HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sen. Sanders says he's 'n...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:28 PM

Sen. Sanders says he's 'not confident' Obama will protect Social Security

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/275765-sen-sanders-not-confident-obama-will-protect-social-security
==============

But why?

Why does Bernie Sanders not trust the President to do the right thing to protect Social Security?

I think he is like many here on DU who have been critical of the President on occasion. They simply do not trust him. They feel like they have to keep the pressure on him at all times or he may, MAY, stab them in the back.

I will admit that that is not a healthy opinion to have of your own President, whom you have voted for twice, but it is the reality.

Why do many Democrats feel this way? They just look at his record. He wants to be a "post-partisan" President and that scares the shit out of a lot of people.

(Now we can expect the same attacks on Senator Sanders and anyone else that might be critical of this President.)

67 replies, 2634 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 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sen. Sanders says he's 'not confident' Obama will protect Social Security (Original post)
kentuck Jan 2013 OP
Cleita Jan 2013 #1
ProSense Jan 2013 #2
kentuck Jan 2013 #5
ProSense Jan 2013 #7
kentuck Jan 2013 #10
ProSense Jan 2013 #12
kentuck Jan 2013 #13
ProSense Jan 2013 #16
kentuck Jan 2013 #20
ProSense Jan 2013 #25
kentuck Jan 2013 #28
ProSense Jan 2013 #21
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #38
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #3
closeupready Jan 2013 #4
madrchsod Jan 2013 #51
closeupready Jan 2013 #55
Cary Jan 2013 #6
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #22
Cary Jan 2013 #32
samsingh Jan 2013 #8
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #9
Chisox08 Jan 2013 #11
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #42
undergroundpanther Jan 2013 #61
dkf Jan 2013 #14
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #17
dkf Jan 2013 #19
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #27
dkf Jan 2013 #33
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #37
dkf Jan 2013 #41
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #48
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #39
kentuck Jan 2013 #40
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2013 #15
kentuck Jan 2013 #18
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2013 #26
kentuck Jan 2013 #30
nc4bo Jan 2013 #23
forestpath Jan 2013 #24
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #29
kentuck Jan 2013 #31
Samantha Jan 2013 #63
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #65
kath Jan 2013 #34
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #35
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #43
think Jan 2013 #53
leftstreet Jan 2013 #36
ProSense Jan 2013 #44
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #46
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #45
WillyT Jan 2013 #47
Octafish Jan 2013 #50
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #64
MotherPetrie Jan 2013 #59
whatchamacallit Jan 2013 #60
jsr Jan 2013 #62
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #49
madrchsod Jan 2013 #52
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #66
woo me with science Jan 2013 #54
lib2DaBone Jan 2013 #56
undergroundpanther Jan 2013 #57
MotherPetrie Jan 2013 #58
L0oniX Jan 2013 #67

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:32 PM

1. Neither am I. The fact that he put it on the table to broker a deal

for the fiscal cliff shows that he's not concerned about the New Deal and will use it as a chess piece for his power plays. He's protecting Wall Street (King) and every other piece on this board can and will be used for that purpose. It's known as a sacrifice play and it's making me very nervous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:32 PM

2. Then it's up to Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren and the other 54 Democratic caucus members to do it. I know Harry Reid is against touching Social Security.

Lieberman and Nelson are gone.

Yay!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:36 PM

5. But is that the most we should expect from the President?

It is unfortunate that he cannot speak with enough authority and sincerity to make his supporters believe that he will protect Social Security. It is a very unhealthy situation. Also, it permits the Repubs to believe they can cut Social Security and Medicare if they can make some sort of "deal" with this President. Not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:40 PM

7. I don't expect Congress to skip out on its responsibility

Frankly, I think the insistence that Social Security is in jeopardy is counterproductive. It's also very passive.

Senators should get on record as opposing these cuts and supporting a real solution, such as raising the cap. They're not helpless.

Push the President's hand instead of the Republicans.

Republicans are out talking shit, even House reps.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:44 PM

10. Congress are followers...

Not leaders. Hell, they even followed George W Bush!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:48 PM

12. Really?

They sure bucked the President on Guantanamo.

Maybe the right term isn't "follower." Maybe they're complicit?

Thing is: They are the legislative body, and if they oppose cuts to Social Security, they should stand up and say so, and act accordingly.

