush's reversal of possee comitatus(sp), NDAA, the drones, etc have been implemented for the event about to occur. Even Romney's selection of Ryan is collaterally connected. I believe the MIC made Romney pick Ryan so that Romney would lose so that the plan which had it's first step with the reduction of FICA taxes can move forward.

[Blanks]

281. There's no reason to raise the rates once the...

...cap has been raised. When we return to taxing the way we were taxing back in the FDR an LBJ eras; we won't have to talk about reducing benefits.

The rate can be lowered on employers even. As long as we're willing to raise taxes; we don't have any of the concerns raised on this thread.

[Scuba]

216. I always sucked at blind obedience. The President is nowhere near far enough left for me....

... so I'll keep pushing him that way. In the meantime, considering the alternative is disaster, he has my support.

[Dustlawyer]

225. Everything everyone said goes double for me!

I heard Bill Clinton tell Paul Ryan the Dems would cut. I call bull shit on that!!!!!!

[scheming daemons]

227. why the OP is just like RW gun nuts

Both the OP and RW gun nuts believe that Obama is going to do something in his second term that he has not even slightly attempted in his first.

Despite Obama taking absolutely NO actions that could be perceived as a threat to SS, Manny firmly believes that Obama is coming after his SS. So much so that he takes a minor sound byte by a person who is NOT Obama as evidence that the end of SS is near.

Just like the gun nuts are CONVINCED that he is coming for their guns, despite no evidence of such a thing.

Manny is an agent provacateur. His goal here is to spread discontent and to squelch Democratic enthusiasm for the President leading up to the election.

If the mods were consistent, he would've been tombstoned a long time ago.

[AtomicKitten]

229. +1

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

239. Amen...

This "sky is falling" bullshit is getting pretty tiresome...

[SidDithers]

278. Abso-fucking-lutely...

Sid

[ProSense]

230. Check out

Mitt's lies:

New Romney Ad: Obama Cut Medicare To Pay For ‘Obamacare’ (Romney-Ryan "protects Medicare benefits&quot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021131599

Pathological liar Mitt strikes again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021131370

[CarmanK]

232. Obama under delusion that he could work with honorable republicans, He found out, he could not.

Simpson/Bowles was an honest attempt by the Obama administration, the NEW administration, to create bi-partisanship plan on deficit reduction since he had been beaten up on the campaign trail on the issue. I was pissed when he extended the BUSH tax cuts to get unemployment extended, but he was taking care of the many, while the republicans served their master 1%.
Many people found it difficult to believe that ROMNEY would adopt PRIVATIZING SS and medicare. With the RYAN pick, that is no longer in doubt.
Obama never backed, never backed privatizing SS nor did he back/support PRIVATIZING medicare. The proposed cut to Medicare, were from payments to providers and never reduced benefits to seniors. And the savings from the cuts would be pumped back into the program, while the Republicans would use the savings to provide additional tax cuts for the rich.
Obama was willing to compromise, which is a dirty word in some extreme, radical speak, but he never agreed to PRIVATIZATION or dismantling either SS or medicare.

[Dragonfli]

233. Obama would be happy to learn I give him plenty of credit for collaborating with enemies of SS

If I were a right winger I would likely even be happy about it.

I am not a right winger and so I am appalled instead, he can not be trusted, we are only lucky that freshman Republicans were too insane to take his gift of "bargainy goodness".



I find it amazing that there are so many that approve of the attacks on hard earned safety net programs that are the legacy of a once proud party that used to fight for the 99%. I can only assume that the Republican party purges have had the effect of dumping their disgruntled into our party where they can applaud or deny his Petersonesque leanings.

I only disagree with you Manny on one point,

"Obama's infinitely preferable to Romney. But we must take a stand that even though we'll re-elect him, we won't stand for "free" trade, Social Security and Medicare cuts, and other raw assaults against the 99%. It must end."

My view is slightly different, "Obama's marginally preferable to Romney. But we must take a stand that even though we'll re-elect him, we won't stand for "free" trade, Social Security and Medicare cuts, and other raw assaults against the 99%. It must end."

It is just one word of difference, but in the interests of full disclosure of my views I thought the word change needed to mirror my views should be known.


To those that don't agree with his anti-safety net leanings and actually refuse to believe his own thoughts and promises on the subject and are thus hiding their heads in the sand, I have one bit of advice.

