HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Nth dimentional chess, po...

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:55 PM

Nth dimentional chess, poker or whatever I don't give a f*** That is NOT the point


And many of you keep trying to change the facts of our argument/complaint into something that it is not and I for one am sick of it!

We are not upset with the President because he MIGHT, I repeat MIGHT be playing a political game of chicken with the Republicans by offering a chained CPI vrs the CPI-W on Social Security or the fact that somehow you in your infinite insider knowledge know he would never actually allow changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to the detriment of elderly, the poor and the infirmed.

We are rightfully pissed off because he even OFFERED IT as a concession!!! when in fact...

SOCIAL SECURITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT DEFICIT AND NEVER HAS!!!

Let me repeat for the willfully obtuse...

SOCIAL SECURITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT DEFICIT AND NEVER HAS!!!

According to current GAO reports the general fund has borrowed 2,7 Trillion from the social security fund and can only currently pay back the interest only..since Bush's second term the General fund has paid NOTHING back to the SS Trust fund...

There is your fuckin deficit problem...Unfunded wars, Lowest taxes in history for the top 20 %. Corruption of legal corporate structure allowing major international corporations to register as S-CORP instead of INC "Small business entities" avoiding the federally mandated large corporation business tax of 23% (try researching Walmart, Exxon or Bectel Steel...) Massive tax loop holes that have NEVER been closed allowing corporations to create "corporate divisions" as over seas entities that are not federally taxable, oh and corporate subsidies for industries that are making record profits...

This whole offering a chained CPI against Social Security is a bullshit false narrative of Third Way Demo/Republican proposals dismantling by a thousand cuts ALL of our Social Safety Nets...and to have a DEMOCRATIC president even offer this third way bullshit pisses some of us off to no end...

Again, you tell us to get over it...how about f98u7 you,

you get a clue and understand that ONE has NOTHING to do with the OTHER!!! and this should have NEVER been offered as a concession in the first place by a Democratic President or a true Democratic representative.

102 replies, 4933 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 102 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nth dimentional chess, poker or whatever I don't give a f*** That is NOT the point (Original post)
Drew Richards Dec 2012 OP
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #1
roguevalley Dec 2012 #90
Autumn Dec 2012 #2
COLGATE4 Dec 2012 #7
DireStrike Dec 2012 #13
Drew Richards Dec 2012 #3
still_one Dec 2012 #4
Drew Richards Dec 2012 #6
still_one Dec 2012 #36
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #46
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2012 #52
TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #5
Drew Richards Dec 2012 #8
TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #16
Drew Richards Dec 2012 #22
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #47
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #9
frustrated_lefty Dec 2012 #17
truedelphi Dec 2012 #28
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #33
amandabeech Dec 2012 #54
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #59
amandabeech Dec 2012 #67
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #73
amandabeech Dec 2012 #75
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #102
idwiyo Dec 2012 #51
yurbud Dec 2012 #80
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #82
WillyT Dec 2012 #91
yurbud Dec 2012 #78
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #10
DirkGently Dec 2012 #11
woo me with science Dec 2012 #15
savannah43 Dec 2012 #50
jerseyjack Dec 2012 #98
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #83
Tom Rinaldo Dec 2012 #12
woo me with science Dec 2012 #14
Jester Messiah Dec 2012 #18
jillan Dec 2012 #19
TDale313 Dec 2012 #43
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #62
heaven05 Dec 2012 #95
TDale313 Dec 2012 #20
savannah43 Dec 2012 #48
TDale313 Dec 2012 #49
heaven05 Dec 2012 #21
TDale313 Dec 2012 #24
heaven05 Dec 2012 #25
TDale313 Dec 2012 #30
heaven05 Dec 2012 #65
TDale313 Dec 2012 #71
heaven05 Dec 2012 #94
jerseyjack Dec 2012 #99
heaven05 Dec 2012 #101
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #69
dflprincess Dec 2012 #88
heaven05 Dec 2012 #93
kenny blankenship Dec 2012 #23
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #26
truedelphi Dec 2012 #27
savannah43 Dec 2012 #45
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #29
leftstreet Dec 2012 #35
greatauntoftriplets Dec 2012 #37
lark Dec 2012 #42
pasto76 Dec 2012 #31
quaker bill Dec 2012 #32
leftstreet Dec 2012 #34
me b zola Dec 2012 #38
stupidicus Dec 2012 #39
mother earth Dec 2012 #40
savannah43 Dec 2012 #41
treestar Dec 2012 #44
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #61
Drew Richards Dec 2012 #89
idwiyo Dec 2012 #53
virtualobserver Dec 2012 #55
savannah43 Dec 2012 #60
virtualobserver Dec 2012 #64
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #63
virtualobserver Dec 2012 #66
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #68
virtualobserver Dec 2012 #70
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #72
virtualobserver Dec 2012 #74
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #76
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #85
WillyT Dec 2012 #92
hughee99 Dec 2012 #97
ReRe Dec 2012 #56
forestpath Dec 2012 #57
bvar22 Dec 2012 #58
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #86
Speck Tater Dec 2012 #77
TDale313 Dec 2012 #79
bvar22 Dec 2012 #96
Faryn Balyncd Dec 2012 #81
raouldukelives Dec 2012 #84
Oilwellian Dec 2012 #87
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #100

Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:02 PM

1. Well said.

 

Thanks for saying it so clearly and forcefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:08 AM

90. agreed Another McIntosh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:18 PM

2. They would have us believe Obama was playing a game.

Chess, poker the Charlie Brown game Negotiating in bad faith, playing a game against the republicans by making an offer that harms an already stressed segment of the population that is stressed and wondering "how on earth will we get by this month". So it looks better to them that he is basically looking dishonest and yes, I will say cruel because they must deflect any criticism of Obama . No matter that it is criticism that he rightfully deserves.

He offered that because he had no fucking problem with offering it. Sorry but that's bullshit. SS has nothing to do with the deficit, it is NOT OUR DEBT and we don't need to be the ones to pay for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:38 PM

7. K&R

this^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:58 PM

13. Wish I could rec your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:20 PM

3. thx

I am just so sad that this was offered in the first place.

There was no reason or requirement for him to have offer it.

We already can fix a lot of this mess by just letting taxes go back to the Clinton era rates and reducing the MIC greedy little slush fund by a few billion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:25 PM

4. You are correct, however, the truth is it was put on the table because

He meant it as a compromise with the intention it would be accepted not some game people speculating or making excuses are trying to convey

How soon people forget that ss and Medicare were put on the table the last time this happened

This was exactly as it appears, just like a public option was never really part of aha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:36 PM

6. and it is still a third way compromise that has nothing to do with the current

deficit or future viability of Social Security...

We could fix Social Security as easily as we can fix the Post Office deficit...

Both have been strangled by REPUBLICAN AND Third way DEMOCRACTIC policies limiting either their viable income or their viable RESERVES...

In the case of the Post Office these bastards required the Post Office...to retain a 75 year security fund for the retirment pension even though NO Company, Corporation or GOVERNMENTAL Body in the country is required do the same...This is utter bull s*** by the prostitutes that are trying to privatize the US Post Office for the finacial gain of themselves and their owners...

In the case of Social Security all we have to do is remove the CAP on interest payments that allows higher incomes to pay NOTHING into the Fund but they can still collect from it...

Problems solved and no one was hurt...

And for those trolls that want their country back and to go back to the 50's.... I say sure! lets try that...top tax rate was 90% on the wealthy and there was no cap on social security payments....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:08 PM

36. You are so right, and the solution is so simple

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:43 PM

46. Where the bargaining should have started

"...top tax rate was 90% on the wealthy and there was no cap on social security payments...."

Those tax rates gave this country a strong middle class, the highest union membership, a world where one working parent made enough to get married, buy a home, raise a family and retire in relative comfort. We should be working to recreate that for younger generations not talking about how large or small a cut they can endure. We need a new new deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:02 PM

52. In many ways...

This place has become the same type of echo chamber we used to accuse freeperville of being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:25 PM

5. Better he cut funding for education, transportation...

and everything else we like, eh? That's what happens automatically in a couple of weeks.

How many high-level negotiations have you and the other loud complainers been party to? Even the low-level ones over just a million bucks or so I've been involved in have been stroke-inducing, and the world wouldn't end if we didn't make the deal work. The world just might well end if they don't get something worked out soon.

Obama is in a position where he has to give the Housebaggers something they will agree to. Anything. He'll sell your mother to them if he had to. All Presidents work this way in cliffhangers, and everyone agrees it sucks.

But, if the house doesn't sign on, nothing happens, so he has to do what he has to do, and if that means if I live to 90 and then my COLA goes from 40 bucks to 20 bucks, so be it. If that even happens if and when I get to 90.

Besides, chaining affects EVERYTHING the government spends that's subject to inflation, not just SS, and could save billions, hence the debt link.

Besides, in that same couple of weeks there will be a new House that might be more amenable to a deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:45 PM

8. Am I to understand that you believe this is an absolute?


That there is no other way...that up to now all the financial problems in this country are OUR fault?

The middle class?

That WE are parasites and are being "given" stuff for free? That sure does sounds like what you are implying.