BTW, Republicans defied Bush on immigration, and Democrats defied him on privatizing Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:53 PM

13. Really.

Sometimes they are complicit.

Democrats felt much more comfortable opposing a Republican President intent on privatizing SS. For obvious reasons, they do not like to criticize publicly their own President of their own Party.

You're talking apples and oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:57 PM

16. This theory

"Democrats felt much more comfortable opposing a Republican President intent on privatizing SS. For obvious reasons, they do not like to criticize publicly their own President of their own Party."

...doesn't apply to Republicans bucking Bush on immigrations or Democrats bucking the President on Guantanamo.

Democrats in Congress needs to stand up for Social Security. They simply can't push it off on the President and then criticize him for their actions. They are the first line of defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:03 PM

20. But the point is:

They shouldn't have to be the first line of defense against our own President.

It is true that if an issue is too hot and could create re-election problems for incumbents, they would oppose Jesus Christ himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:08 PM

25. The President doesn't vote on bills.

Like I said, when the President sent them a proposal to fund the closure of Guantanamo, Congress stripped it from the bill, forbidding the use of any funds for that purpose.

Also, the same thing is ongoing with NDAA.

They can act tough when they want to. Why not now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:18 PM

28. They should.

But they don't want to show any division with the President. I would prefer for Harry Reid and several strong Democrats to publicly state that "No, Mr President, we don't agree with SS being put on the table for bargaining with this bunch of extortionists. We disagree with you strongly on that and would prefer that you not mention it again...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:05 PM

21. I agree with this:

"What we have got to say is, no, Mr. President, you`re not going to cut Social Security. You`re not going to cut Medicaid. You`re not going to cut Medicare," Sanders said.


Then again, Congress voted for and the President signed into law an exemption of Social Security from the negotiations.

The Left's Sequester Leverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022129660



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:45 PM

38. Republicans are walking into a trap. That is all I have to say now. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:33 PM

3. That "purist."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:35 PM

4. Nor do I. He nominates a Republican as Defense Secretary,

offers up social security cuts - I mean, you don't need to know much to know that even though you may like him, you can't trust him to protect social security or any other Democratic sources of pride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:42 PM

51. the sec of transportation is a republican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #51)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:10 PM

55. Which merely feeds the distrust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:38 PM

6. Re post partisan

How do you deal with "conservatives"? Do you just steamroll them?

Assuming that's possible, what happens you do that and they regain power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:05 PM

22. They'll do what they do every time they come to power. Push as hard as they can, by hook or crook.

You have seen how they roll, right? Nixon? Reagan? Dubya? You've caught wind of these governors and legislators in places like Wisconsin, Florida, Oklahoma, Kansas, Michigan, and Arizona? Remember when they first took Congress after that looooong sojourn in the wilderness? Government shutdown and an Impeachment about some bullshit ring any bells?

Trying to play paddycake with these people doesn't work. Ever consider we had a lock on Congress for decades until we started trying to emulate and assimilate them to win the White House or how since that logic became dominant that their grip on how our society operates has increased? Do you ignore that whatever the moment situation of their party their ideological grip tightens and no matter how severe the fuck up how quickly they return and stronger than before, be it just for a short season or years and years.

They must be opposed at all times. Like darkness, their sway comes easy but it takes only a candle to beat it back. Easily beaten if fought openly and ferociously, easily victorious without direct opposition.

Even Reagan only did so much damage because he was granted quarter and little resistance. Same with junior Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:28 PM

32. Absolutely they have to be opposed at all times

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It is a never ending battle and very much by design of the Founders even if they didn't understand every nuance. The battles the Founders waged were probably every bit as contentious, if not more. Remember they were battling the evil of slavery.

Never give "conservatives" quarter without direct opposition. However you can't ever really crush them. Sun Tzu said crush your enemy completely, or else they will recover and defeat you. Well we can't crush them completely so we have to plan for their recovery while we give them quarter with direct opposition.

That's a lot easier said than done. On the plus side it does seem that we are more on to them and their tricks. They didn't win with their voter suppression. They didn't buy a victory last November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:40 PM

8. neither am i

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:40 PM

9. It's about time that someone stood up to the wealthy special

interest groups like the aged, infirm, and poor. Those people have gotten away with too much for too long.

Real Job Creators are struggling to make real yacht payments: it's time that we finally attend to their needs.