"When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass is fully exposed to the thing you are hiding from and it will bite that exposed ass rather viciously" eom

[Whisp]

234. I think I heard you on one of the talk shows today.

sounds pretty well the same.

some enraged, engorged person of interest turning blue and screaming how gawd awful President Obama is, and he's coming for everything you own

[Dragonfli]

235. Sorry, I don't watch Fox like you do, my views are liberal and your shows are simply not on my radar

Perhaps you should change the channel and learn what progressive policy is about, in all truth, unless you are well off, your DLC, Pete Peterson, Bowles, GOP worship will bite you in your nether regions.

Then again, you strike me as well off, so perhaps you really do like the idea of cutting our safety net in order to reduce or eliminate your capital gains.

Enjoy your Pete Peterson Simpson Bowles policies, they destroy working class people like myself but I suppose they are relatively good for the affluent, and so gain your approval.

[Whisp]

240. I don't watch Fox

because
1. I'm not interested. I hear enough vein popping screaming from Baggers on MSNBC.
2. It's not available here.

and I am not well off at all, except maybe in the gift of smelling out bullshit

[Dragonfli]

261. So you come to your opinion that cuts to SS etc. are good all on your own? That's special I suppose

[Whisp]

276. one hit wonders.

usually they are pretty good, but some not.

[TBF]

236. This socialist supports your posts Manny -

I remember very clearly during the first State of the Union address when President Obama said we need to "begin a conversation" about Social Security:

To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress

[blackspade]

241. Totally with you on this.

[lib2DaBone]

242. Well Said Manny.... K/R!

Shame on Obama for even SUGGESTING that we cut Social Security while we pump BILLIONS into the crony corporations in Afghanistan.

That being said.. the Republican party has lost it's collective mind.. they have degenerated into psychopaths and hate mongers.

They are getting so cocky.. it is getting nauseating.

Saw a clip today of Koch Bros foot soldiers pRick Scott and Texas zombie Rick Perry. They think they they have gamed the system and believe they will remain in control forever... through their voter purging and Karl Rove dirty tricks.

I hate to tell them.. people HATE pRick Scott and they will not follow him...

Tea Bag Scuzz Bags only remain in control because our media is controlled by right wing propaganda... and they feed this to the low-information voters via Fox News 24-7.

I will hold my nose and vote for Obama.. (maybe even put a clothes pin on my nose).... but Paul Ryan is a DISASTER we can't let happen.

Mr. Obama.. snap out of it... no more NDAA... bring our tropps home....

[mzmolly]

246. Is there a direct quote

from the President, somewhere? The only thing I recall the President saying, is that we should cut waste, fraud, abuse and the privatized (for profit) middlemen. Those are cuts, but they differ from cuts to beneficiaries.

[Progressive dog]

248. Did the freepers pay you for this?

You continue to push this, (Obama wants to cut you social security and Medicare), even though in almost 4 years he has done nothing to further this conspiracy. You point to feeble evidence that he is considering it and you do it on at least a daily basis. What is your agenda, or are you just a conspiracy nut?
PS I don't really care what your answer is. I know that it will be the same talking points repeated ad infinitum.

[DevonRex]

251. No. He wanted to reverse the 2008 election

above all other elections. He doesn't HAVE to be paid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x761367

[AnotherMcIntosh]

255. Nothing? Who appointed known anti-Social Security members to the Cat-Food Commission?

Who approved of the "temporary" reduction of Social Security contributions which is now weakening Social Security?

Who approved of three job-shifting-to-foreign-countries "free trade" agreements so that American corporations can employ foreign workers in more foreign countries to compete with American workers without paying any Social Security tax on their wages while more Americans become or remain unemployed?

Who continues to borrow heavily from the Social Security trust fund while financing billion or trillion-dollar endless wars in the Middle-East?

[ProSense]

259. You could

Who approved of the "temporary" reduction of Social Security contributions which is now weakening Social Security?

Who approved of three job-shifting-to-foreign-countries "free trade" agreements so that American corporations can employ foreign workers in more foreign countries to compete with American workers without paying any Social Security tax on their wages while more Americans become or remain unemployed?

Who continues to borrow heavily from the Social Security trust fund while financing billion or trillion-dollar endless wars in the Middle-East?

...make the second point, but points one and three are utterly bogus. That's part of the problem with disinformation, people believe they can say any damn thing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

262. You refer to 3 points and say that "points one and three are utterly bogus." Is this valid?

1. The first point that you refer to indicates that the "temporary" reduction of Social Security contributions which is now weakening Social Security.