That in a sense...WE MUST SUCK IT UP SOME MORE because it is the ONLY WAY???

No! sorry but, all of this does NOT have to be done on the backs of the middle class living though more austerity thats bullshit.

What needs to be done is to vote in a Democratic Majority that will side with the people over the corporations that have taken over our govenrment body in total and return this country to physical responsibility of just laws punishing the perpetrators of the crimes, and STRIPPING them of their wealth! and not dumping on the backs of the American Workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:08 PM

16. Nothing is absolute, but we're not voting anyone in for...

another two years and we have two weeks to solve the current problem.

According to the Constitution, the House initiates all revenue bills and right now the House is being an asshole. Do you have a workable solution ready in the next few weeks?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:25 PM

22. I wish I did have a viable solution that could pass...but since

The government politic seems to be owned primarily by the corporations and do not seem to care about the people...any solution I have falls on deaf ears...as I have already offered a viable solution in this post but you do not seem to think it is worthy of comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:44 PM

47. This is why democrats needed and need to win back the house. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:49 PM

9. It's called "big boy politics"....get used to it or be perpetually angry about everything. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:08 PM

17. And here I thought

it was just a pathetic rationalization for moral cowardice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frustrated_lefty (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:44 PM

28. Excellent response! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frustrated_lefty (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:58 PM

33. Maybe that's why you're "frustrated". nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:17 PM

54. Maybe Obama should look for savings outside the "entitlements."

You know, perhaps there are a few programs, like many in the military, that could save quite a bit of money without hurting the elderly poor, who are usually women and minorities.

I can think of no Democratic President before Bill Clinton who would be interested in cutting SS inflation adjustments before just about everything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:50 PM

59. Because the President never announces defense cuts?.....

From January 5, 2012....

Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts

The new military strategy includes $487 billion in cuts over the next decade. An additional $500 billion in cuts could be coming if Congress follows through on plans for deeper reductions. The announcement comes weeks after the U.S. officially ended the Iraq War and after a decade of increased defense spending in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

...and let's not forget the looming effects of the fiscal cliff on the Defense Department:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/news/economy/obama-romney-foreign-policy/index.html

Starting in 2013, defense budget authority would be sliced by 9.4%, not including war funding. The cuts to some parts of defense would be higher because Obama has exempted military personnel and veterans' affairs from the sequester.

In dollars, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the Pentagon's base budget will fall to $491 billion in 2013, down from $554 billion in 2012. Thereafter, defense spending will grow with inflation. That would save roughly $500 billion over a decade.


And again, as many other besides myself have stated, the Chained-CPI deal was offered to make the President look like the adult in the house knowing full well that the GOP Tea-Nazis would NEVER accept any deal that also included an elimination of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:27 PM

67. Both your quotes predate the current negotiations.

My recollection is that a bill recently passed that would exclude defense expenditures from the automatic cuts. In fact, IIRC, the house bill gave the defense department $1.7 billion more than it had asked for.

I haven't read anything discussing the President's reaction in the context of the current negotiations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #67)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:23 PM

73. I don't recall that being the question I answered. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #73)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:32 PM

75. But this thread pertains to the immediate budget problem that must

be solved to avoid the cliff.

But perhaps the cliff isn't that important since the military may now be exempted along with many of the direct benefit programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:39 PM

102. Except he wants 'entitlements' to pay down the deficit.

Always did.

Couldn't get it done in his first term but he'll keep plugging away til he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frustrated_lefty (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:57 PM

51. Thank you, well said

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frustrated_lefty (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:02 PM

80. kind of like the Washington definition of courage: screwing the poor and middle class

to please (and further enrich) the very rich.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frustrated_lefty (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:47 PM

82. x2

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frustrated_lefty (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:13 AM

91. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

& Rec !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:45 PM

78. No, it's called republicans ideas win whether or not they control the White House or

both chambers of Congress.

I would like my vote to change the direction of policy and not just whether I get screwed with or without lube.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:49 PM

10. Meanwhile, John Boehner lays weeping in a pool of his own sick.

With Obama's footprint on his ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:54 PM

11. Yes. Any other take is simply disingenuous bullshit.

Obama did not magically make the Republicans fall on their face on the Boehner vote. He is not Jedi mind-tricking anyone. He's put a harmful, unnecessary, destructive cut, based on the very core of outrageously cruel and dishonest 1%-er logic, on the table. Twice. More than that, he's made public comments lumping Social Security in with deficit-related spending problems.

So either he does believe cutting SS is okay, or he is okay with pretending he is. Neither is excusable, unless you agree SS is the giant "government teat" Alan Simpson likes to call it.

