Shame on our party to even consider cutting present SS retirees by 3 to 6 percent.

[madfloridian]

That is cruelty, and it is being allowed to linger in the air by our very own Democratic president. He appointed these guys who head the commission. Thus I assume he approves of what they say. Otherwise he would not have appointed these chairman.

Commission recommends cutting Social Security to present retirees...should not have been on the table

SO...where are the Democrats on the air yelling about this? What does President Obama think he will accomplish?

Another loss in 2012?

The two deficit-hawk extremists President Obama put in charge of his fiscal commission released their personal suggestions for cutting the federal budget deficit on Wednesday. And while it's quite possible that not a one of them will make it into the commission's official recommendations, which require the approval of 14 or the 18 commissioners (not just two), the document will inevitably be welcomed as a "serious" contribution to the debate - at least by Republicans and conservative Democrats.

But taken as a whole, the plan authored by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson would have devastating effects on the government and its ability to help the most vulnerable in our society, and it would put the squeeze on the middle class, veterans, the elderly and the sick - all in the name of an abstract goal that ultimately only a bond-trader could love. It also contains outrageous assumptions and oversights.

Remember now, Obama appointed these guys and he has not chided them in any way.

Here's the hardest part to accept.

The chairmen’s plan would increase the Social Security retirement age and limit yearly cost-of-living increases to the rate of inflation rather than of wage growth. The cut in annual increases would affect current retirees -- which was supposed to be off the table. Their benefits would go down by about 3 percent after they’ve been retired for 10 years, and about 6 percent after they’ve been retired for 20 years.

And the retirement age increase is just a particularly cruel way of cutting benefits. The age at which the elderly can retire on full Social Security benefits is already increasing to 67 by 2027. The chairmen’s plan would “index” the retirement age to increase in longevity, meaning it would hit 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had this to say about it: “It is reprehensible to ask working people, including many who do physically-demanding labor, to work until they are 69 years of age. It also is totally impractical. As they compete for jobs with 25-year-olds, many older workers will go unemployed and have virtually no income. Frankly, there will not be too much demand within the construction industry for 69-year-old bricklayers.”

Only Bernie Sanders? Where are the others?

Where are the president and vice president saying this is unacceptable?

Are they trying to lose even more in 2012?

Why?

[madfloridian]

1. And...I can not WAIT to see who defends this.

Or who tells us to be quiet and wait until we see the big picture.

No more of that.

These are Obama appointees, and he should have expected it.

[derby378]

3. +1 brazillion

Go on, folks. I dare you.

[MissDeeds]

134. + 2 bazillion

How to defend the indefensible?

[elehhhhna]

6. lets' keep our powder dry.

yeah. that's the ticket.

[liberation]

224. "You want you social security money you paid to be there when you retire? And what else a pony too?"

I am waiting for this one. You know they have an intern working on the proper wording for that meme... just you wait.

[liberation]

228. OK, given the replies I am seeing in this threat I think I was wrong.

They are going for the "stop believing your lying eyes" angle to spin this one... creative to say the least.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Nor can I. I bet we'll not be surprised, though.

[madfloridian]

53. Several have jumped to defend it already. There is no defense of it.

None.

But I knew they would do it.

[Ignis]

197. Surprised? Hell, Stinky, you're a freakin' Pre-Cog!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8966075

I'm coming to you before I place any bets on sporting events in the future. ;)

[DirkGently]

9. It's indefensible. But watch for "Unrecced. nt."

[countrydad58]

88. He now is my enemy like

Bush,Cheney & the whole Repuke party!

[lark]

192. He appointed them to do what they did

He got EXACTLY what he wanted. The BS about massive cuts to defense is a total lie, Repugs will NEVER sign on for that and will demonize any Dems who do. All they want is to formalize stealing our money to transfer to the rich, the military industrial complex and big oil. I will never vote again if the Dems approve this. Can't vote Repug and won't vote for traitorous Dems either. Any real progressives who stand up for principles and don't vote for this travesty and don't support it in any way will get my votes, if possible, and my money. The rest, including this administration that fostered this mess, can kiss my ass.

[Lagomorph]

247. I'm thinking....

They'll make a symbolic defense cut. Both the Left and the Tea Party are in favor of bringing down the defense budget. There's just too much political capital to not make the gesture.

Personally, as someone who depends on disability income, I would accept a 5% cut, as long as it helps the people who need it, rather than Wall Street. It would suck, to be sure, but I can do the arithmetic. We've lived beyond our means, as a country, for far too long. We have to pay for our mistakes and political choices, as well as reap the benefits of our successes.

[bigwillq]

218. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[TheWraith]

236. For fuck's sake, OUR PARTY isn't proposing any such thing.

Two guys suggested it. Yell at them if you want.

[madfloridian]

253. Our party is letting it hang in the air without opposing it firmly.

Considering the atmosphere of "bipartisanship" in this administration, I believe they might go along to get along.

[elocs]

2. If Social Security is cut on present retirees there will be hell to pay in 2012.

Whichever party is deemed most responsible will get the brunt of the anger.

[Poboy]

27. Which is why they will divide us to conquer. Over 50-55 will see

no change. (They vote too.) They will be pitted against the younger people, who aren't paying attention. Granny is going to cut her granddaughters benefits -or allow them to do it.

They'll slice and dice us into segments, and have us fighting over the scraps and kill one another.

[elocs]

37. I can see that happening and I can even envision Democrats trying to pull that off.

Sad. Just sad. Sad that any of us could even believe that Democrats are capable of something like that.

[Stinky The Clown]

73. That divide already exists.

You can see it in many posts right here on DU.

[Poboy]

169. Yep. And facilitated by the 'reasonable', 'sensable' meet in the middle types.

TOGETHER WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

[liberation]

225. Isn't it ironic the "reasonable" contingent has no problem meeting in the "middle"

whenever that "middle" moves "rightward." But any slight turn of the "middle" to the left turns them into fairly "unreasonable" reactionaries.

I don't know, but as "moderates" some of these bunch make great "conservatives." Why may explain why this past election cycle it was the "moderates" the ones who presented the largest levels of swing voting towards the GOP. Funny how that works, eh?

[glitch]

159. Only if we let them.

If students and seniors and everyone in between can realize that we all are being looted and focus on who the looters actually are, we can come together and fight.
This initial report is utterly despicable in who it targets and who it protects.

[freedom fighter jh]

55. I think there may be hell to pay *before* 2012.

There may be an anger that won't wait for the next election.

[madrchsod]

80. it will be the democrats....

[lark]

196. Only if the Dems are stupid and weak

Oh wait, they are stupid and weak. they had a made to order chance to turn around the election by passing law to undo the low taxes for the rich and extend them for everyone else, but refused to do so. Why, they didn't want it to happen, that's why. They too, despite our hopes and dreams otherwise, are all about supporting the rich and powerful and don't give a shit about the working class. I'm so sick of all of them!!!

[Moonbat2]

108. Don't Worry

I am sure it won't go into effect until after the election

[blackbart99]

204. After one election is also just before another....

[WinkyDink]

116. They'll also have gotten the "brunt" of the payroll, so what will they care?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. I hear you, and I agree with your assessment.

I am outraged beyond belief.

If Obama condones this, then he needs to be a one-term President. And I hate having to say that. I worked for his election, and I was thrilled when he won.

