Could Obama be a wolf in sheeps clothing? Evidently he is backing cuts to Social Security!

[In Truth We Trust]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=167423623

[HiPointDem]

1. "President Barack Obama has agreed to curtail future cost-of-living increases for social security"

[Mel Content]

6. then he better also curtail increases in the cost of medicare for SS recipients.

[pangaia]

12. absolutely

[Lugnut]

14. He needs to curtail increases in Medicare supplemental premiums.

If there's no SS COLA the Medicare premium doesn't go up. There are no such restrictions on the private insurance companies that provide Medicare supplement insurance. Mine went from $167.00 a month to $208.00 for 2013. I have received nothing from SS about a COLA increase for 2013 although I've read that it's supposed to be a 1.7% increase. I'll be in the hole for 2013.

[Marr]

43. Impossible. I've been assured repeatedly by his official fan club that

what you're seeing is just a paranoid delusion.

[teddy51]

2. I have been a believer in that for some time, actually.

[Loudly]

3. He's politically talented enough to pin that on Republicans. When they're voted out, problem solved

[Egalitarian Thug]

30. No. Problem still exists. Blame is the only thing that changes. WTF is wrong with you?

These are real people really suffering, who gets the blame means fuck all.

[Loudly]

33. I'm counting on those real people to vote. People who may have been voting Republican until now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

37. .

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. Listen, I AM one of those real people. I do vote and have never voted for a repug!

Voting for Dems offering up cuts to Medicare and SS, helps me how?

[ohheckyeah]

83. It's too late once it's done. n/t

[doc03]

4. That's not any real surprise is it? Between him and Romney

he was the best choice.

[Control-Z]

5. I guess it needs to be asked.

Are you accusing him of fucking with us or with them? Before I have an opinion on your OP I would need to know.

[wildbilln864]

7. +1 nt

[In Truth We Trust]

10. I'm not really concerned about your opinion of my original post so much as I am

of your need for understanding of it. It is not a question of his fucking with "us" or "them"; it is "fucking" as you call it with Social Security!

[Control-Z]

15. Ah. I see.

You should really go back and read what you wrote. Kind of makes you sound a little, um, off.

You started an OP on a discussion board. I asked for clarification. And now you get all snarky and combative for, what I can only assume, not hating on our president as you do, apparently. Seriously? Come on. Seriously?

[In Truth We Trust]

19. Seriously? You really needed clarification? Seriously?

[Control-Z]

22. Well, yeah. I did.

Being a democratic board with a newly re-elected president and all.

Wait. Don't tell me. You don't think he was vetted well enough. Right? And that he's really a secret Muslim, communist, socialist, wolf? He really fooled you, didn't he?

Edit to add: It's been a horrible week for everyone. We all react to stress in different ways. I'm going to assume that it is what's going on here with all the Obama hate. I sincerely hope you have a better night.

[In Truth We Trust]

24. You are very insincere. Please refrain from consuming my time with bullshit and false accusations.

Feel free to continue blind idolatry while I focus on actual policy.

[Control-Z]

25. Actually, I was being sincere.

I trust in my president. I'm also wise enough to know that nothing comes easily with this republican congress. I'd be suspiciois if everything seemed hunky dory at this point.

I really do hope you have a better night.

[elleng]

29. Thanks

[patrice]

46. Thank You. People on the outside, looking in through tiny windows and coming to conclusions about

nearly infinitely complicated sets and subsets of factors are scaring me.

No one seems to care that what they are doing informs the opposition that all they have to do is hold still, while some rather uninformed people more or less intentionally cut the ground out from under their own positions, . . . all the opposition has to do is hold still and the whole thing will be theirs.

Then people will come back to this board and bitch and moan once again about how ineffectual Democrats are, because, after-all, "all they have to do is "be strong" and they'll win, right?"

It's either uninformed, or intentionally dishonest, or outright crazy and THAT's catching.

[hopemountain]

79. trust the process by insuring

we are part of the process. there is much we do not know. but, this is no excuse for inaction at the grassroots level. i see my responsibility to be ever vigilant. i pick up the phone & make the necessary call or write the necessary letter to be sure my voice is heard. especially during daily negotiations and manipulations by the media.

[hopemountain]

75. i sent my letters to my reps this a.m.

and thanks, -z, the op's intent is clearer, now.

[Teamster Jeff]

8. He is not a wolf....He is a Blue Dog

I am told we should support Blue Dogs because if we don't Repubs will win and then they will cut social security.

[patrice]

34. Are you saying that Barack Obama is a liar? Wouldn't that mean that we should oppose him &

work for his defeat in any legislation or the implementation of policy?

[patrice]

31. At this point, what's going on is about Congress & 2014.

[GreenPartyVoter]

72. Has it come to the point where winning the election is more important

than serving the people? I mean, what good is it to back burner or compromise certain things in order to gain back power the next time around if we never use the power?

[AldoLeopold]

52. Jeff you rule

I love you man. I've got a bottle of Glenlivet here if you're ever on Lake Hamilton here in AR.

[hopemountain]

81. vigorous nod in agreement,

teamster jeff.

[NYC Liberal]

9. No. n/t

[elleng]

28. Thanks

[patrice]

32. If health care costs go down & services covered increase, CPI is of lower priority, right?

And if there end up being something around half of the states in regional federal health insurance exchanges, the sizes of those various market pools are going to be big enough to make some pretty good deals, wouldn't they?

[forestpath]

11. Evidently he is a Republican.

[Control-Z]

17. Did you forget something?

The sarcasm thingy, perhaps?

[Fumesucker]

20. Obama certainly implied just that recently

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s

[Control-Z]

23. Well. There you go then. (nt)

[forestpath]

60. I don't need a sarcasm thingy. Throwing seniors over the cliff speaks for itself.

[pangaia]

13. Why is he giving in on anything?

He's got the repubs by the short hairs and can blame anything he wants on them if they don't go along.
Rule #1--Never bargain with terrorists.

[In Truth We Trust]

16. Exactly! Why? See original post.

[Tmloft]

18. Calm Down

He's not cutting it, he not raising it. I don't see a problem. I'm sure he knows what he's doing.

[Hoyt]

21. Obama is doing fine on this one, and everyone will be better off - but I could be wrong.

Took him awhile though and a lot of needless worrying. Hope he can close deal as I've read it here.

[patrice]

35. You could be wrong & there are plenty of dishonest types around working their butts off to see to it

[HiPointDem]

36. Recipients of medicare, medicaid, social security, the working poor and the middle class will not

be better off.

[Hoyt]

38. I'm not sure about that.

Maybe not as well off as we should be, but not bad considering situation.

[HiPointDem]

39. how's that? by definition, all those groups will get less as their spending power a/o benefits are

cut.

what is the 'better off' part?

[Hoyt]

41. We could be living in Greece where they fucked around to long and had too make

really deep cuts, like to bone.

By the way, how is Medicare and Medicaid cut in latest leaked "deal? "

[HiPointDem]

42. we could be living in nazi germany, or in the us in 1929. but we're not. $400 billion in medical

cuts.

[Hoyt]

44. Link please. If it's cuts to overpaid providers, not concerned about that.

[patrice]

48. "Cuts to overpaid providers" who would have a lot of interest in creating mistrust of PO. nt

[HiPointDem]

49. ...

The framework House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, proposed Monday includes $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings. Last year Democrats first said they are willing to find $500 billion and then said they would agree to $400 billion in savings from the programs, according to people familiar with the negotiations. In his initial fiscal cliff proposal, President Barack Obama called for health care program savings closer to $400 billion (Reichard, 12/4).

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2012/december/05/fiscal-cliff-and-health-programs.aspx

There are four proposals, contained in both the president’s 2011 deficit-reduction plan and his fiscal 2013 budget, that would increase costs to seniors by $32.9 billion over 10 years. All four proposals would begin in 2017 — after Obama leaves office:

Expanded means testing for Medicare Parts B and D Premiums. The administration proposes to increase premiums under Medicare Part B (medical insurance) and D (prescription drugs) for higher-income seniors by 15 percent and freeze the high-income thresholds at current levels “until 25 percent of beneficiaries under parts B and D are subject to these premiums.” In 2012, only 5.1 percent of Part B enrollees and 3 percent of Part D enrollees pay higher premiums based on income, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The current thresholds for higher premiums are $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples. Kaiser estimates that the income thresholds for paying higher premiums by 2035 will be equivalent to about $47,000 for individuals and $94,000 for couples “in today’s adjusted inflation dollars.” Cost to seniors: $28 billion over 10 years (pages 34-35).

Increased Medicare Part B deductible for new beneficiaries. The administration would increase the deductibles paid by new beneficiaries by $25 in 2017, 2019 and 2021. Cost to seniors: $2 billion over 10 years (page 35).

A copay for Medicare home-health care for new beneficiaries. There’s currently no copay. This proposal would create a new copay of $100 for each “home health episode.” Cost to seniors: $350 million over 10 years (page 35).

Medicare Part B premium surcharge for new beneficiaries who purchase Medigap coverage. The administration would impose a Part B premium surcharge for new beneficiaries who purchase “near first-dollar Medigap coverage.” Medigap policies cover Medicare’s out-of-pocket expenses, such as copays and deductibles. The administration’s plan says Medigap provides “less incentive” to make cost-efficient health care decisions. Cost to seniors: $2.5 billion over 10 years (page 35).


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/dueling-fiscal-cliff-deceptions/

[Hoyt]

59. So it's $33 billion in potential cuts if it happens, versus $400 billion in headlines above.

These are 10 year estimates, rather than annual estimates.

And, $28 billion of $33 B will be slightly increased Part B premiums for upper income seniors.

Thanks for clarification. Appreciate the link.

Annual Medicare expenditures are roughly $550 Billion. Over a 10 year period, we are talking about $5,550 Billion.

So $33 Billion (not even considering that $28 B is for slightly increased premiums to upper income Medicare beneficiaries), out of $5,550 Billion, is what we are talking about. I'm not going to give up Medicare over that.

[HiPointDem]

68. no, it's $400 billion in cuts, those are just the ones that seniors pay for directly.

[Hoyt]

70. Right and other $367 B go to providers like pharmaecuticals, Medicare HMOs, etc., that are overpaid.

I'm really not upset about that, if that is how it shakes out. No increased age, no credit given for new preventive benefits added through ACA, and the like.

I'm sorry, I'm focused on big picture, not some small subset of Medicare. I've seen nothing to rail about at this point.

[HiPointDem]

94. it won't be pharma taking the cuts.

[Hoyt]

89. Let's see -- If economy gets better, SS fund gets richer. ACA gives us new Medicare services.

If economy improves, value of seniors meger houses and savings likely to go up.
If seniors rent, more rentals will help keep rent from increasing.
If young folks get hired, I feel better.
As unemployment extended to those hit hardest by recession/depression, I feel better.
If economy expands, better chance I can find a part-time job -- again, I feel better.
If Medicare age not increased, as fearmongers had us believing before, I feel better.
Of incentives in ACA helps hold down Medicare premium increases, I feel better.
If seniors on lowest end of SS scale and disabled are protected -- I feel better.
When, I realize that Congress can always put in more incentives in future, I feel better.
If this minor "cut" makes Republicans have to increase taxes on rich, accept ACA, provide stimulus, etc.,country does better -- I feel better too.
There's more, but you should feel better as well.

Damn, I'm feeling better already. Thank you Obama.

[HiPointDem]

93. if the economy improves, those things will happen whether or not seniors take cuts to medicare.

[Hoyt]

96. Gloom, gloom, gloom. Be happy and positive. Obama's got this.

[hopemountain]

84. oh? and you receive ss or disability?

[Hoyt]

87. Eligible right now -- how about you?

[hopemountain]

90. eligible but choosing not to take it, eh?

you are fortunate to have the choice... so, why so callous in your judgement?

[Hoyt]

91. Who is callous in their judgement? I think all seniors will be better off, considering situation.

Those forced to take SS will supposedly be protected. If that is not true, then I will join you in screaming. But every creditable report I've seen indicates seniors at lower end of scale will be protected. Not to mention stimulus, which will help younger foks who have it pretty tough in this economy. If a few minor tweaks now, improve economy, I assure you, we'll all be better off.

[HiPointDem]

97. 2/3 of seniors rely on SS for half or more of their income. 1/3 rely on it for 90% or more. The

average benefit is $1200. Which is right-skewed, meaning more receive less.

Do 2/3 of seniors count as 'vulnerable' in Obama's calculus? I doubt it.

Not to mention that this division of beneficiaries, once again, destroys the universal aspects of the program.

[allrevvedup]

40. Boy that didn't take long.

Remember in 2009 when Obama appointed Geitner and Summers all those Clintonistas and everybody thought he was the incarnation of Herbert Hitler Hoover? Well some did. I'm happy to say they were wrong. A lot what Obama says and does is theater, protective deception, and a lot of what he actually does is right on. Who's going to tell us though? MSNBC? The NYT? Heck no. They've got their MIC talking points or lets say they're part of the business establishment and to that extent they inadvertently help BO keep the public eye off the ball.

So if the talking heads are whispering about Obama taking a scalpel to SS, you might take comfort in knowing that wingers are taking comfort even though what he eventually does will probably be less heinous.

And I'd expect a deal before Christmas because I don't think he's going to pull the plug on survival lifelines in the dead of winter just to score a political point. Gingrich would do it, but thankfully BO isn't Gingrich. And I don't think he really needs to, as satisfying as it might be to us. I could be wrong. Just my humble O.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. Actually, Obama followed Hoover policies

And got Hoover results. Have you noticed that we're still in a depression, 4 years later?

In fact, the White House bragged that they've increased spending less than even Hoover did. They see that as a big positive. Incredible.

[Nye Bevan]

66. We are not in a depression. We are not even in a recession (nt)

[MannyGoldstein]

67. We're not in a recession, but we are in a depression

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/24/how-end-depression/?pagination=false

And we're choosing not to end it, which would be easy - although the wealthiest wouldn't be as wealthy anymore.

Would you consider signing the petition that ProSense and I put together?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/not-cut-social-security-andor-medicare-simply-keep-taxes-low-wealthiest-americans/wN1GL0PC

[allrevvedup]

99. We're not in a depression. Did you notice that GM still makes cars

for example. If we were in a depression BO would most assuredly have lost in November. But the economic indicators are pretty clear and while there's some room for interpretation 2012 is not 1932 by any stretch.

I signed your petition, thanks for the link.

[hopemountain]

92. i agree with your humble O

i appreciate our president's honesty and integrity. it makes greedy, cruel liars "uncomfortable".

[allrevvedup]

98. thanks hopemountain,

and welcome to DU! I think it's important to be vigilant just as you say and at the same to remember that this is politics and what we see is rarely what we get. That works both ways, and I hate to say it but sometimes our side "misspeaks" too, but for good reasons. This point probably deserves more elaboration as it sounds like Machiavellian special pleading but in fine, yes, let's be aware that Obama has a solid record of accomplishing the goals we elected him to, though without a lot of fanfare.

Anyway I'd love to hear more about the letter you mentioned above. Also, I signed Manny and ProSense's WH petition in case anyone cares. Very reasonable and ProSense is very sharp on these matters.

[hopemountain]

107. petition signed

the letters were to my congressman and senator....both are "progressives" - although, i don't think one should consider themselves progressives when they are weak on environmental issues....but, i'll take it because we are in a very rural area.

[CakeGrrl]

45. No, but since the Huffington Post headline SAYS SO,

then it's time for mass hysteria over here as per norm.

And those who never liked/supported the President get to say so yet again ad nauseum etc etc...

[HiPointDem]

50. also reported in the NYT, WAPO, WSJ & LA Times.

[SidDithers]

65. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[hopemountain]

108. it is as you say

the only media person i trust for truth is the reverend al sharpton...and he better not let me down.

[Hekate]

47. No. Thank you all for your grave concern.

[Summer Hathaway]

53. The concern is all rather consistently 'grave', isn't it?

In a lock-steppy, talking-points-memorized-and-posted kind of way.

[still_one]

51. Regardless what he does he cannot do without Congress, so if social security, medicare, and the

middle class our sold out, and it passes, I think one can conclude that the Democratic party is gone

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. He's not powerless against congreess. He has the veto pen.

[still_one]

85. True, but that means if Congress holds firm social security or medicare would not be cut

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. If he caves on SS and/or medicare they will be cut.

They shouldn't even be on the table and being considered for cuts.

[still_one]

88. Agreed, and as far as I am concerned if they are cut, from my perspective I am finished with them.

[AldoLeopold]

54. Basically he's Lincoln or at least in the same position

He's just on the wrong side of history. We've got a polarized country, a jacked up budget, too much bullshit, and the man has to do something to keep his party alive and look to the future.

Old people aren't voting for him, man. So who's he gonna ostracize?

I'll be old, sooner, rather than later, this may screw me, whatever. My generation is not going to live high on the hog like the boomers. That's just reality.

IF you're 65+. Well...sorry. You had it good for quite a while. Sorry. Sucks.

[RBInMaine]

57. "Wolf in sheep's clothing"? Here we go again with Obama-bashing from The Left's TeaParty. Sheesh.

[Jakes Progress]

61. reagan democrat

People with money and a desire to keep it regardless of what it means. They were raised Democrat, like the idea of being a Democrat, but find that they really like the neo-con agenda. reagan is a big old cuddly to them. Our president has voiced his admiration for "the great communicator" and staffed his cabinet with corporate reaganites.

[LWolf]

62. Obama

is not a wolf. I like wolves. Find a better metaphor that doesn't make the wolf the bad guy.

He has always been out as a "new" democrat. He's never pretended. His supporters have often seen what they wanted to see instead of what was openly presented to them.

[duffyduff]

63. A "new" Democrat isn't a Democrat, period.

I am old enough to remember what the Democratic Party REALLY stood for.

[LWolf]

64. Agreed. nt

[whathehell]

102. +1 n/t

[Liberalynn]

76. +1

[whathehell]

104. I've never believed he was anything but a very conservative Democrat OR a moderate Republican.

Which is why I'm hoping against hope that in 2016 we'll nominate someone

more on the order of a progressive.

[spanone]

71. unrec. for bullshit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Unfortunately, he's a sheep in sheep's clothing, easily stampeded by the right.

[MotherPetrie]

77. +1

[bowens43]

78. he's a sheep in sheeps clothing...

[Puzzledtraveller]

80. I never believed that he would'nt be open to cuts, I always thought he was clear on that.

[Marr]

82. I've got news for you-- he's been pushing for Social Security cuts since

that whole "Debt Crisis" scam a couple of years ago. That whole thing was just an elaborate piece of political theater designed to maneuver the various parties into a place from which they could cut Social Security and Medicare. The only thing that stopped them was the GOP's moronic Teabagger wing, which refused to take "yes" for an answer at the last minute.

That's why this whole thing was put off, and it's why we are where we are now.

[COLGATE4]

95. DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner in "Presidential compromise for $500".

[MannyGoldstein]

103. That's untrue!

He's been pushing for it since shortly before his inauguration.

[magical thyme]

100. Well they'd better curtail the increases in food and shelter costs then

or we'll be back to the elderly starving in the street.


"The president wants lower-income recipients to receive protection against any loss from scaling back future cost-of-living increases, these officials said."

Nice of him.

[sandyshoes17]

101. I don't believe that

But a friend of mine brought that up a while back. I presented it in a post and got flamed for being a troll and the post was locked. I had just changed my du name, which means I had to start a new account. It looked like I just joined so I couldn't blame people, but damn, after my friend said this to me I was just trying to see if anyone else felt like this. I personally don't, I hope I'm right, but like all of you I sometimes have my doubts. They have all been screwing us for so long. We want so much to trust but it's hard at times.

[gulliver]

105. Actually, the 65+ demo didn't vote for us.

I'm not sure exactly why we should be looking out for their interests. If only there were a way to single out the 65+ Republican voters and put only them under Republican Social Security and Medicare plans.

[democrattotheend]

109. Amen!

I wish they had gone for means testing instead of this. I would rather see rich seniors, most of whom voted for Romney, share in the cost of paying for the 2 wars and tax cuts for the rich.

[The Second Stone]

106. Call your Congress member and Senators tomorrow

and tell them the fiscal cliff is far preferable.