Enough with thugs like Sanders.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:47 PM

11. I'm not confident either

Democrats should be fighting tooth and nail to protect Social Security, and Obama offered cuts to it in order to get the "fiscal cliff" legislation passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chisox08 (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:02 PM

42. Medicare can be cut some and those cuts have no impact on beneficiaries.

President Obama talked about cuts in regard to waste in the program, and there is some waste. Progressives can't continue that programs don't get touched, even to eliminate waste - that faulty logic give republicans the momentum they need to aggressively work to completely eliminate those programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #42)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:43 PM

61. like cut what waste?

MA out here just cut all dental help which was pulling infected out.People will die from this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:53 PM

14. Leaving it as is doesn't protect it either. Sanders should put together constructive ideas

 

Instead of joining the denial of reality club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:59 PM

17. Social Security is fine. Just fine.

Geithner and the other Trustees cooked the books to shock doctrine us:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MannyGoldstein/146

Regards,

First-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:02 PM

19. I know you think growth will save the day...

 

But studies show that high debt slows economic growth so your hope may be more unrealistic than you realize.

With capital substituting for labor, the wage base is also being depleted.

I suspect it will take even more significant changes that we realize to be able to meet the obligations of SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:11 PM

27. We had much higher debt after WWII.

As a % of GDP, of course.

Things went swimmingly for decades.

And - worst case - our current depression continues forever, like Timmy Geithner used in his shock doctrine assumptions? The cost of remedying the shortfall will be less per year than what we spent (and are still spending) on tax cuts for wealthiest Americans.

This is about stealing the Trust Fund for the 1%, not about helping the 99%,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:32 PM

33. The trust fund exists but will be depleted.

 

Yes it's kind of an accounting gimmick but I believe it validates the obligation in the minds of legislators.

Once the funds are gone, that obligation may feel lessened.

I personally feel that is the largest threat to social security...the idea that all that came in has been repaid.

That is why chained CPI makes sense to me. Keeping the trust fund intact preserves the sense of obligation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:44 PM

37. It will only be depleted if the economy never recovers

and worker productivity growth drops dramatically from what it's been for decades. Those are the assumptions that Geithner used.

Another less-publicized estimate in the same report shows that the trust Fund will never be depleted if the economy even only partially recovers and productivity growth doesn't suddenly plummet.

Claiming, as a matter of fact, that the Trust Fund will be depleted in a few decades is just plain wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:58 PM

41. You are more optimistic than I.

 

It will recover, but with less labor, less wages to tax.

True progressives should be planning a path for the future with the understanding of a new relationship between capital and labor. Krugman has started to examine this aspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:29 PM

48. But not less income to tax, corporate profits are at an all time high

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:49 PM

39. I think you're right

The president has even acknowledged changes must be made. My feeling is, and I trust him to know WAY more than we do that the situation is pretty bad but too many of us, many on DU, are doing the hands over the ears la, la, la, la, la, bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:53 PM

40. "I trust him to know WAY more than we do"

The problem is that it seems you trust him to know way more than anyone... We will grant you that everyone on DU is more stupid than the President and that is why we spend so much time here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:56 PM

15. I don't trust Bernie, and neither do VT'ers if you look at presidential matchups: Obama vs. Sanders

He kicked Bernie's ass. And let's stop pretending Bernie's a Democrat. Bernie's an acquired taste, which is why he is the lone Socialist in the US Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:00 PM

18. VT'ers don't trust him??

Why do they keep re-electing him by wide margins??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:08 PM

26. I suppose reading comprehension isn't your strong suit? Re-read the post.

I said what I had to say, and I won't be responding further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:20 PM

30. "if you look at presidential matchups"?

You got a link for that??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:06 PM

23. I guess I'd prefer to trust a socialist with our Social Security's security.

I much prefer a Pres. Obama than a Pres. McCain or Romney - doesn't mean I'm going give him 100% of my trust or trust the suggestions from the catfood commission HE created to keep our social safety nets strong and there for us all when the times comes.

There's just no way in hell.

No one should put that much trust in any politician when the politics are polluted by money from special interests and the corruption that almost always follows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:06 PM

24. Anybody who is confident that President Obama will protect SS -

 

actually protect it, not cut benefits, is delusional.