But this is just the latest in a string of what I see as betrayals of us ordinary folk for the top tier 1% of the wealthiest in our country.

[NorthCarolina]

140. If Obama condones this?

It is Obama's commission. He alone created it, it is his idea, he had a specific outcome in mind when he chose it's members. He owns it lock, stock, and barrel. I would say it is a safe bet that he condones their recommendations.

[Jefferson23]

5. Lighten up Bernie, the old bricklayer can work until he drops at Walmart...you know that.

Leave it to Sanders to actually care about American citizens.

[Lars39]

28. I saw a guy today who had to be at least 75.

Looked like it was taking everything he had to push an empty hand cart. Just broke my heart. :(

[whathehell]

152. I've seen these sorts of things too...It IS heartbreaking.

People who look 80 years old waiting tables...This is SO wrong!!

[Jefferson23]

163. I know what you mean, there are far too many of our senior citizens

suffering hard times.

We need more Bernie Sanders, they are in short supply.

[lark]

198. Sanders is one of the only "real" people in congress

He gets it and cares!! If we had 100 more like him, I wouldn't feel so much despair about the direction the government is going.

[Jefferson23]

241. Agree 1000 times over. n/t

[bobbolink]

243. There were 300,000 writing on behalf of Keith, so.. where are the thousands making noise about this?

Forget Bernie... what are the priorities of all the rest of you?

[charlie]

8. Democrats' biggest victory in 2005

was when GeeDub decided he'd spend his "political capital" on fooling with Social Security. They smacked him back into the box. You'd hardly know it was the same bunch today. They should be squalling in unison, even if only to affirm non-negotiable principles. It'd be good theater and a tonic for their mood, since I don't think the proposal's going to get traction.

Ugh. Erskine Bowles. The guy who couldn't beat Liddy Dole. Who couldn't get the endorsement of the state's teachers union, which should be a gimme for any Democrat.

[Stinky The Clown]

74. "You'd hardly know it was the same bunch today."

That's because it is NOT the same bunch today. This is a very different bunch. *Very* different.

[The Green Manalishi]

174. You'd hardly know it was the same bunch today

"Only Nixon could go to China".
-And only a Democrat beloved of progressives and ascribed wherein the ability to outmaneuver those dumb teabaggers at 11 dimensional chess, can put through the recommendations of the CFC (Cat Food Commission)

[charlie]

211. Yeah

We might be hearing some variant of "mend it, don't end it" soon, taking us back to the days when making Republicans lament "he's stealing OUR issues" was pitched as strategic success. Ugh.

[suffragette]

10. K&R

[xchrom]

11. Reagan/Thatcherism or neo- liberalism is the prevailing tactic

In the democratic party at this time.

In Washington there is counter-balance - not
Even a nod made to the progressive left.

The left needs to understand there is only one
Fight to be had right now -- economics.

The environment, womens rights, equal rights for LGBTIQ folk,
The illegal wars, whatever - MUST be folded under
One umbrella -- the fight for economic justice.

Other wise we are splintered and thereby defeated.

[lostnfound]

12. Not only cruel but stupid for the economy.

Social security income is usually income that is spent.

[madfloridian]

19. Yes, cruel and stupid.

I can not believe these two guys were given such positions.

[cascadiance]

168. It will also INCREASE the size of the workforce and reduce pay and increase unemployment!

The more people have to work later because they don't have SS, the more they compete with others for jobs, leading to an increased worker supply and lower wages and more people out of work that need a job, and therefore inflate the government's expenditures in unemployment as well! So WHAT THE HELL GOOD is it going to do except robbing more poor Peters to pay a rich Paul!

[sufrommich]

13. This better be denounced, quickly and loudly, by every

democrat in Washington. We are watching you.

[AndrewP]

39. +10000

[cliffordu]

14. OK, kids. Here is the issue that I will get into the streets over.

Having a dog in this fight after all....

[laughingliberal]

15. Bernie seems to be the only one who realizes what it's like for people who work for a living. nt

[TBF]

16. President Obama does not care -

His pension will be $200,000 a year (at least) along with all his book royalties and speaking fees.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-249.pdf

[uncommon]

25. The president gets a pension?

I didn't know that. I mean, it seems a country should take care of its former leaders but it's not like he'll be hurting for opportunities to make money - and he had money before he became president.

[TBF]

58. Rich folks get pensions -

cat food for everybody else.

[Warren Stupidity]

209. a huge pension plus office expenses

200,000+/year and an office, with staff, expenses including mailing, and a travel budget.

[howmad1]

63. Speaking fees?

Who in the hell would want to pay to hear a liar speaking? Oh yea, maybe a bunch of rethuglicans who believe O'bama was the best thing ever to happen to the rethuglican party.

[TBF]

122. Hey, Bush even wrote a book. Proves there are plenty of idiots

sitting around who will read & listen to anything ... :hi:

[Starry Messenger]

17. We need to be out in the streets over this.

It is the only thing they listen to. Unless you are a billionaire.

[laughingliberal]

18. I know. It's damned near starvation rations as it is.

Ever since they came up with the scheme for jacking with CPI under Reagan, they've been hiding the real cost of living and screwing workers and SS recipients royally. And now they want to further lie about the cost of living. What? They think we don't know what it's costing us?

[Dr.Phool]

20. Unfortunately, it wasn't just Reagan.

Every prez since Eisenhower.

Clintons "Hedonic adjustment" was a real hoot.


A snippet from Kevin Phillips "Bad Money".

(snip)

Nothing, however, can match the tortured evolution of the third key number, the somewhat misnamed Consumer Price Index. Government economists themselves admit that the revisions during the Clinton years worked to reduce the current inflation figures by more than a percentage point, but the overall distortion has been considerably more severe. Just the 1983 manipulation, which substituted "owner equivalent rent" for home-ownership costs, served to understate or reduce inflation during the recent housing boom by 3 to 4 percentage points.

Moreover, since the 1990s, the CPI has been subjected to three other adjustments, all downward and all dubious: product substitution (if flank steak gets too expensive, people are assumed to shift to hamburger, but nobody is assumed to move up to filet mignon), geometric weighting (goods and services in which costs are rising most rapidly get a lower weighting for a presumed reduction in consumption), and, most bizarrely, hedonic adjustment, an unusual computation by which additional quality is attributed to a product or service.

The hedonic adjustment, in particular, is as hard to estimate as it is to take seriously. No small part of the condemnation must lie in the timing.

(snip)

http://www.tampabay.com/news/article473596.ece

[laughingliberal]

60. True. They are reporting -0- inflation right now and it's probably actually well over 5%. nt

[PA Democrat]

125. Geometric weighting has limits. Too many people

have reached a point where any further reduction in consumption of certain goods (most especially in the areas of medical care, medication, food, heat and/or A/C) will result in death.

[TBF]

254. And Eisenhower, to his credit, was the one who actually warned us what was coming.

wiki: Eisenhower did not end New Deal policies, and in fact enlarged the Social Security, and signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. He was the first term-limited president in accordance with the 22nd Amendment. His two terms were peaceful, and generally prosperous except for a sharp economic recession in 1958–59. Historians typically rank Eisenhower among the ten greatest U.S. presidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340349985118918525#docid=-8958639270245249730

[amborin]

21. K&R

[Individualist]

22. K&R

[madfloridian]

23. Anthony Weiner spoke against this on Countdown tonight.

More need to do so and very quickly.

[leftstreet]

24. K&R

[Hoyt]

26. Heck, we are making progress -- other threads originally said SS cuts were 70%, then 30%, now

We are down to 3 to 6%. Sooner or later we are going to have to address the issue of deficits and my guess is no one will be happy with the outcome. That is the nature of such things.

I'm eligible for social security in 9 months (but will be awhile before I take it). If those on the really low end are protected, I would not object to a 3 to 6% over 20 years if that is what is necessary to protect the program and make it palatable to the younger folks. What I read in the Draft indicates those on the lower end won't face cuts. I do want the wage cap subject to SS tax increased, and the draft proposes that. That has always been the simplest way to resolve the SS issues.

I think a 3 to 6% cut for those that receive the most under SS should be on the table. If better solutions are found, great. If not, I'll suck it up.

I also want larger military cuts on the table and larger tax increases for those in the upper bracket.

Flame on.

[madfloridian]

29. No, this will be inexcusable. It means devastation for seniors.

It is not acceptable in anyway. It means the corporations rule our country then for sure, and there will be no further hope for anyone not wealthy.

I am glad you think it okay, I do not.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Let's just fact check first there Hoyt.

Show me the threads that said 70%, then 30% and then we can proceed. That sort of hyperbole just seems snarily out of place around an issue like this. So show me.

[Hoyt]

40. Read this thread, BlueNW. It was the first one to start before the Draft was even released.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4609226

Also look at the Huffington Post articles that were cited in some of the ludicrous posts that quote some guy saying 70% cuts before the report was released.

Now, do you want to debate 3 - 6% cuts (that will impact me as well), assuming those cuts are real?

There's enough bull crud from the Republicons without adding to it ourselves.

[madfloridian]

45. That appears to be talking tax rates. I am talking payment cuts.

There is a huge difference.

Since this is such a vital topic to seniors like me, I will just say bye to you for a while. It is too stressful to have to argue about such an important thing.

[Hoyt]

52. No they are talking benefits cuts. Here's the link to the article since you can't seem

to read the thread before coming back with more criticism.

This article was cited in the thread that started before the report was even released. Some fool "reporter" printed something that obviously wasn't true. Fourth paragraph -- "70% cut in benefits."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/debt-commission-report-social-security-medicare-_n_781606.html


Finally, would you and your buddy with the "flame on" post like to comment on the issues?

[Bluenorthwest]

130. So Hoyt, I'm supposed to filter through a huge thread to find

single comments? You said 'threads' not comments. I will assume that there is indeed some poster who might say anything. There are thousands of posts and comments within threads on DU. But the phrasing you used implied more than one thread dedicated to discussion various huge cuts, not that within a thread a DUer posted a comment that is over the top.
I never found the isolated posts you refer to. That link was to a thread whose OP is all facts. If one of the dozens and dozens of comments is off the wall, that does not mean that the thread 'was saying' what the comment said. For example, Hoyt, your comments on this thread do not define the thread, the OP defines the thread.
You should have said you have seen comments, not threads. You failed to produce even one thread about the huge cuts you implied there were multiple threads about. "First 70%, then 30%" you should have at least two threads. With discussions about such cuts as the theme of the thread. That was what you claimed to have seen.
This is a subject that demands precise language, and attempts at hype will not be taken lightly. That is the crud that does not need to be introduced, hyperbole and lazy language. This is not going to be done FoxNews style if I can help it.
You said you saw more than one thread about huge cuts. You offered a long thread in which I guess some individual suggested such a thing. That is not a thread about huge cuts. It is also not one of many and you claimed to be able to show an evolution in what the threads were about. 70, then threads about 30% cuts. You had no such threads. A comment, if it is there, is not the same as 'threads'. You claimed to have seen threads, lots of them, enough to comment on. Threads. First they said 70% then other threads said 30%.
We all know we can find a DUer saying just about anything.Every hour people post comments that are so awful they are removed from sight. Comments within threads. The thread is not removed, for it is the comment's subject that is awful, and that is not the same as the subject of the thread. You said you had seen all of these threads, held these chimeras up for mockery. But you could not find a single thread that was as you stated. I'll assume that within that long thread some comment fits your framing. That is not the same as what you said, at all.
This is a subject made of words, which is about human survival. The words will not be Foxed with.

[Hoyt]

139. Guess you didn't read the full article. A 3-6% cut for some is reasonable to discuss.

Talk about "FOX" -- you haven't even addressed the issue, Is a "proposed" 3-6% cut for those on upper end of the benefits scale worth discussing.

I'll repeat my reasoning for saying it is worth discussion and is nowhere near as severe as people perceive:

If the cuts were 70%, 30%, or even 10% for everyone (even those on the low end of the benefits scale), I'd be saying "bull shit," "up yours" and worse.

But, at 3-6% for those on up the benefits scale, I'd consider taking a cut IF say the corporate tax were increased, the upper income folks get tax increases, military (but not personal or VA benefits) is cut; more money goes into infrastructure and alternative energy; a reasonable pathway to citizenship for good people who have come here for a better life; military no longer discriminates; some new welfare programs for the poor and sick; PUBLIC OPTION added to HCR; extended unemployment; and a few others.

The Draft proposes no cuts, probably increases, for those with "Low" SS payments and no other assets. Now, the "threshold" is another issue, but I'd put my 3 - 6% up for a serious discussion like that or other solution to move our country ahead by helping people and making needed changes in this country.


BTW: Since you didn't read the article from the link to Huffington, here's the quote that started this whole thing before the Draft Report was released: "In the process of pursuing their reforms for Social Security and Medicare, the commission chairs are expected to suggest that the end result will be a 70 percent cut in benefits and 30 percent increase in revenues, according to the source familiar with the upcoming announcement."

[hfojvt]

212. another point is that it is not even a cut

When they say a 3% cut over ten years I am sure they are talking about a smaller increase. As in
year zero = 100
year 1 = 102.7 vs 103
year 2 = 105.5 vs 106
year 3 = 107.9 vs 109
year 4 = 110.9 vs 112
year 5 = 113.9 vs 115.4

and so on, up to year 10. The 13.9% increase, being lower than the 15.4% increase is going to be called a 1.3% cut. After 10 years that would double to 2.6% which can be rounded to 3%.

Yet, if social security benefits are keeping up with COSTS, then the retirees have not really lost anything except a relative standing against wage-earners whose wages have gone up fast than retiree benefits have.

I don't see that as a cause for wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I am, of course, a known antidisestablishmentarianist turd in the DU punchbowl.

[countrydad58]

213. On top of the 50%

underpayments of SS according to John Williams at shadow stat govt!

[Hoyt]

216. LMAO. I think I have joined you in the punchbowl on this issue.

[madfloridian]

31. I hate it when someone says "flame on".

I try to write serious stuff I feel strongly about. When someone says flame on it sounds like they are looking for a fight.

Or putting people down.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. It is both things, absolutely.

The sort of thing people only do on the internet, because in life they can not run away after pulling that crap.

[Hoyt]

44. No, I've be criticized by folks who haven't even read it. Where is some serious stuff of yours?

Do you have a serious comment to make about my post -- or are you just going to "flame on" by posting crud like that?

[texastoast]

158. I think you are completely wrong

When the money can easily be found elsewhere and it belongs to the people who have paid in for years. The problem is that "they" are trying to get us to cave to enable the wars. Fuck that.

[Creideiki]

57. Here's what I want you to do:

Go explain why this is okay to my parents.

Don't worry. I'm trained in CPR and I'll bring lots and lots and lots of bandages. I'm also skilled at saying, "Ooh, that's got to hurt," while I stand by.

[Hoyt]

85. Well, I may be old enough to be your parent. So I'll explain:

If the cuts were 70%, or even 30%, or 10% for everyone (even those on the low end of the benefits scale), I'd be saying "bull shit," "up yours" and worse.

But, at 3-6% for those on up the benefits scale, I'd consider taking a cut IF say the corporate tax were increased, the upper income folks get tax increases, military (but not personal or VA benefits) is cut; more money goes into infrastructure and alternative energy; a reasonable pathway to citizenship for good people who have come here for a better life; military no longer discriminates; some new welfare programs for the poor and sick; PUBLIC OPTION; extended unemployment; and a few others.

The Draft proposes no cuts, probably increases, for those with "Low" SS payments and no other assets. Now, the cutoff benefit level is another issue, but I'd put my 3 - 6% up for a serious discussion like that or other solution to move our country ahead by helping people and making needed changes in this country.

[lark]

202. I read the whole thing last night

I didn't see anything in any of the proposals mentioning raising the cap. It also did mention 30% cuts too. Don't know where the 3 to 6% comes from, didn't see anything like that in the report.

As far as defense on the table, not going to happen - EVER. It's just a false flag to give an appearance of balance. That will be eliminated, but the cuts for regular folks will continue and the rich will not be affected whatsoever. It's blatantly stealing money I've paid into the system and I will not ever accept that.

Eliminate all caps on income and SS is solvent forever! Enact single payer, twist the drug co's arms to drastically lower prices and you've stablized Medicare. Raise tax rates for the rich and give tax breaks for net hiring, research, green energy, do major infrastructure repairs and you've solved so many of the country's economic problems.

Yes, I know I'm dreaming.

[Laelth]

239. Indeed.

Yes, I know I'm dreaming.

You're also dead to rights. Well said.

-Laelth

[Dappleganger]

32. Once it starts it'll never stop.

[BzaDem]

33. "He appointed these guys who head the commission. Thus I assume he approves of what they say."

Repeat that out loud. Don't you hear how ridiculously silly that sounds?

[madfloridian]

35. He is president. He must have appointed men of whom he approved.

That is the logical conclusion.

Do you realize how hard you are having to work to defend every move as our party heads rightward?

It's hard work, ain't it.

[bigtree]

42. he appointed a bipartisan panel with differing views

Why should it be expected that he agrees with every one of them?

[madfloridian]

48. Excuse me, but the reality is these are the chairpersons.

Why are you guys so supportive of something that is tearing seniors apart and causing so much anger?

I do not understand it at all.

Democrats supporting doing away with SS benefits. Unbelievable.

[BzaDem]

50. Why are you telling falsehoods about what other people say? Perhaps you would have more credibility

if you didn't make inaccurate statements?

Do you have any shred of proof the person you just accused of being "supportive of something that is tearing seniors apart" is actually doing that?

If not, why did you knowingly make a statement that you knew to be inaccurate?

[pecwae]

132. You are accusing MF of lying?

You are accusing MF of having no credibility? You are demanding proof? Now that's :rofl:

[BzaDem]

232. MF: "Why are you guys so supportive of something that is tearing seniors apart"

Except back here on planet Earth, in reality, bigtree is not supportive of anything that is tearing seniors apart.

When someone states something that is false, that is by definition telling a falsehood.

[de novo]

166. Right, because this is commission just make recommendations.

We should just all sit quietly until the recommendations are formally presented. And then, we should sit quietly until we see which recommendations they try to enact.

Then, you will be on the ready to defend it. You have time to prep your argument, as you try to deflect the debate from happening now.

[BzaDem]

233. Bullshit. MF accused bigtree of supporting commission policies that would hurt seniors, and that is

a bullshit personal attack that is false.

[liberation]

227. The level of projection in your response is astounding...

... when some of you are operating under such levels of demagoguery where most of your arguments devolve into appeals for people to stop believing their own lying eyes, and to use your narrative in order to "adjust" their reality. Do you seriously think that you have any sort of credibility when you and your friends keep being proven wrong over and over?

No long ago, we were being told that Mr. Obama had the repugs exactly where he wanted, even though many people were pointing out that Occam's razor pointed towards the opposite assumption. And yet, it is those who have a fairly clear record of being proven wrong... the ones who feel not only entitled to have the benefit of the doubt but having their views as the authoritative ones. Astounding to say the least.

And the worst part is that I personally thought that such levels of projection, entitlement and divorce from reality were only exclusive to the GOP, but I am sadly mistaken. And that is frightening to me.

[BzaDem]

231. Perhaps you are the one doing the projecting? MF accused bigtree of supporting actions that would

hurt seniors.

MF: "Why are you guys so supportive of something that is tearing seniors apart and causing so much anger?"

Perhaps you need to post a retraction?

[bigtree]

61. who's supporting it?

I don't think the President supports much of the nonsense in the report. It's just misleading to suggest that he must just because he's assembled this commission. He's going to cherry-pick their recommendations. I doubt you'll see anything very controversial pass his approval.

[madfloridian]

68. I did not believe he would privatize education either. I was naive.

I was naive. I am not naive now.

[bigtree]

71. vigilance

Your efforts and attitude are commendably prudent.

I think you're wrong about the President and party support for the conclusions in this report, though.

[kenfrequed]

186. Funny

Most of the Democrats on the committee appeared to be moderate or conservative Democrats. I suppose Bipartisan between the Irresponsible Right and the Blue dogs...

[liberation]

226. "bipartisan" and/or "differing views" do not mean what you want them to mean...

How many die hard labor and unabashed advocates of not touching a single dime from SS are in that commission?


Let us know, please.

[BzaDem]

47. "He must have appointed men of whom he approved."

Yeah. By merely appointing a bipartisan commission, he MUST approve of everything two members of that commission write months after he appointed them.

:rofl:

[madfloridian]

51. You go ahead and lol.

I won't see it anymore.

I have had it with people thinking everything Obama does is just fine and dandy. He is going to cause other Democrats to lose, and he doesn't seem to even care.

[BzaDem]

64. When you can't handle obvious truth that you find inconvenient, what does that say about the

veracity of your other posts?

[lark]

207. Go ahead, ignore all truths and stay in your Obama dream world

Heck, you can even ignore the reality when the social security cuts and increased age eligibilty pass. It's up to you. Trust is when President Obama picked Bowes and Simpson, they are 2 people who have a long history of proposing social security cuts and age increases and not supporting lifting the caps. Why do you think Obama picked those 2 out of the thousands of people available? Was he stupid? I don't think so. He made them chairpeople and stacked the commission with blue dogs (Baccus) to get the end he wanted, which he did.

[BzaDem]

234. I think someone here is in a dream world. Hint: it isn't me. n/t

[donco6]

70. When they're through with this, 2012 will look like . . . well . . . *2012*

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

149. It's a creepy thought...but I've thought it myself. n/t

[donco6]

69. Why would he appoint men with whom he DIDN'T agree?

I sure wouldn't. But then I'm not a 12-dimensional invisible chess player.

[madfloridian]

90. Good point.

:hi:

[BzaDem]

95. Perhaps because it is a bipartisan commission requiring 14 votes for approval?

He is not going to agree with everything a few people on the commission say. That's why it takes 14 out of 18 votes to submit a report.

If he just wanted to do whatever 2 people wanted to do, he could have only appointed those 2 people. Instead, he created an 18 member commission, of which 14 have to agree.

[Lord Magus]

245. That contradicts the point of a bipartisan commission.

You can question whether a bipartisan commission was ever a good idea in the first place, but inherent to the concept is that the members will go in not agreeing with each other. If they don't agree with each other, by definition they can't all be people Obama agrees with.

[donco6]

252. So you pick the most utterly oppositional people you can find?

Simpson? There's no other Republican available who would fill the "bipartisan" requirement and yet not completely undermine the country's social safety net? Do you really think the Republicans would have appointed . . . say . . . Kucinich to such a commission? Hell no! They'd have found a Blue Dog who fit the Dem label as required, but who they KNEW would vote with them. Is Obama just stupid then?

[WinkyDink]

118. You learn about as fast as Obama does.

[Bluebear]

109. "Ignored" is having a field day spinning this I see.

:crazy:

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

172. LOL, it sure is.

:crazy: is exactly right.

[dixiegrrrrl]

128. One of the men he approved said this about Social Security:

"We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits!"
Alan Simpson ( who does not have to worry about his monthly income)

and ended up apologizing to Older Women's League for saying that.

Social Security, however, does not face a solvency crisis; the program's actuaries estimate it can pay full benefits until 2037 and slightly reduced benefits in the decades after, if not changes are made.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/alan_simpson_social_security_n_693277.html

[Bluenorthwest]

43. The President's statement about this today was weak, craven

and typical of his fear of taking a stand. Today, I feel as if I have no President at all, and I thank God for Bernie and for Anthony Weiner. The man who appointed these creeps wants to bide his time and make no comment. Like having no President at all. The man who appointed them said 'no comment'.
I'm sure you adored his non response. It is just one more self serving political move out of the most cynical politician I have ever seen.
Now go on ahead and disagree. Mount your podium and orate.

[BzaDem]

49. I'm sure he approves of some of the stuff, like raising the Social Security tax cap on the wealthy.

So he is not going to say "I have read every sentence of these random thoughts of two members of the 18 member commission, and I disagree with all of it."

Duh.

[TBF]

59. There is no excuse for his complicity. Duh. nt

[BzaDem]

66. And if there were any "complicity," I might agree with you. The problem with your bullshit narrative

is that there is no "complicity."

[TBF]

120. State of the Union Speech Feb 2009 -

"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

I don't deal with "narratives" as you do, I deal with facts.

[BzaDem]

135. What part of that statement is in any way untrue or bad?

"To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security."

Yup! Something has to be done (whether on the taxes or benefits side), since SS will pay 75% of benefits in 2038.

"Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come."

Check!

"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."

Sounds great! We should have tax-free universal savings accounts. This has nothing to do with replacing Social Security -- savings accounts would be an excellent policy on top of Social Security, so people can have more to live off of than just Social Security. As Obama has said repeatedly, "It will not be privatized as long as I'm president."

[TBF]

167. The bad part is that are glossing over what the are really doing -

- cutting social security and medicare. The date of the speech shows he's been in on this all along.

[Politicub]

248. Aren't IRAs and 401ks tax free savings accounts?

Yes, I understand that you pay tax on your 401k when you withdraw the money, and money put into a regular IRA has already has income tax levied on it.

Just because these accounts are there doesn't mean people will use them. Social Security works because it's available to everyone.

[inna]

173. total projection about "bullshit narrative".

[WinkyDink]

119. Oh, so YOU get to assert what Obama does or does not approve of?

[BzaDem]

136. I get to assert what I think Obama approves of. If you don't like it, move to a country without

a 1st amendment.

[lark]

208. Quit lying

Show me the part where it mentions increasing the cap? I didn't see it.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

117. No, I don't. It's called "plausible deniability" when he is "forced" to "accede" to the Commission.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

34. Why do the politicians NEVER offer to cut WAR

it is our biggest expense and is morally wrong anyway.

[Exilednight]

145. Because there's profit in war. n/t

[speppin]

36. "Where are the president and vice president saying this is unacceptable?" They

appointed this well off deficit hawks. They will say nothing.

[JoePhilly]

127. Yesterday, Obama said he has not yet seen the report and would not comment on it ...

until he does.

[Hissyspit]

41. Tax the Rich. nt

[GSLevel9]

46. there are OTHER ways balance a budget

that don't rely on hurting retirees.

[katnapped]

115. But that would hurt...

Teh rich and the MIC.

Can't do that!

[TBF]

121. Balancing a budget often relies on cutting spending -

in this case I'd take the biggest chunk - defense (which is a misnomer, it's mostly offense) - and start there.

[WillyT]

54. K & R !!!

:kick:

[sabrina 1]

56. Social Security Benefits should be raised.

This would help the economy and those currently receiving retirement benefits, earned them, they paid to have that security. There is enough money in the fund to raise benefits.

Democrats should have started from that premise, during the election. They should have forced Republicans to try to fight them on it. Had they done that they would have won the election. But they didn't. Because the party, the right wing of the party, is just as willing to force the poor, the elderly and disabled to pay the gambling debts of the corrupt Globalists who brought down the world's economy.

They have one last chance to stand up for the American people. The lame duck congress, if they don't they are going to lose even more support than they did in this election.

[jtuck004]

97. +1000 Start Now n/t

[jtuck004]

99. Could someone please direct me please to the party that knows

good jobs are the way to reduce the deficit? I may have taken a wrong turn.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,726447,00.html?click

[pacalo]

62. As Rachel pointed out tonight, why were the recommendations in this report announced

today while Obama is out of the country -- & won't be back home until Sunday???

[bigtree]

72. right, someone said they caught the WH by surprise with their release today

[SarahB]

77. Are you totally and completely serious?

Did you miss the numerous DU posts that predicted that this would happen when Obama announced who he was appointing to this commission? Are you that blind?

[pacalo]

86. We got what we expected, most certainly. The point Rachel made tonight

about serving the goodies while Obama is out of the country was a good one. That the committee chose to publicize their recommendations while Obama was at a disadvantage leads me to believe this cabal isn't very secure with the idea of having Obama's support.

For the time being, I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's what Obama does with those recommendations that will count.

In the meantime, it burns me up that this cabal is taking advantage by getting all this information publicized & hashed out days before Obama can sufficiently address it.

[SarahB]

87. But why would you give him the benefit of the doubt?

Seriously, what has that gotten us so far? Really?

[pacalo]

89. Because Obama's the one who has the final say. Right now, he's at a disadvantage,

being out of the country until Sunday. The cabal knew their rec's would create a stir, they knew it would bring bad feelings toward Obama, & they chose a time he wouldn't be able to respond adequately to the public. It sounds like they burned him bigtime.

I'm as frustrated as you are, but until I know how Obama handles the rec's, I'm directing my anger at the cabal.

[countrydad58]

92. Well Howard Fineman on Keith

said They tried to get a response from Axelrod, another prick just like Gibbs, & got nothing! Saying the lack of response was deafening!

[pacalo]

100. Please go back & read my previous posts because that would be my reply.

Short answer: Obama is the one who makes the calls, he's out of the country, he can't respond adequately & sufficiently until he gets back, & the cabal timed their press conference deliberately at a time when Obama would be at a disadvantage.

This is only my opinion, which I formed while watching Rachel tonight, when she asked the question, why was this report announced while Obama was out of the country?

Fineman seems to be on a different track; I think Rachel hit the bull's eye.

[countrydad58]

102. Well, we have 24/hr. Satellite

News Cycle. It's the middle of the day. We don't live in the 1860s. Why hasnt he responded?

[pacalo]

103. I have a better question for you. Get back to me when you figure it out.

[Exilednight]

124. Burned him bigtime? Everyone knew this was coming .............

We've been predicting this for months.

In today's electronic age, does it really matter whether or not Obama is in the country? I mean seriously, we have e-mail, phones, faxes and satellites that move information around the world at the speed of light.

[AndrewP]

144. I don't get that argument either

This isn't 1786. You can get a message out in about 2 seconds if you so chose to.

[TBF]

220. Such BS - we can find out in seconds via Facebook or Twitter

what is happening around the world. I am convinced he had them release it now so he doesn't have to respond yet. This is the way he operates - we've watched him give in to the republicans for 2 years now. Looks like a pattern to me ...

[ChiciB1]

154. I HAVE LOTS OF DOUBT... Not So Much A Believe In ANY Benefit For

those on SS! WHY, given ALL the caving we've seen by THIS Administration and so many in Congress would be begin to BELIEVE NOW, anything they say?

How many here have heard of "floating an idea" before it passes before?? I'd say THIS is a PRIME example of "floating" which means to me that THIS is what is going to happen.

POTUS is gone, so he doesn't have to comment and therefore "we the people" are left to wonder... ONCE AGAIN! But, I'm at the point where I say WHY WONDER, I've seen too much already! I so WISH I will be able to eat my words on this, but I MOST CERTAINLY don't feel I'll have too!

The people in this country are simply getting pushed around like pawns, and STILL we take it! It's simply insanity and we keep getting rolled.

ONE DAY, ONE DAY, PERHAPS "we the people" will once again rise up. But maybe NOT in my lifetime! This is just sickening! I live in the SAME FEAR that I did during The Idiot's REIGN! I barely see ANY, ALMOST NO, difference from the 8 years of The Idiot!
:puke: :grr: :nuke:

[jeanpalmer]

106. Obama is not at a disadvantage

He has the same communications capability out of the country as he has here. Undoubtedly he was aware that the announcement would be made. After all, it is his commission. Same with the leak that tax cuts for the rich would be extended. It's a standard technique -- release bad news while the POTUS is traveling and the focus is elsewhere. When I first heard about the Asia trip, I thought they would use that as an opportunity to get out the bad news. Sure enough.

[regnaD kciN]

110. Remember, the "cabal" at this point numbers TWO people...

There are 18 members of the commission, and 14 votes are needed to include a recommendation in the final report. My guess is that the two co-chairs (one far-right Republican and one "Blue Dog" Democrat) are having trouble convincing their fellow committee-members to back them on this, so they decided to pre-empt the process and issue their own report, hoping to make it a fait accompli.

I notice that Obama's initial reaction was to say he wouldn't comment on anything other than the full committee's report, coming on 12/1. If nothing else, that tells me he didn't know and/or hadn't endorsed, these measures in advance.

Of course, if this creates a firestorm, then there's always room for the Catfood Two to backpedal, come up with somewhat less onerous measures, and pass them into the final committee report, spun as a "compromise" that will be harder to defeat because, after all, "they've already backed down from what they really wanted"... :eyes:

[donco6]

114. "They're only recommendations."

"Wait until we get a bill."

Where have I heard that before . . . ?

[Exilednight]

133. Oh, Oh .... I know that one

Public Option
Drugs from Canada
2014 withdraw from Afghanistan
Tax cuts for the rich

Did I miss any?

[donco6]

151. Probably, but that's good enough! n/t

[donco6]

113. He appointed the "cabal."

Out of all the people he could have chosen, he chose THEM. We all saw this coming. Why would Obama be surprised?

[jeanpalmer]

105. LOL

First thought that crossed my mind. And also the tax cut for the rich was leaked to HuffPo by Axelrod. Very good timing. Who was the President who was out of the country everytime something bad was announced? Forget who it was.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SugarShack]

101. The well timed silence means he better have his plan ready when he steps back on our soil

[donco6]

67. The idea of closing any military schools for kids of service members is foolish.

It may save federal money, but it will cost BIG money to property taxpayers and states. There can't be enough classroom seats available in public schools near military bases to handle the ebb and flow of military families. So they'll have to erect modulars, which run about $80,000 a pop to install (not like the old days when you could plunk them anywhere). And for states to pick up the pupil count for these kids during a time when they're already cutting K-12 to the bone is stupid. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[hay rick]

75. My plan to save Social Security.

Hint: it's already mostly in place.

The plan: make health care so expensive that seniors become their own doctors and "voluntarily" reduce their use of medicine, doctor visits, diagnostic tests, etc. Raise costs some more, rinse and repeat. The predictable result of the continuing cycle of escalating medical costs and a population with declining median real incomes should eventually lead to an actual reduction in life expectancy.

Shorter life spans = reduced beneficiary costs. Problem solved.

Don't thank me for this wonderful idea, thank the Russians who pioneered reduced-life-expectancy budget-balancing in the 1990s when the Soviet Union was collapsing.

[madrchsod]

78. they used cheap vodka to pacify and kill off the great unwashed-

[hay rick]

83. The devil and idle hands.

Cheap vodka and high unemployment was a deadly combination. At one point, life expectancy for Russian males went down to 59 years.

[countrydad58]

93. My plan to save SS

Get rid of all pukes,teabaggers, BlueDogs,DLC Scumbags ,& Obama. Problem solved!

[hay rick]

96. Your plan is better than my plan. nt

[madrchsod]

76. it`s a fucking war..

[bobbolink]

79. There's a purge of disabled people going on to reduce the deficit, and I don't hear any

complaints about that.

:shrug:

"How many deaths will it take 'til they know, that too many people have died?"

[countrydad58]

94. Yes. I know!

I am disabled.

[countrydad58]

219. Not only

that ,but I noticed doctors refuse to classify you as disabled! My wife was hurt in a serious car accident almost 2 years ago & its like pulling teeth to get them to do so! I beleieve some kind of threat or incentive has been sent down by the govt.

[bobbolink]

221. "I beleieve some kind of threat or incentive has been sent down by the govt."

Most definitely!

Yet, it doesn't matter, because it is a democratic administration and congress doing it.

When this happened during Reagan and the first news of thousands of deaths began to surface, there was an outcry and the cutoffs were ended.

This time, because it is a democratic president, even news of the deaths and suicides won't have any effect.

:cry: :nuke: :cry:

Further, I get blasted just for *saying* this! So much for compassion.... :cry: what we have become is very, very sad.

[Catherina]

81. Rec'd. We have to fight these thieves. First they took our jobs, then our homes

and there's no end in sight.

[madrchsod]

82. i smell rahm and i`m up wind of chicago....

here in illinois we`ve known he`s a snake in the grass and now the nation knows.

[defendandprotect]

84. Silence is also a response .... Democrats are complicit in this ... same sponsors as right wing....

[earth mom]

98. Why? Because the powers that be don't give a damn about the people-they are all rich & arrogant

enough to give us all the finger.

When in the hell are the American people going to be like the French and demand what is owed them from the people who work FOR them?!

:argh:

[berni_mccoy]

104. Inflation has outpaced Wage Growth

Wouldn't it be better to have SS benefits increase with inflation?

[jeanpalmer]

107. This looks like one of those golden opportunities

for compromise. As the WH said, it's a starting point. For what? God help us.

I'm thinking back to the public option "debate." First we got the trial balloon that the PO was not essential to health insurance reform (put out by Axelrod I believe), then the denial as in "BO strongly supports the PO," then next thing you know, no public option. Today, we got the trial balloons on deficit reduction and tax cuts for the rich (hard to write those two together, they seem so inconsistent). Next will be the denials. And then...

[disillusioned73]

137. DING, DING.. DING!!

I think we have ourselves a winner here folks..:dem:

[Enthusiast]

138. God help us is right.

I think this entire fiasco was planned before a single vote was cast in the 2008 presidential election. I didn't want to believe this. I look for evidence that it is untrue every day. And every day I am more disappointed than the last.

[whathehell]

148. Remember "Only Nixon could go to China"?

Will this be "Only Obama could cut social security"?


I'm starting to have deep doubts about this man...The words "trojan horse" have been thrown around.

[peace frog]

189. I wrote the "trojan horse" comment upthread

but it has since been deleted.

[whathehell]

242. Hmmmm.

I don't know why it was deleted...but thanks for making the statement anyway.

[BrklynLiberal]

111. This is depressing, frustrating and disheartening to say the least.

Where are the voices of those that WE elected??????????????

[Vinca]

123. I'm beginning to think the GOP can run another chimp in 2012 and win.

[peace frog]

129. Hell, Palin could win at this rate

and even a year ago I never, NEVER thought it could be possible.

[Enthusiast]

141. That is my fear also.

Then we can have runaway right wingness and the world will be wonderful with new more exciting wars to win.

[lupinella]

131. Yes!

Amazing that our party has not waved this flag high and often.
I wish Bernie was mine.

[Dyler Turden]

142. Wow. Things keep getting worse. K&R

[Le Taz Hot]

143. And the timing . . .

just a coincidence that he was out of the country when HIS commission released it's findings. On the same day that he rolled over and played dead on making the taxcuts for the wealthy permanent.

[a2liberal]

146. Would you rather have Sarah Palin as President? /sarcasm

Seriously, where do we draw the line? I feel like some people here would keep defending everything the Democrats do even if they became a 99.9% copy of the Republicans.

[judesedit]

147. Billionaires collect social security, but that's okay. Screw the poorest of the poor so the most

wealthy can keep collecting. Instead of limiting the amount of income anyone of any age can make annually to be eligible, they'd rather take the food out of the mouths of the poor. Well, you assholes voted for it or didn't vote at all. Now you'll have to live with it. This country is now owned by foreign and domestic corporations and the extremely wealthy and greedy...even more than before. Good luck everybody else. We were just climbing out of the hell hole the republicans put us in over the past decade. You poor gullible slobs just destroyed your own lives. Watch.

[valerief]

155. That's where billionaires get part of their tip money. Oh, wait. Billionaires don't tip. nt

[valerief]

150. It's more important that the very wealthy not suffer prestige loss than it is for

some who's worked for the man his/her whole life avoid real human suffering (destitution, starvation, disease).

Apparently.

[myrna minx]

153. K&R

:puke:

[texastoast]

156. K&R

Time to get on the PHONES with our reps and Senators.

Cut the defense budget--not Social Security.

If Obama cuts SS, he is a one-term president.

This is just insane.

[nyc 4 Biden]

157. Disgusting.

The saddest part is that I can't even say I'm disappointed because this is what I have come to expect.

:evilfrown:

[eagertolearn]

160. Many people can't find doctors to go to because of medicare now and

do they know how many retired people are living only on SS? I'm out in their homes as a nurse and they literally are trying to figure out how to pay their bills and food costs because everything keeps going up in price....and they want to decrease SS. We need to ask those who have voted for the republicans who want to keep the tax cuts for the rich now "how is that trickle down effect doing for you now?". The rich just buy more homes and go on more vacations...they don't hirer more people. It's the middle class who would actually hirer more people because they have a conscious. My husband and I are in every category to increase taxes and we realize that that is what has to be done (and we still give as much as before). How do the wealthy republicans go to sleep at night after pulling the wool over the eyes of the rest of their party that is under educated and easily influenced by them (so the wealthy can put more $ in their pockets....how is this helping the rest of their party?).

[mzmolly]

161. "This proposal is simply unacceptable," ~ Nancy Pelosi.

I agree with Nancy.

"This proposal is simply unacceptable," said outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America's middle class families--under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security."

The conservative group Americans for Tax Reform issued a statement saying the report proves "this commission is merely an excuse to raise net taxes on the American people. Support for the commission chair plan would be a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which over 235 Congressmen and 41 Senators have made to their constituents."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/11/both-sides-unhappy-with-debt-commission-proposals.html

[felix_numinous]

162. After Bush era tax cuts,

insurance companies raking in profits, I find any cuts to SS or Medicare unacceptable.

I would like to hear a clear explanation from President Obama. This rhetoric on both sides continually using the word compromise seems to be a code word for moving further to the right on all the issues, so that is what I expect from them. I would like to be wrong.

There has to be a strong response from all of us on this issue. Cutting people's only means of livelihood while the rich are getting breaks is so wrong, I have had enough.

[jwirr]

164. And come 2012 this will be used against us again. What was the

president thinking? Oh sure I do not think it is going to make it out of committee but it is his commission and he filled it with repugs that no one will even remember - only that it was his commission.

[avaistheone1]

165. k&r

[madfloridian]

170. What a weak statement from Obama.

"Obama, in Seoul, South Korea, declined to comment on the commission's work but said, "We're going to have to take actions that are difficult and we're going to have to tell the truth the American people." He said there was a lot of rhetoric about the country's debt and deficits but that "a lot of the talk didn't match up with reality."

"We need to be straight with the American people," the president said. "We can't just engage in political rhetoric."

And Kent Conrad's statement is pathetic.

"Sen. Kent Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the White House commission, said the U.S. faces the real possibility of becoming a "second-tier economic power" if it fails to address the trillion-dollar-plus deficit.

Conrad said simply cutting waste and fraud will not solve the problem, and insisted changes to Medicare and Social Security were needed because both programs are headed toward insolvency.

"People can say we want to keep 'what is.' 'What is' is not affordable," Conrad said Thursday on ABC television."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1111/Social-Security-Medicare-Pentagon-slashed-by-deficit-commission

I have never been so angry.

I believe our Democrats are acting just like Republicans now in caring about the people.

[pa28]

246. A party switch is his best shot at re-election if Simpson's report mirrors his own opinion.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

171. And you know what else?

18 unrecs on this topic is pretty damn pathetic.

[inna]

175. K&R and HUGE appreciation for you, MadFloridian.

You truly are a DU treasure, along with a couple of people like TimeForChange; thank you for all you do.

(I can only add in parenthesis that I hope that you're not getting discouraged by ridiculous attacks; they only reflect (extremely) poorly on the attackers, and sort of make one shake one's head in disbelief.)

Anyway, :yourock:

[madfloridian]

176. I consider it an honor...

to be mentioned in the same breath as Time for Change. :) Thank you.

[Ignis]

193. ^^^ Seconded.

People like MadFloridan are what keep me coming back to DU, despite the slings and arrows.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katandmoon]

179. Why did Obama appoint harsh critics of SS like Erskine Bowles and Alan Siimpson? Care to tell us?

[inna]

180. vile attack.

shame on you.

:thumbsdown:

[madfloridian]

181. No cutting SS. Maybe Obama needs to step up and speak out.

That is such a rude post toward me, I am saying good bye.

Cutting SS by Democrats. I never thought I would see it excused here, but I am seeing it all over this thread.

Accepting anything Obama does, pretty sad.

[hay rick]

185. Holding the president accountable is bashing?

"Reaching" would be your comparison of critics of the Obama-appointed commission with birthers.

[Starry Messenger]

200. Let's see how snappy you are when your SS is cut.

Low, even for your lot.

[Individualist]

203. What a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.

[Imagevision]

206. Bash the President? - if the shoe fits... you know!

[katandmoon]

178. K&R. That's the bottom line. Obama's *OWN* commission put this out there.

[tigereye]

182. what wage growth? I thought income levels were comparatively stagnant

since the 70s?


The thing is that SS benefits are so low compared to expenses as to be almost laughable now, right? Most folks would not/are not able to survive on those alone.

[On the Road]

183. There is Already a $2.6T Accumulated Surplus

What are the plans for that? Just fund the structural deficit for the foreseeable future?

[Swamp Rat]

184. k&r

[JPZenger]

187. Simple solution - increase income for SS tax

There is a simple solution to the Social Security and Medicare funding issues. Increase the income that is affected by the tax by a modest amount.

Right now, someone who earns under $100K a year pays a social security and medicare tax of around 15%. Half is paid by the employer, but that means wages are effectively kept down. Someone who makes $300,000 and their employer might jointly only pay an effective tax rate of 5% (2.5% each).

[madfloridian]

188. Would cut mortgage exemption for middle class.

"The single biggest cut in Social Security benefits in the chairmen’s plan comes from moving to a "more progressive benefit formula,” starting at the 50th percentile. That sounds all well and good until you realize that the median household income right now is about $50,000. So even as Congress debates whether a $250,000 annual income counts as middle class for tax cut purposes, the true middle class would see it Social Security benefits dramatically reduced through means testing under the chairmen’s plan.

Similarly, the plan calls for the elimination of the home mortgage exemption. Poor people don’t get it; rich people don’t need it; the people who’d get hurt are the middle class."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/deficit-commission-proposal_n_781905.html#s179449

That is also from Dan Froomkin at Huff Post. He's on our side, you know, even though he posts at Huff post.

[blueknight]

191. i think we elected

a complete imbecile, either that, or he is retarded

[Imagevision]

199. Henry Kissenger discovered Obama, need I say more...? {Builderberg Group} ring a bell?

[Imagevision]

205. oops... that's "Bilderberger group" if Googling...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

190. I have had COLA denied me the last 2 years. what has Congress denied themselves?!?

I have 2 kids in college I'm paying for yet!

yes... I was 43 and my husband 54 when I gave birth to our youngest. ...and yes she was a wonderful surprise.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

194. buy stock in cat food...it's gonna go up

[Steely_Dan]

195. Why Should Anyone Be Surprised By This???

The Obama Administration has used the same methods with past issues...It is a process of "leaking" (floating a trial balloon) to measure reaction. Then when push comes to shove, President Obama folds.

This argument that President Obama cannot respond while he is out of the country is absurd. He can and should have made a strong statement with regard to SS. Instead, he has offered up what he has always offered up, a "middle of the road" response.

Let's face it, President Obama is hard-wired to operate in the manner he does. His leadership (or lack thereof) is a part of who he is. There will be no change in his method of approaching issues. He has been this way his entire life and he will remain so.

What we were left with from the Bush Administration was (is) so overwhelming that I'm not sure that anyone could turn this ship of state around. Having said that, President Obama certainly convinced many of us that he had the unique skills and ability (and passion) to address the many problems we faced.

What we all want...what we all need is a person of principle. I'm not saying that President Obama doesn't have principles. I'm merely suggesting that his principles take a back seat to politics. He wants to please everyone on all sides. This approach is at the very least, naive. This is not what this country needs. We need a principled leader who is not afraid to follow though, regardless of the fallout. Solutions require bold steps that are equal to the degree of the problems we face. Incremental progress is not the answer. We don't have the time nor the patience. The problems are too serious and threaten our very well-being (maybe our very existence as a country). I would have rather seen the President hold to his convictions on the Health Care Reform bill and fail, than pass something that only upsets both sides of the aisle. Taking the middle of the road only seems to turn everyone against you.

Everyone says that Mr. Obama is a real nice guy. Perhaps that is one of his problems.

-P

[Imagevision]

201. Why Should Anyone Be Surprised By This??? Obama a few minutes ago caved to Bush tax cuts also

[Steely_Dan]

210. Did I Miss Something...

Has there been a recent comment by Obama that I missed?

-P

[Skittles]

215. he's waffling on tax cuts for the very rich

first it was a firm no, now it's no only to "permanent extension" - the usual "compromising" bullshit from this adminstration :thumbsdown:

[Bryn]

214. k&r

Unacceptable!

[fadedrose]

217. Strongly recommended eom

[Jakes Progress]

222. I know who will defend it.

Those who have retirement plans and jobs and don't care about anyone else.

[INdemo]

223. Why would the Republicans need a candidate in 2012

when they have Obama..Disappointing..Defend him if you wish but he is certainly not "the change we could believe in"

[bobburgster]

229. I'm calling my reps again, and....

the white house too. This sucks!

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DeadEyeDyck]

235. Don't know what the average lifespan was when SS

was passed. Let's say it was 60. The average today is 75 so one could argue that the retirement age be adjusted upward by that amount.

What really burns me is that as a black male, my average lifespan is 15 years less than a white male. That means, I pay in just as many years but do not live long enough to recoup my investment!

Retirement age should be adjusted so that the whiteman is not living off the efforts of the black man. When did that ever happen before? Hmmmmmmm

[pa28]

237. K&R

[ProudDad]

238. And the Social Security System has ZERO impact on the deficit or debt...

End the WARS!!!

ALL OF THEM...

That will end the deficit...

[geckosfeet]

240. Shame and damnation on ANYONE who considers taking from the poorest and least able

before taking from the richest among us.

What fools.

[humbled_opinion]

244. Whats next?

Is Obama gonna revive the Bushco Ownership society Bull Crap? Private investment of your FICA tax no more social Security.....

I keep clicking my heels but seems like this is the reality now.... Democrats better unite against this crap and fast.

[elleng]

249. 'Our party' is NOT considering such.

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

251. So now the new tactic here is to try to shame anyone who fears...

this new SS reality, to make us sound not so bright and rather ignorant, and say we are "Obama bashers."

We are going to lose even more in 2012 if we do not stand up for these safety nets.

[TBF]

255. I wrote about Eisenhower upthread -

imagine a republican president who is credited with enlarging the social security program. And now we have a democrat trying to cut it. And they call us the bashers.