Will you agree that Senator Harkin (D-Iowa) is both a liberal and a strong supporter of Social Security? He is an expert with respect to Social Security. Here's his view,

Sen. Tom Harkin slammed his own president and party for hatching the payroll tax cut deal that is expected to pass Congress Friday, saying he's "embarrassed" the Democrats are pushing a measure that begins the "unravelling of Social Security."

The bill will extend a 2 percent break in the tax that goes to fund Social Security for the rest of 2012, saving families $1,000 on average.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/payroll-tax-cut-tom-harkin_n_1284334.html

2. The second point that you refer to indicates that borrowing from the Social Security trust fund weakens the long-term viability of Social Security.

Would you agree that former VP Al Gore was a strong supporter of Social Security who did not want to see Social Security weakened by those who would otherwise use the Social Security trust funds for pet projects? As observed by DailyKos,

When Al Gore was running for President in 2000, one of the linchpins of his campaign was that he would take the entitlement trust funds and put them in a "lock box," thus preventing Congress from raiding the funds to pay for its pet projects at the expense of future generations. He was routinely ridiculed by the vast right wing noise machine for this idea. With his defeat, the idea of protecting the trust fund went out the window and as we all know, the Republican Congress treated it like a free lunch, eating away at our future in order to avoid raising taxes on the wealthy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/15/994921/-Al-Gore-was-Right-We-DID-Need-a-Lockbox

The views of these two well-respected are neither bogus nor can they be accurately referred to as "disinformation." Their views are the correct ones.

[ProSense]

264. Nope

But he said now that Congress was going to pay for this cut with borrowed money from the general treasury funds, the best argument of the program's defenders was gone.

"With this bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit," Harkin said.

Not a single dollar of benefits cut. Harkin makes no mention of benefits cuts. The argument is one of creating the perception that Social Security is tied to the deficit. It is not about cutting benefits.

Besides, the funding is being replaced.

The point is bogus, fact-free. It's a point about perception and the deficit, not about cutting Social Security.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

268. Wrong. If you are arguing that Social Security is tied to the deficit, that is a straw man. That's

your straw man. I never argued that Social Security is tied to the deficit. I don't know of any responsible person who has done so or would do so.

If you are arguing that efforts made to cut Social Security benefits cannot be considered under any circumstances until the precise day in which benefits are actually cut, I would just observe that such a position makes no sense at all and is a red herring. The issue is whether efforts have been made, not whether they have been successful in the first term.

Ultimately, when there is another "compromise" with the Republicans, the age for being eligible to collect Social Security benefits will be raised. That will be a cut.

When there is an effort to simplify taxes and make 100% of the Social Security benefits subject to taxation (instead of 50% under Reagan and 85% under Clinton), that will be a cut.

These are just two example. Others can be found, no doubt, by examining Ryan's proposals and/or the proposals of the Cat-Food Commission. Whether President Obama "has done nothing to further" the plans to reduce Social Security can be determined by his actions.

[ProSense]

269. WTH?

"Wrong. If you are arguing that Social Security is tied to the deficit, that is a straw man. That's your straw man."

That is Harkin's point. Maybe you should read what you posted.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

273. I think that you are misreading what was written about Harkin.

An important paragraph which actually reflects Harkin's views provides

Harkin argued that Social Security had always been strong and protected because it was funded by its own dedicated tax stream that ensured every American would be guaranteed a basic income in their retirements, and that the program added not "even one dime to the deficits or the national debt."

Now, since other programs are funded by borrowing from the Social Security trust fund, he was saying that a tax-cut holiday (although under the banner of having a tax-cut holiday from Social Security taxes) contributes to the deficit. He is simply recognizing that when all taxes are effectively put into a general fund, a tax-cut holiday contributes to the deficit?

Because you did not clarify your position, and because Harkin is not saying that a cut of segregated Social Security taxes would increase the deficit, I initially thought that you were raising a straw man similar to those who mistakenly see a correlation between paying out Social Security benefits and the deficit.

Harkin is not saying that paying out Social Security benefits is related to the deficit. He is saying that giving tax cuts for amounts that would be paid to the general fund would increase the deficit. This is certainly true, and nominally designating such tax cuts as being solely for "Social Security" contributions doesn't change that.

[ProSense]

274. No, I'm not. n/t

[msanthrope]

265. Jury voted 5 to 1 to keep your post. nt

[SkyDaddy7]

263. Cuts to SS & Medicare...

Are needed as long as they do not hurt benefits...There is nothing wrong with getting the waste out. I this is a weakness we have as we refuse to even consider cleaning up SS & Medicare if it means cuts...The $700 Billion in cuts to Medicare did not hurt my Medicare.

[Drew Richards]

272. Ok Manny, now it's my turn to yell at you...you diabolical

Apple cart tipper....
you you...curtain puller ...

you you...

Good Job Manny...the truth must be hammered into some people before they bother to accept the truth of what has been said.

Thumbs up.

[mzmolly]

275. Manny - Ed Schultz sets you and Romney straight

tonight - watch.

[truedelphi]

277. Manny, Manny, Manny, why are you not

[h2][font color=blue]

KEEPING THIS HUSHED UP!

[/h2][/font color=blue]

People want to believe that there is a big huge difference between the One Big Money Candidates.

Why one guy is black, and one is not. One guy looks friendly and amiable and the other probably needs a martini or two to relax, but can't possibly have those drinks on account of being Mormon.

One guy is a Big Time Financier, and the other guy happens to be good buddies with Geithner and close friends with people like Jaimie Diman.
(Which is why Diman had those gold cuff links with the Presidential Seal on them while he testified before his friends in the Senate.

But it is all in perception and your letting the cat out of the bag could mean a lot of people will stay home come Election Day.

[Zorra]

282. Dear Manny ~ If president Obama makes this clear public statement:

"Social Security cuts are off the table. I solemnly promise that I will veto any legislation that includes any type of cut in Social Security. Period, end of story. Run along now, nothing to see here", would you be reasonably convinced that the President had no intention of allowing Social Security to be cut?

I totally get where you are coming from. There is absolutely no reason for any Democrat to be vague and talk doublespeak about this issue.

A Democrat who suggests that cuts to Social Security are even thinkable immediately becomes a target for warranted criticism by every other Democrat.

Personally, I never want to hear any speculation of any kind, by any Democrat, that Social Security cuts are even possible.

So, if the Prez makes this statement: "Social Security cuts are off the table. I will never allow cuts to the Social security program while I am POTUS. I solemnly promise that I will veto any legislation that includes any type of cut in Social Security. Period, end of story. Run along now, nothing to see here" - -

Will you then just drop this issue?

Personally, I think it would be a great boost for the President's campaign, and greatly increase his chances of getting elected to a second term, if he would do a campaign ad on TV, maybe kind of an FDR fireside chat sort of thing, where he clearly states:

"Social Security cuts are off the table. I will never allow cuts to the Social security program while I am POTUS. I solemnly promise that I will veto any legislation that includes any type of cut in Social Security. Period, end of story."

What do you think? Personally, I'd love it; it would inspire a a lot more confidence and trust in the President in me, and in everyone concerned about the future of Social Security.

Seems like a total win-win, doesn't it? I see no logical reason why the President would not do something like this, in order to clear up any confusion about his intentions regarding the cutting of Social Security once and for all.

[MannyGoldstein]

284. I'd feel a heck of a lot better

But he also promised a public option, an end to the Bush tax cuts, and a whole lot of other things that didn't quite happen, so I'd still be watching.

In my opinion, he doesn't do it because he wants to make a deal with Republicans so he'll be known as a transformational postpartisan president - "he was even able to touch the third-rail of poitics (Social Security) and survive", they'll say.

[Zorra]

287. Well, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what happens during his second term.

We already know that Romney/Ryan would be a complete global disaster of unprecedented proportions..

It would be nice if, in his second term (or sooner) Obama came through on moving more toward a public option, helped end the Bush tax cuts, and made happen many of those other things that did not quite happen. I'd take that for sure

But I still would like to hear the Prez say that Social Security cuts of any kind are not an option, and will never be an option.

"transformational postpartisan president"

That's really a nauseating phrase.

[woo me with science]

288. We also need assurances that there will be no chained CPI.

The despicable chained CPI lowers projected benefits by changing the formula used to calculate SS benefits. It does not change the SS program itself, but it is viciously harmful to seniors, because it cuts projected benefits increasingly severely over time and is BUILT on the assumption that money can be saved by forcing seniors to accept lower quality substitutes on their grocery lists.

Defenders of the chained CPI have often defended it by using a word game....arguing that it is not a change to Social Security. But it is an indirect assault on BENEFITS.

Obama proposed the chained CPI last year and has defended it strongly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1136433

Promising that the Social Security program itself will not be changed, as Biden did today, is not enough. We also need assurances that indirect assaults on SS benefits, like the chained CPI, are off the table.