Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If no cuts to Social Security, why must the president include "protections for the vulnerable?" [View all]Babel_17
(5,400 posts)118. I stand with Senator Sanders (nt)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
159 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If no cuts to Social Security, why must the president include "protections for the vulnerable?" [View all]
madfloridian
Feb 2013
OP
Then let those who disagree with OP do it without substance-less first-post knee-jerk disapproval.
Hissyspit
Feb 2013
#95
Obama's plan includes chained CPI which = CUTS. It may be that this is some kind of 3-dimensional
HiPointDem
Feb 2013
#48
Except that's not the counterproposal in entirety, is it? Honestly, now....is it?
Honeycombe8
Feb 2013
#122
2/3 of SS recipients rely on it for 50% or more of their income, and the top 1/3 gets taxed on
HiPointDem
Feb 2013
#140
Protections for the vulnerable. That's the fact. Plus, the Repubs will NEVER accept that proposal.
Honeycombe8
Feb 2013
#156
You can believe what you want. Free country. But it's a meaningless proposal.
Honeycombe8
Feb 2013
#158
and there's no harm in raising a stink when any politician makes such a proposal. to let them
HiPointDem
Feb 2013
#159
By waiting and seeing, deals get implemented without input or protest from the affected
tpsbmam
Feb 2013
#147
The naysayers have *not* been proven wrong-- the pollyanna, "trust him" gang has been
Marr
Feb 2013
#54
Sounds like the poor on Social Security won't be affected by chained CPI, anyway.
Honeycombe8
Feb 2013
#121
She's questioning authority. Bringing important facts and truths to our attention.
Zorra
Feb 2013
#20
I imagine his next post: are you now or have you ever been a Naderite Republican?
Dragonfli
Feb 2013
#26
Does this mean you support Republicans putting SS cuts on the table, claiming
sabrina 1
Feb 2013
#155
Here's a page of polls from google..perhaps those up for election in 2014 need to beware.
madfloridian
Feb 2013
#10
As Clinton's Chief of Staff, Bowles brokered a deal between Clinton and Gingrich
MannyGoldstein
Feb 2013
#14
Actually, that REALLY IS one of the rationalizations used here, for reallzies:
Dragonfli
Feb 2013
#30
That was then. This is now. I have criticized Clinton for things like that.
madfloridian
Feb 2013
#46
If this is the benefits cuts Republicans want, why aren't they jumping on it? n/t
ProSense
Feb 2013
#44
New poll out from The Hill. 62% of Republicans oppose cuts. 82% of Democrats.
madfloridian
Feb 2013
#69
Well, yes, defaulting on all foreign-held bonds would decrease the deficit also
Recursion
Feb 2013
#87
Honestly? because theft is not an option, it isn't really true it's accounting fraud
Dragonfli
Feb 2013
#88
We "owe" SS retirees precisely what we legally obligate ourselves to pay them
Recursion
Feb 2013
#89
Here are a bunch of links from a google search of "social security cuts 2013"
madfloridian
Feb 2013
#83
That's the big question at the heart of that statement isn't it? Pretty damn sad. K&R nt
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#94
For those who don't understand, this is how you flush away overwhelming advantage
Demo_Chris
Feb 2013
#130