The fact that the Republicans are in disarray is a direct result of the fact that THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN DISARRAY. That's it. No one rubbed a magic bone and made it happen but them and their Tea Party, Koch Bros, friends.

We shall see what happens. But for starters, NO, no one is going to rub their crucifix and stand by silently keeping faith that Obama has some magical backflip planned when he puts a horrifically damaging, wrong-headed policy on the table. There's no word for the stupid required in either accepting that on the theory that "He knew they couldn't take it," or in suggesting that anyone else do so. "Here, poke this stick in your eye. I think it'll work out better than you think."

BULLSHIT, a thousand times over.

For one, if you want to stretch reality so far as to imagine it was solely a decoy, then righteous outrage on the part of every right-thinking American would have to have been part of the Jedi Plan.

For another, that's an imaginary scenario. Republicans are fucking up all by themselves. At best, Obama is riding it well.

For another, we're not out of this yet. And as long as Social Security cuts are part of the dialogue, and as long as there are substantial forces in play who absolutely want that to happen, the only sane reaction to it is relentless opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:06 PM

15. "Neither is excusable."

So either he does believe cutting SS is okay, or he is okay with pretending he is. Neither is excusable, unless you agree SS is the giant "government teat" Alan Simpson likes to call it.


Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:54 PM

50. Yes! Not one penny of SS comes from the government--it comes from payments into

the fund by employers and employees. Alan Simpson is a mean-spirited old man, a dissembler, and a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savannah43 (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:12 PM

98. Sweetheart. The money coming from the gub'mint is money owed to S.S.

 

S.S. loaned the money to the government from the "Trust Fund." It is money the government is paying back that which it borrowed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:50 PM

83. "the only sane reaction to it is relentless opposition." Absolutely. He's going to keep pushing

 

for SS cuts until the Republicans take it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:58 PM

12. The info on specific tax loopholes etc alone is worth R'ing this OP. Thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:01 PM

14. AND he used it as a hostage to ensure an austerity deal,

when austerity is damaging to the economy, and when the people overwhelmingly oppose austerity.

We need to get back to the principle of representative government here. Budget slashing is being imposed on us no matter what ends up happening with SS, and despite the fact that hundreds of economists have warned that austerity is the last thing this economy needs.

This entire negotiation drama was set up and rigged to ensure that we *at the very least* receive austerity. The corporatists are nothing if not skilled at what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:19 PM

18. Quit your frothing and settle down before you blow an artery. [nt]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:21 PM

19. Playing a game with senior citizens, the poor, the disabled is a pretty inhumane game especially

when millionaires get fatter wallets and the military industrial complex is the fattest of them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:32 PM

43. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:01 PM

62. Well, I'm a senior citizen (not yet eligible for Social Security) and we're getting food stamps....

....but I'm not disabled (knock on wood).

But, I can see exactly what the President was doing to the GOP Tea-Nazis. He knew with almost complete certainty that the GOP Tea-Nazis would never accept any deal that also included the elimination of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

So, by refusing to accept any deal with the President, and more than likely allowing the fiscal cliff to take place, the GOP will not only lose the massive tax cuts for the wealthy, but they will also take the complete blame for losing the tax cuts on everyone else.

That's a complete win for the President. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #62)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:07 AM

95. yep

+1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:24 PM

20. Thank you.

This is not the first time we've heard that SS was on the table. I don't know if it's a bluff, and kinda doubt it is, but...

Even if Pres Obama believes Republican won't take it: it is wrong and dangerous to put it out there. It is cruel to the millions who depend on or will depend on SS. It doesn't add to the deficit. This should be off the table. And if it is a bluff, he's playing chicken with crazy people, which is kinda crazy itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TDale313 (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:46 PM

48. It's also nice to put that fear into the lives of those who rely on SS.

Especially just before Christmas.
And to those of you who call him "my president," he's the president of the whole country, and not just you who think he's perfect and will never, ever do anything to hurt you. Grow up and get a clue. He's human and is capable of making mistakes. And if we don't make our voices heard, then we'll suffer consequences for NOT doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savannah43 (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:54 PM

49. Exactly.

And yes, of course he's all of our president. And I'm incredibly proud of that fact. But I'm also willing to "hold his feet to the fire"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:24 PM

21. we

all know SS does NOT contribute to the deficit. So does our President. You're not the only one with that information. So you're pissed that he even "offered it". So what. The final result is rethugs with their tail between their legs slinking out of D.C. for christmas. Awwww, take a prozac or something. I trust my President to negotiate skillfully in that D.C. snake pit. Get over it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:36 PM