He couldn't have made his position any clearer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:19 PM

29. As I explained in another post

this is how the Obama administration works:

We will NEVER do <that>!

We will never do <that>!

We will never do <that>.

Reports that we are considering doing <that> are completely false!

Reports that we are considering doing <that> are false.

There has been some discussion of doing <that>, but it is just talk.

The president is firmly committed to not doing <that>.

Reports that we are doing <that> are just "trial balloons" floated by centrists in the party.

There has been some discussion of doing <that> in exchange for not doing <something else>.

The president is not inclined to do <that> in exchange for not doing <something else>, and would veto any bill doing that sent to him.

The president doesn't want to exclude any ideas, he needs to appear bi-partisan.

Doing <that> in exchange for not doing <something else> is certainly on the table.

Not doing <something else> is critically important, and it is only pragmatic to consider doing <that>. Critics on the Left need to look at the bigger picture.

The president is still committed to not doing <that>. Reports to the contrary wrong.

All options are on the table.

Doing <that> is vital to the presidents long term goals of not doing <something else>.

Critics on the Left need to understand that we cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

If you look carefully at what we have said in the past, we never said we would never do <that>.

We said we would do <that>.

We have ALWAYS said we would do <that>.

The president signed <that> AND <something else> into law today.

Where did you get the idea that we would never do <that>?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fill in any failed conservative proposal for <that> and <something else>.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:21 PM

31. You nailed him!

That's the way he rolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:07 AM

63. Also called "Never let them know what you are thinking"

One of the most important rules of politics here in DC -- maybe everywhere, but I happen to live here and I have noticed it for some time now.

Sam

PS I don't pretend to know what President Obama is thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:17 AM

65. Agreed

I just look at what he is doing, and recording the pattern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:36 PM

34. Wow, KM, that was spot on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:38 PM

35. This deserves its own thread

That is exactly how they play us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:58 PM

43. Actually, I did it

and it sunk like a stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:50 PM

53. Sorry I missed it. great post btw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:41 PM

36. +1

You should make this an OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:06 PM

44. You forgot the part

where Boehner saves us.

<...>

All options are on the table.

Doing <that> is vital to the presidents long term goals of not doing <something else>.

Critics on the Left need to understand that we cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

If you look carefully at what we have said in the past, we never said we would never do <that>.

We said we would do <that>.

We have ALWAYS said we would do <that>.

The president signed <that> AND <something else> into law today.

Doesn't that mean the fiscal cliff deal should have included cuts to Social Security?

Why didn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:23 PM

46. The "bargaining" isn't over yet

Plenty of time left to sell us out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:02 PM

45. Perfection! + >9000!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:26 PM

47. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:38 PM

50. The Metamorphosis

Thank you, Kelvin Mace. Outstanding post.

Wish I'd seen the OP version. It is good to repost Quality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:16 AM

64. Thanks for the kind words

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:37 PM

59. That was brilliant!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:38 PM

60. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:47 PM

62. Oh, ye of little faith

When someone says they'll fight VERY HARD at some point in the future, I have complete confidence that they will, at some point in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:35 PM

49. "I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position," Obama said

in the first debate with Romney.

"Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/04/obama-social-security_n_1940755.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:49 PM

52. if the president screws with social security ...

he will not get back the house and lose senate next election. he`ll end up powerless for the following two years and assure a republican president,house ,and senate in 16.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:18 AM

66. Thew only "tweak" SS needs

is to remove the income cap.

Program solvent into the 22nd century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:50 PM

54. Obama in 2006: ""Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938"

Also, defending a long-term strategy for cutting these safety nets:

Barack Obama: "This is not a bloodless process."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:13 PM

56. Washington should be concentrating on JOBS......

 

It's a simple equation..people with jobs pay taxes. Govt. funds go up. Everyone benefits.

However.. there has not been one mention of Jobs from our Leaders for a very long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:32 PM

57. I was angry about obama

and his collusion with repugs over ss. my very pissed posed was tombstoned.If Bernie dosent trust him to care about the old poor and disabled..well why should anyone who is poor old or disabled? So I don't trust obama regarding many things including ss.

His"bipartasanshit" makes me wary of his real motives,talk is cheap it's what he DOES that scares me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:36 PM

58. Bingo. K&R for Bernie Sanders and the unvarnished truth.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:38 AM

67. No real Democrat would ever diminish SS or Medicare no matter what. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread