"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

[jberryhill]

Since those words seem not to be included in "quotes" around these parts, I just want to make up for the lack of them elsewhere.

"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

[Amak8]

1. More means testing paperwork hell.

Tack on another page to your tax returns.

[closeupready]

2. Probably means, the vulnerable get 105% of whatever

everyone else gets.

So it still gets benchmarked to the flawed 'chained CPI' number.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Yeah ... right.

[woo me with science]

4. Exactly the scam I predicted:

Chained CPI affects much more than Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022031878


Chained CPI affects much more than Social Security. It affects everyone, every social program, every human being in this country, who is affected by the Consumer Price Index.

It is a right-wing looting, a scam, and a regressive tax increase.

Democrats don't reject changes ONLY to Social Security. We reject assaults on human beings who have already been looted and laughed at by the one percent. We must reject ALL chained CPI proposals, even the slick ones that we are told will contain protections for Social Security recipients or "the most vulnerable."

Democratic Presidents should not be assaulting the 99 percent at all. Period.

I smell Republican and Third Way game playing, the goal of which is to justify implementing a chained CPI across the board in this country, and to justify it because some sort of protection for SS recipients will be included.

Democrats do not support a chained CPI, period. Adopting a chained CPI means saying "fuck you" to the disabled, to veterans, to federal retirees, and to the 99 percent.

Don't fall for the right-wing spin. We should not even be talking about this garbage.

[upaloopa]

5. If you need Social Security to live on you are

the volnerable. So what's going to happen? People who need Social Security get cuts and people who REALLY need Social Security will be protected?
What's the difference?

[jberryhill]

10. Are those the only two classes of recipients?

[Bluenorthwest]

17. The correct term is 'beneficaries'. The two words do not mean the same things.

As you know. Of course, the quote in the OP means nothing either, and you don't seem able to offer any thoughts on what it means, but you do seem to think it mitigates this cut to Social Security.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

6. Not comforting.

Especially for those of us hanging on to the Middle Class.

Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare... just what we need more of.

[SidDithers]

7. DU rec...nt

Sid

[woo me with science]

8. Yeah, let's implement a right-wing scam. It's just fine as long as we exempt a few people.

Does the insanity never end?



I have an idea! Let's fill the swimming pool with bloodsuckers, but we can give just Grandma some socks before she goes in.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. And? What does that mean, exactly? Other than the clear fact that it is an admission

that this 'change' will be a cut and a sacrifice by those who are on fixed incomes?
This whole thing is a right winger's wet dream.
This year, the average SS COLA increase is $21. Do you feel comfortable wanting to knock that down a bit more, really?
The idea of a nation that put two wars of choice off the books and on credit without so much as a thought about it doing something like this is shameful. Pathetic and indicative of decaying culture.

[Larkspur]

11. Those are b.s. words from the WH

Over half of SS recipients rely upon SS as them sole or main form of income and over 3/4 of unmarried women have SS as their only source of income.

The WH modification of CPI also pits some seniors against others. That is what I expect of Rethugicans, not Obama.
Also, should a Rethug become Prez, he could remove the so called measure to protect vulnerable seniors.

Obama is listening to the wrong "progressive" economists again. They're really Wall Street hacks in disguise.

[woo me with science]

14. Thank you. Note how the expectations of our party are constantly shifted

through propaganda.

First, the idea that the Democratic Party has a mission to HELP the 99 percent was abandoned, and replaced with a mere hope that they would not ASSAULT the 99 percent. Hence the bids for joy and satisfaction when Obama merely refrains from this or that attack on Social Security or Medicare.

Now we are moving toward the view that it's okay for Democrats to assault SOME of us, as long as it's not "the most vulnerable."

The propaganda is nauseating, and it's time to step back and proclaim again, loudly, what this party is supposed to stand for.

[leftstreet]

16. +1

[jberryhill]

18. Okay, so you pick and choose which ones are "BS"

[Bluenorthwest]

23. You are the one making the assertion that this phrase mitigates cutting Social Security.

You should be defining what you think it means. So what is it, exactly? Who is included? How is that determined?

[HiPointDem]

22. +1

[cali]

12. really? I'd love to know how he could possibly do that. It's lying dog shit.

[jsr]

13. a la "the most vulnerable can go to the ER for all healthcare needs"

[Bluenorthwest]

15. OP seems to have left the building with an attache case filled with terms of art.

nt

[Autumn]

19. That's nothing more than a throwaway line. Anyone who is paying attention

knows it's a crock of shit.

[jody]

20. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". nt

[Comrade_McKenzie]

21. Nothing is good enough for the reactionary left and right. nt