24. The hell I will.

SS is not a negotiating chip. Repugs have wanted to destroy it since it was started. You're ok with Dems helping them get the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, fine. But don't tell me I don't have a right to be upset about this. It's fuckin' wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TDale313 (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:41 PM

25. my point

is I don't think it has been a serious negotiating position, at all. My President, who inherited a fucking rethug mess is working for us, the middle class and your misplaced anger and vitriol is meaningless. Stay pissed off, who cares. Not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:52 PM

30. You have no idea

If it was serious or not, but it was put out there. Even making the offer is dangerous IMO. Tell me I'm misplaced to be upset. I expect Dems to be a firewall against Republican efforts to undo the New Deal. Any concession that cuts SS is a problem for me. Especially if it's being done because it's a nice trophy Repubs can use to sell this Grand Bargain and not cause it actually solves anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TDale313 (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:12 PM

65. well

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:03 AM - Edit history (3)

if you are right and this President starts unraveling the NEW DEAL, SS and the rest then I'm fucked also. I have let my elected representatives know gamesmanship is one thing betrayal is quite another. As much as people like to call me stupid and and idiot on this site, you are not included. I still have hope my President has the moral courage and integrity not to abandon us to vulture politicians. I just choose to trust him. If that trust is misplaced and the at risk citizens are given up as a sacrifice on the altar of bipartisanship, then so be it. I'm fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:11 PM

71. I genuinely hope you're right.

And I certainly don't think it's stupid to have faith in the President to do the right thing. I admit to being wrong and thrilled to be so at times (don't ask don't tell) And I don't think a Grand Bargain will undo the New Deal all at once. But I know Republicans have hated these programs from the start. I need Dems to be clear in saying "hands off Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid". I think we all do. If that sounds like a line in the sand, well, yeah, it kinda is for me.

Editing to add an apology for some of my earlier responses being snippy. I get worked up on this issue




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TDale313 (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:01 AM

94. hey

I'm drawing the line longer in the proverbial sand. Right beside you. No problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:16 PM

99. No. You ain't fucked yet, but better look for a discount tube of K-Y.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #99)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:33 PM

101. lol

ouch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:38 PM

69. You are totally misinterpreting why the Republicans turned down the offer.

It has nothing to do with SS being on the table WHICH THEY WANTED.

But the Tea Party contingency in their party will never agree to higher taxes and that is why the offer was turned down.

Obama GAVE them the Chained CPI to try to tempt them into agreeing to increased taxes. He fully intended to let them cut SS benefits so long as he got his tax increases passed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, is simply being bamboozled by BS.

Explain please how putting SS fooled Republicans??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #69)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:25 PM

88. Exactly n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:52 AM

93. just

a hopeful guess. Look if these type of cuts are going to happen because it's true that our President said okay to the CPI bullshit then okay all of you can scream louder if it happens in January. Don't vote again, become a lieberman independent or bernie type, go rethug or even better kool-aid party. You'll be right. Vote out all demos in 2014 because you will have been right. I just don't think our President is going to betray our trust and loyalty. If he does, ain't a damn thing I can do about it except pick one of the above options and move on. I'm through with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:28 PM

23. Once offered and placed on the table, it will always be on the table

it will take a landslide massacre election to return it to untouchable status, where it should have always stayed.

Future Repuke and DLC-5th Columnist talking point: "Even OBAMA and Nancy Pelosi offered to cut Social Security - are you to the left of the San Francisco Socialist Obama-Pelosi Axis?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:41 PM

26. K&R and AMEN

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:42 PM

27. The Democratic Party Leadership came up with the Idea of using

"Chess" as the default description of the "brilliance" of Pres Obama's actions. This tells me all I need to know about who the "New Democratic Party" has become.

Chess is and was and always will be a game of sacrificing the pawns for the sake of nobility. Period.


And please, those of you who have joined DU for the sole purpose of beating up on us who think independently of Party memes - don't even attempt to go to "Well you are not realizing that inside the context of political discussion, "Chess" has a different meaning.

A meaning is a meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:36 PM

45. Good one. If it's not chess, then it should be called what it is:

manipulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:49 PM

29. I put this post in the category of those always wanting to complain about the President, I'm sick of

these types of posts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:06 PM

35. That would be a small category

DU on the whole has spent 4 years singing Obama's praises

Members left or were tossed for even suggesting Obama might possibly, maybe, perhaps be abandoning his own campaign promises

enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:13 PM

37. You and me both.

Posts like the OP make DU suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greatauntoftriplets (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:31 PM

42. Blind sycophants

don't suck, per you? Policy doesn't matter, per you? The only thing that matters is the great and mighty Obama and we should kneel down in prayer to HIM?

Funny, this doesn't sound democratic at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:53 PM

31. it is the point. and you are missing it

related to the deficit or not, SS cuts were what republicans wanted.

The president offered them.

The republican party continued, maybe even accelerated, its implosion.

The president now has all the chips.



oh and btw, SS cuts are off the table now. THAT is the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:57 PM

32. You run, you win, you keep anything off the table you like.

simple enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:01 PM

34. DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:13 PM

38. +1,000,000

I would like for the president to acknowledge that it has nothing to do with the deficit, but it does show that our social security money has been looted and needs to be replaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:17 PM

39. you are definitely a rightwinger and concern troll

or worse -- that's the only explanation for your fact-based thinking and beliefs that generate your valid concerns.

I know this because those are the descriptive terms applied to all those who dared express the same or similar concerns before the election, which I proudly did.

As far as I am concerned, his willingness to put such things on the chopping block has been a knowable thing since at least 2006, and the fact that he's never taken them "off the table" is damning, and has been for quite some time now.

Those who have conducted themselves in the manner you amply and aptly described here, are really nothing more than the dem versions of Bushbots, and "cats" that have been herded. That's what they think gives them the right to denounce others as they have - the might of right to be found in numbers. Their ill-concieved and unwarranted "righteousness" is exceeded only by the delusions from which they flowed.

They are why we still get center/right policies out of DC in this center/left nation of ours. It's not a question of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good", in this case as you rightly noted, given that SS has nothing to do with the budget problems, it's a matter of settling for/accepting the bad, which they are apparently willing to do, outta some "Rah Rah Go Team" BS rationale. If they wanna abandon their duty to do whatever they can to make DC work for us - and especially the needy as SSers generally are -- which includes criticizing and condemning, that's one thing, but trying to get in the way by criticizing and condemning those of us that are willing to is just insane.

What pissed me off most about all the garbage before the election was those that tried to project their divisiveness all of this represents a continuation of, onto those of us fighting the good fight in defense of and for the social safety nets, even if that means doing what you just did.

ANd I doubt if the cheerleading squad for the slow erosion you noted understand or ever will, that they are analogous to in principle and practice, to all the rightwingers that cheered such things as the Patriot Act and assorted other "erosions" that now plague us, and likely won't until it snowballs into something egregious enough it can no longer be denied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:27 PM

40. SO K & R this OP, I'm sick to death of war, what is it good for? Absolutely, NOTHING.

End the war, end the BS fiscal cliff. The only winners in this war are the profiteers, end the waste, end the pointless suffering and killing. NOT IN MY NAME! NOT IN OUR NAME!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:29 PM

41. I'm with you. If the $1.7 trillion that BushCo borrowed from the SS trust fund

(to cover the Iraqi war expenses and tax breaks for the wealthy) were paid back, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? This is all manipulation and it is in the interest of requiring everyone to invest in Wall Street for their retirement. Even more money for the greedy weasels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:34 PM

44. They've got to work out a budget somehow

He didn't offer the entire program.

The fiscal cliff could apparently be bad.

Republicans are probably fumed Boner "even offered" to let taxes go up for anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:58 PM

61. Again, you are not addressing the issue now finally being addressed across

the country. WHY is SS part of any discussion about the Deficit?? Why?

The SS Fund is a creditor of the Fed Govt. They borrowed from us, from China, from Japan and they spent borrowed money, part of OUR money, on wars and Bush tax cuts and please explain to me why the people they BORROWED FROM should be asked to pay the debts THEY ran up with the money they borrowed from US.

If you lent your neighbor money and he gambled it away, would you expect him to force YOU to pay his gambling debts, or would you expect him to pay you back the money he borrowed?

This is INSANE and everyone except for a few people running around trying to excuse this insanity, knows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:37 AM

89. Thank You! So very well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:06 PM

53. K&R. Well said. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:19 PM

55. Obama put it on the table because it should be on the table.

Pelosi would not be on board unless this was actually a form of means testing Social Security, which is reasonable, with protections for poor Seniors.. I trust their judgment on this

Since we spend every dime that goes into the so called trust fund every year, this move will reduce the deficit in a literal sense, and extend the life of Social Security.

. The 2 million people who will lose their unemployment insurance in a few days will be in serious trouble if a deal to extend does not pass the house. The economic impact on the US if we go "off the cliff" could be severe in many ways.

Obama has to govern with serious short term and long term problems in place, while working with an insane Republican house.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:51 PM

60. Wow! A true believer.

"Since we spend every dime that goes into the so called trust fund every year, this move will reduce the deficit in a literal sense, and extend the life of Social Security."
Really? Facts. Ever tried them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savannah43 (Reply #60)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:05 PM

64. I have.

The Social Security trust fund purchases US Treasuries. That money goes into the General fund and every dime of that is spent. The trust fund is an accounting entry. Every dime beyond taxes must be borrowed each year. So if the spend less, for whatever reason, we will borrow less, so the deficit will be lower (FACT) and if we spend less for Social Security, the "trust fund" will be a larger accounting entry (FACT), which will extend its life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:05 PM

63. Omg, I can't believe I just that here on DU.

Explain please what the SS fund had to do with creating the deficit.

We do not 'means test' SS. Pelosi is WRONG. This will cut the benefits of the people who OWN that fund. No one has a right to touch that fund other than the American people who own it. They did not create the deficit, that fund is solvent, the Fed Govt borrowed from the SS fund, they borrowed from China, they borrowed from Japan, and they pissed all that money away on Wars and on Tax Cuts for the wealthy. Iow, they ran up debts with our money that they could not afford.

Now please explain why the people they borrowed from should be forced to pay their gambling debts.

Should China have to pay also, Japan, because the American People's fund is in exactly the same position as China and Japan, two more creditors of the Fed Gov. They are all creditors of the US Govt and in no way would China tolerate being told they have to take a cut to the money we owe them.

Please explain why the American people should be defaulted on any more than any other creditor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:14 PM

66. It did not create it.

The people that they borrowed from are the people who elected them.

I do believe in means testing SS. If your post retirement income exceeds $250,000 without SS, why should you receive a SS check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:34 PM

68. Means testing is one of the worst ideas regarding this program and to do so

means not understanding the principle behind this fund.

This is NOT a government handout where means testing would be acceptable.

The SS fund is the People's Pension Fund into which they paid. It doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, if you pay into an insurance policy or a pension fund, everyone who does so is entitled to receive the benefits promised.

To change that would be making the false claim that SS is a welfare program, It is nothing of the kind.

Means testing simply doesn't apply to this kind of fund. Just as it doesn't apply to any pension fund people pay into. Or any other fund people pay into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:51 PM

70. The problem with social security...

is that no money is actually set aside or invested as it would be in a normal pension. It is simply an accounting entry. It is dependent on incoming funds or on current borrowing.

If life expectancy increases, or if there are fewer people paying in, it creates a problem. The system was not designed to handle this.

I understand your objection to means testing and the reason why you find it unacceptable. Personally I think that we should not only means test, but raise the cap as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/obama-social-security_n_1903773.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #70)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:13 PM

72. There is no problem with SS. I don't know where you are getting your information

from. The SS Fund is good to pay out all of its obligations for 22 years without doing a single thing right now. And those numbers are based on the bad economy and the high unemployment figures from last year. The SS fund has more than one source of income. It is one of the best fiscal programs ever, certainly far better than the Fed Govt's budget.

There is a surplus of over two trillion dollars in the fund right now. It is in Treasury Bonds which is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Govt. That is the second source of income for the SS. Interest on those bonds which has been paid with no problem just as happens to anyone else who holds Treasury Bonds.

When the economy improves and unemployment rates go down, those number will be even better.

Even if there is a shortfall in SS taxes, which has happened at least eight times since the fund was first set up, SS has two other sources of income. Which is why, even in this bad economy the Fund has had still had a surplus including for the past year.

By 2023, the Fund will double and will have over 4 trillion dollars in it.

There is no logical reason why this fund is part of any discussions of the Fed Govt's budget at all, other than, the Republicans have been after that huge fund ever since it started. Dems, up to now, have fought them to protect it.

The only thing that needs to be done to ensure that SS extends beyond the next 22 years (aside from an improvement in the economy) is to raise the cap and to keep the American people employed. Doing those two things would extend the fund's capacity to cover 100% of its obligations for up to and beyond the next 75 years.

But as of now, with a surplus every year so far, there are no problems with SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #72)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:30 PM

74. If they raise the cap, I'll be more comfortable....

My concern is about the future.

We have been sitting at zero interest rates for years, and the SS trust fund has been funding our deficit spending for a very long time.

Building a trust fund with Treasury Bonds is building a debt obligation....it is not a savings plan.

That is my concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #74)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:39 PM

76. Well, Gore wanted to stop the raiding of the SS Fund by those who want to start

wars and give more money the obscenely wealthy through huge tax breaks. Those Tax Cuts by Bush cost this country two trillion dollars. If Gore had been listened to, they would have had to find the money somewhere else, like maybe in military cuts eg.

The SS Fund has been receiving interest payments on their Treasury Bonds every year and that is why there has been a surplus each year even when there is a shortfall in SS taxes due to high unemployment.

Also, it was insane to institute a 'tax holiday' which meant less money going into the fund IF as they say, they care about 'strengthening' the Fund. How can anyone believe that when instead they do everything they can to weaken it?

I am not worried about the future of SS. I AM worried about Dems who are now on board with Repubs to destroy SS. That is the only thing we have to worry about and that is why there is now a huge Coalition of Progressive groups and the Unions to stop them from doing so.

Iow, the only threat to SS is corrupt politicians working for Wall St instead of for the people. And now we have to get rid of them, and we will know them IF they vote for the Chained CPI. The Coalition intends to turn its attention to getting progressive candidates to run against them and to put all the effort we normally put into the party candidates, into donating and working for candidates the people choose. We can no longer trust elected officials of either party. And imo, that is a good thing, to finally see where the problems are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:58 PM

85. As soon as means testing is adopted, the Third-Wayers and the Republicans will claim that SS is a

 

form of welfare.

A next step will be to privatize the funds for the benefit of the banksters. Haven't we already given them enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #85)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:15 AM

92. Yep... K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:56 PM

97. The day they agree to means-testing people out of SS that they paid into

is the FIRST day of the last days of SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:31 PM

56. Well, one thing's for sure....

....it's all going to be over 10 days from now on New Year's Day. We will know for sure where PO really stands on that day, and the die will be cast. It will have a never-ending bearing on the future of the majority of the people in this country. Just like at the beginning of his first term, there was a turning point. And his decisions then had a horrible affect on the midterm election, and therefore the never-ending gridlock from then on. This is it for PO, and this is it for us. it's not fair that it has to be this way. I don't like games in DC. I like the truth. I don't know how people can celebrate a holiday with our safety net hanging in the balance and the tragedy in Newtown, CT last Friday. My head aches with it all....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:31 PM

57. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:43 PM

58. I never believed that a DEMOCRAT could make me want Reagan back.



It is beyond by comprehension that a "DEMOCRAT" would be the one to violate the "Sacred 3rd Rail" and cornerstone of the Democratic Party.
Even Triangulating Bill (Clinton), the "best Republican President EVER"
didn't have the balls to put Social Security on the Poker Table.

All those who are praising Obama for being a great Chess Player,
and proclaiming Obama The Bestest, most Brilliantest Negotiator EVER
refuse to acknowledge that Obama should have NEVER been Playing Chess with our Social Security in the First Place!
Even Bobby Fischer lost occasionally.
If Social Security keeps Going-on-the-Table it WILL be lost eventually.

Social Security was once, not so long ago, the inviolate 3rd Rail of Politics.
No previous American Presidents DARED to Put-it-on-the-Table..
That Rubicon has now been crossed.
The precedent has been set.
There IS no going back.
Social Security will NOW be On-the-Table automatically in every single future Budget Negotiation, and WILL eventually be chipped away into non-existence.


Social Security is no longer The Cornerstone of the Modern Democratic Party.
Social Security is NO LONGER the inviolate 3rd Rail of Politics.
It is NOW just a Chip on the Table for Future Games played by 1% Politicians who will never, EVER need Social Security anyway.
THAT is the Obama Legacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:00 PM

86. SS "will NOW be On-the-Table automatically in every single future Budget Negotiation." Absolutely.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:40 PM

77. "Chess is a game where you sacrifice the pawns to protect the royalty."

 

Somebody posted that earlier somewhere on D.U.
I can't find it just off hand. If it was you, give yourself credit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #77)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:47 PM

79. Good quote, whoever said it first. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:46 PM

96. This thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022049650

There were some entertaining exchanges with blind partisans who tried to challenge the validity of that simple statement.

Chess IS a game where The Pawns are sacrificed to protect The Royalty.
.
.
.
It only sucks if you are a Working Class Pawn who depends on Social Security.
The Royalty will NEVER need it.


...but my main complaint isn't whether Obama is a good, bad, or BRILLIANT Chess player.
My MAJOR complaint is that NOBODY should be gambling with Social Security,
and I'm appalled at all the threads praising Obama for being such a brilliant gambler.
It should have NEVER been put on the table at all.....EVER.
Like ANYBODY who gambles with the "Rent Money",
eventually they lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:17 PM

81. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:55 PM

84. There are those who the put the love of money above petty morality.

Those who choose to side with multinational corporations. They know full well what the end results are. Massive climate change, Citizens United on steroids and the merging of SS and Wall St. Yet they still insist on working for it. On being the muscle that drives the machine of endless consumption. Of our natural world, of our safety nets, of our rights and of our freedom.
They have the enviable ability of turning a blind eye to suffering as they know it means greater profits for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:01 PM

87. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drew Richards (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:29 PM

100. REC!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread