General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama campaign REFUSES to disclose plans on Social Security, says discussion belongs with senators [View all]patrice
(47,992 posts)it IS about THEM (the 1% and their MORE fully OWNED territory) and not us, the more you depend upon a president to give us our human rights, instead of taking charge of whatever we CAN get our hands on now (DOWN-ticket), instead of accepting responsibilities for what is LESS fully OWNED by the 1% and moving from that position in whatever direction possible toward our own goals.
The President is not the Legislative branch, what Social Security needs is up to the legislative branch, the people asserting themselves as a whole to make the Senate and the House of Representatives their own, as much as that is possible, and then to move from that position toward things like fully abating or raising the income cap on Social Security taxes, is what needs to happen. The distractions of anti-authoritarianism are REACTIONARY, that is, they are authoritarian by being DEFINED by authority.
Suggestions like demonstrating "our" effect upon the top/the presidency and ignoring where very real closer ground lies is a prescription for suffering and loss that very likely will negate any gains assumed from political showboating against a president.
I continue to be surprised that the VERY real possibility of that increase in suffering and loss means nothing to those proposing it and they don't appear to be interested in asking those of whom they demand that suffering and loss what their choice is in the matter.
Is OP-&-cohort employed? Does OP-&-cohort have "health" "care"? We should factor those answers into the distractions created OP's continued attacks exclusively upon this President.